home
in

BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

Last post Fri, Apr 25 2008, 10:37 AM by shiverkitten. 19 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (20 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  Fri, Apr 25 2008, 10:37 AM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    ++ What Landshark says.
    • Post Points: 5
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 7:26 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    No one will see cash,the banks will stall and have untill May 22nd to appeal.They will appeal and al clams will continue to be frozen pending appeal.

    I know there are some people who have genuinly been teated poorly by Banks,but the vast majority have been spending money they don't have.

    I agree with the other posting we will move to a fee based banking system as it is in the continent.If people don't think this will happen it already ha with First direct closing accounts for people that pay in less than £1000

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 6:29 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    backfoot:So the payment you make is for additional services over and above the norm of a basic bank account.Putting the issue another way,who do you think should pay for my free banking?

    No-one should pay for someone else's benefits. The way it used to work was that the bank 'borrows' your money for other reasons for which you either get a lower rate of no rate of interest, so you are paying for your 'free' banking in reduced or zero interest rates.

    SHARK!

    • Post Points: 5
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 6:28 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    i dont agree with having to pay for basic current accounts but i believe that you do recive things like free breakdown cover, home insurance,mobile insurance, discounts off holidays etc depending on who you bank with!
    • Post Points: 5
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 6:14 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    So the payment you make is for additional services over and above the norm of a basic bank account.Putting the issue another way,who do you think should pay for my free banking?
    • Post Points: 35
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 5:56 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    Mainly due to concessions and services I use every week, but also for other factors.

    SHARK!

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 5:30 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    My banking with HSBC is completely free.Why do you pay? I can pay something like £12 per month for a few bells and whistles but I do without them as they don't add up to much.

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 4:21 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    backfoot:

    Where we differ, is that you have been getting something( a great deal) for nothing and relying on the few to pay for that privilege.They are too different things.The lenders need to tighten their criteria (already happening) and we have to accept that systems,infrastructure etc. and what we consume need paying for.That includes you and me.

    Sorry, I must be missing something here. I get nothing for free at all. Every one of my bank accounts carries a monthly fee and I have an agreed overdraft which I have not once gone over in ten years.

    My beef is with those who continually abuse the banking system. These people are the principal offenders and the most vociferous when things don't go their way.

    I totally agree with 'unreasonable' charges of any kind being challenged, but we must balance this with who ultimately pays for those who don't manage their accounts properly and it comes down to you and me.

    SHARK!

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 2:14 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    Landshark:
    daryl1987:

    Classy.

    Worry about your own finances rather than condemning other people. (And yes, I can already predict the reply to this post, and i'm not interested in arguing whether or not this is a victory for the consumer or not!)

    Precisely this kind of attitude is why we are all up the creek without a paddle now. My own finances are always affected by the cretins who don't/won't manage their own. If everyone stayed within their means and saved before buying, we would never have seen this action brought. However, it has and the result is unknown but society MUST change its attitude to finance and destroy the "want it now" culture if we are to survive.

    SHARK!

    Precisely nothing. I made no mention of my own financial situation, and I fail to see how you can categorise me from the very limited answer I gave in my post. I'd also be interested to here your logic behind the reason as to why your own finances have previously been effected by other peoples.

    I get the feeling that some people on this forum are here just to vent their own personal greivances rather than make valid contributions to a website that was originally set up with the intention of helping people with financial issues.

    • Post Points: 5
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:50 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    Shark,

    Utmost respect to you overall and I actually share many of your views about the 'want it now culture'.Much of it fuelled by greedy financial organisations where the pain is now being felt.

    Where we differ, is that you have been getting something( a great deal) for nothing and relying on the few to pay for that privilege.They are too different things.The lenders need to tighten their criteria (already happening) and we have to accept that systems,infrastructure etc. and what we consume need paying for.That includes you and me.

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:41 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    daryl1987:

    Classy.

    Worry about your own finances rather than condemning other people. (And yes, I can already predict the reply to this post, and i'm not interested in arguing whether or not this is a victory for the consumer or not!)

    Precisely this kind of attitude is why we are all up the creek without a paddle now. My own finances are always affected by the cretins who don't/won't manage their own. If everyone stayed within their means and saved before buying, we would never have seen this action brought. However, it has and the result is unknown but society MUST change its attitude to finance and destroy the "want it now" culture if we are to survive.

    SHARK!

