Bank charges - common sense at last

[Iceni]

I had never imagined that I would apply the words "common sense" to actions by the UK courts. But the Supreme Court yesterday overturned rulings by lower courts over the matter of "excessive" bank charges. Had this not happened the rest of us who can manage our affairs would end up paying more and effectively subsidising those who cannot or perhaps choose not to.

John

[Russethouse]

 John, I'm sorry but in this instance I think you will find that thousands of people had indeed been refunded money because the premise on which the banks were taking the money was open to interpretation and the banks when challenged admitted that they had been charging exorbitant fees for services that cost very little. For example £30 for a computer generated letter to let a client know that they were overdrawn.(thus adding to the problem !) Somewhere in the banking code I believe it says the bank charges have to be 'reasonable'

Of course if the banks were putting the money back into the economy by making  loans available at a reasonable rate instead of paying it out in huge bonuses   to those whose talents are open to question in the current climate, there may be a tad more sympathy fo them

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-banks-win-appeal

[NickP]

[quote user="Iceni"]I had never imagined that I would apply the words "common sense" to actions by the UK courts. But the Supreme Court yesterday overturned rulings by lower courts over the matter of "excessive" bank charges. Had this not happened the rest of us who can manage our affairs would end up paying more and effectively subsidising those who cannot or perhaps choose not to.

John[/quote]

John I agree with you,  having been freelance all my working life I was always terrified of borrowing money; as I never knew when |I could pay it back. So apart from the mortgage which was essential I never borrowed, I waited till I could afford something, and I think there a lot of people out there who did the same. I was worried about this case; as if the banks had lost, people like me would have had to pay to compensate for the reckless who do not keep good financial order in their lives. OK I also agree that there is a huge amount of greed by the Banks, as suggested by the lady who suggested their charges were exorbitant. But that argument is to be addressed by the affected not the unaffected.

[Russethouse]

 If you read more about the judgement I think you'll find that one of the judges suggested that the case is still winnable, but by approaching it differently in law.

Even those with squeeky clean intentions sometimes go overdrawn, in the past the bank taking 3 days to clear a cheque hasn't helped, but in any case charging £30 for a service that costs £2.50 isn't going toassist anyone, it just makes the problem worse.

I have also seen it sugested that if the bank didn't charge so heavily everyone would have to pay for an account, the good as well as the bad.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

[ebaynut]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 .

Even those with squeeky clean intentions sometimes go overdrawn, in the past the bank taking 3 days to clear a cheque hasn't helped, but in any case charging £30 for a service that costs £2.50 isn't going toassist anyone, it just makes the problem worse.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

[/quote]

Of course it helps someone, it helps the banker take further control of the life of the unfortunate who run in to unexpected problems / greedy person/ thick moron, (take your pick) who has borrowed the money.

Remember the government want people to keep their money in bank accounts, not under their beds so they can keep a check on everyone. Charging to keep it in a bank account would see more people withdrawing their finances for mattress filling.