    • Post Points: 35
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:34 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    backfoot:

    I have benefitted from free banking since I was around 18 and the judgment may well change that position in the months/years to come. I don't share the view that the people penalised by punitive charges shouldn't have brought their case. There is an overall pot of services supplied by the banks in administering their networks,providing premises to transact and for the administration of a wide range of services.The trouble is there is currently an inequateable way of paying for all these services.If I pay ten direct debits/ten cheques/ten over the counter transactions and remain in credit,then I get all that for free.If I fail to keep in credit,due to an error,unforseen circumstances,or delays in receipt of my income,then I get penalised heavily and end up paying for all the credit balance people to have free banking.Yet we have essentially used the same services.If I go overdrawn charge me a reasonable competive rate but don't levy hefty penalties on me,it is likely to quickly spiral even worse.

    The banks unfortunately have exploited this charging mechanism increasingly over the years to the extent that everyone now realises that the individual punitive charges do not bear any semblance to the actual costs of those events.Those affected have rightly said enough is enough and are trying to redress the imbalance.

    Some including me have had it so good for many years, but putting aside my self interest, it will be interesting to see what system they come up within the competitve environment to probably fleece us all rather than the minority.

    Pretty much everything I have to say regarding this matter is summed up in this post. Good work!

    • Post Points: 5
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:31 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    Landshark:

    This was my biggest fear realised.

    Ultimately, we all stand to loose as it is inevitable that FREE current accounts will be withdrawn. Those who have kept good accounts for years will be penalised for the actions of those who do not.

    The situation is further exacerbated by the 'direct debit' culture that forces people to have bank accounts who really should never be allowed to have them. The reason people go overdrawn or continually steal money that is not theirs is an educational and cultural issue that needs to be addressed and resolved - that's how we got into this mess in the first place. I use the word 'steal' as this is what they are doing to the rest of us. Taking money that is not theirs without prior agreement.

    Lending status should not be affected, however people with even the most minor blemish on their accounts will probably end up being denied any loan at all - but that's what is happening today anyway.

    I'm afraid that this is one of those cases where I was in favour of the banks. I would not lend money to bad risks, but now we are all faced with those whingers and complainers being paid back money that I do not believe that they are entitled to receive. Guess who will end up paying that back - you got it - the good and honest customers.

    I hope that the little b*****d Mr Lewis is happy now.

    SHARK!

    Classy.

    I'm not interested in an argument regarding it, but I'm pretty sure Martin Lewis' intentions aren't to make things difficult for the average consumer. Worry about your own finances rather than condemning other people. (And yes, I can already predict the reply to this post, and i'm not interested in arguing whether or not this is a victory for the consumer or not!)

    • Post Points: 20
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:31 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    I have benefitted from free banking since I was around 18 and the judgment may well change that position in the months/years to come. I don't share the view that the people penalised by punitive charges shouldn't have brought their case. There is an overall pot of services supplied by the banks in administering their networks,providing premises to transact and for the administration of a wide range of services.The trouble is there is currently an inequiteable way of paying for all these services.If I pay ten direct debits/ten cheques/ten over the counter transactions and remain in credit,then I get all that for free.If I fail to keep in credit,due to an error,unforseen circumstances,or delays in receipt of my income,then I get penalised heavily and end up paying for all the credit balance people to have free banking.Yet we have essentially used the same services.If I go overdrawn charge me a reasonable competive rate but don't levy hefty penalties on me,it is likely to quickly spiral even worse.

    The banks unfortunately have exploited this charging mechanism increasingly over the years to the extent that everyone now realises that the individual punitive charges do not bear any semblance to the actual costs of those events.Those affected have rightly said enough is enough and are trying to redress the imbalance.

    Some including me have had it so good for many years, but putting aside my self interest, it will be interesting to see what system they come up within the competitve environment to probably fleece us all rather than the minority.

    • Post Points: 80
  •  Thu, Apr 24 2008, 1:26 PM

    Re: BANKS FAILED AGAINST THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AT HIGHT COURT TODAY

    KingCarl:

    I agree that people shouldn't go overdrawn and should keep tight raigns on their financies but to say they are stealing is a tad OTT! What happens if someone's account gets cloned? Someone takes a DD on the wrong date? IS this still stealing?!?!

    And do you really believe that it costs the bank between £25-40 to cover the costs of someone going overdrawn? I think not, they be the ones stealing!!

    Although it is not in this thread, I am on record as targeting "... the continual abusers ..." of the system and not those who have an occasional issue. Direct Debits are the scourge of the economy and should NEVER be forced on people. The number of 'cloned' accounts is miniscule so I am not even going to go there. If a DD is taken on the wrong day this is breach of contract, however most state "... on or around ..." the date concerned thus circumventing complaints - hence why I HATE forced Direct Debit.

    If you open an account with a bank and then knowingly take money from the bank without permission that is not yours to take then what else do you call it? If someone takes money from you without your knowledge or permission, what would you call it?

    We need to get away from this madness of Political Correctness and call things what they are. Perhaps this may then engender some respect from others.

    SHARK!

    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (20 items)   1 2 Next >