Dr.No

Bloody good job too - the last thing I want is to start paying a fortune for keeping a bucket load of money in a bank, let the idiots that continually spend money that they don't actually have pay for it!

BBC News - Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Well surprise, surprise.

One wonders how much money changed hands, allegedly, to facilitate THIS decision?

hodgy0_2

we have the best (and cheapest) retail banking in the world

I suppose it is paid for by the stupid -- which is no real surprise

although I do think some of the charges levied - verged on usery

the new charges used on Credit Cards seem more realistic

Snazy

Got a list of new charges through from my bank yesterday, somewhat lower than previous.

Suprised yet not suprised by the outcome though.
Gonna be some seriously disappointed middlemen though.

unclebuck

Agreed.

Banks clearly state in their account T's and C's how much people will be charged if they go overdrawn. You sign up to this when you open an account with them.

If you don't like it, don't open the account, and if you do, manage your money properly so they never have a reason to charge you.

They are businesses, run for profit, people seem to think banks should act as a charitable organisation?

Dr.No

Exactly my thoughts as well...

You may receive a letter that costs you £25 or whatever (which I'm sure is detailed in the Ts&Cs somewhere), but you can't then state that when the second one arrived you didn't appreciate what it'd cost you!

There is a cost associated with borrowing money, either short-term or long-term, from someone else... and if I wanted to "borrow" money from someone without even asking for their permission in the first place... well, normally I'd expect the other party to call that "stealing" but I'd sure as hell expect them to charge me the earth for doing so!

I really wasn't looking forward to the banks being told to bring their charges right down, or scrap them completely, and them "being forced" to charge customers 'in good standing' £10 a month or so to operate a bank account just to make up the revenue difference...

hodgy0_2

whilst I agree with your sentiments

the above statement comes over with certain sense of irony given the banking sectors performance over the last two years

Dream Weaver

And just because they are a business doesn't mean they should be able to blatently charge whatever they want as an "admin fee" for sending a letter out.

Xx-IAN-xX

Are these the same banks that the british tax payer as had to prop up to keep them afloat
If so i will be writing them a letter for my money back , what would be a reasonable charge .

billythekid

JESUS H CHRIST. The good old BBC just interviewed some woman about this.

She has paid £3000 in the last few years.

This is because... and I am not kidding... its because her BENEFIT is paid into her bank just slightly after here direct debits come out.

WHAT THE ****.

So, she could be arsed to send the bank lots of letters and such like, but she could not be arsed to just ring her creditors and get them to move the DD date on by one single day. What a waste of space.

She then starts to claim "poverty" and says she now has no money.

1) She is covered in gold jewellery.
2) A cabinet behind her with what must be 200+ dvds on it.
3) Sitting on what looks like a nice new sofa.
4) Nice shiny Ipod dock on the counter.



Ok, so maybe it was not her house.... but I bet it was.

Makes me sick.

And some of us work for a living... sigh.

SunnySideUp

I didn't think I would ever say this, and I cannot see his posts (unless someone quotes them), but I agree totally with UncleBuck ..... that got caught in my throat somewhat!

At last we are getting some sense - people should take responsibilty for their actions ... same went for the Endowment fiasco - I was offered an Endowment and because I don't believe what a salesman tells me, I refused and took the repayment option - why should half-wits get their money back??! They shouldn't - but, sadly, they did!

If you sign up to a Bank and it says that an Overdraft will be charged at £xxx then that's what you will pay and shouldn't be shocked or angry or get your money back! At the end of the day you are stealing money from the bank (from those in credit) and should be made to pay for that facility.

Supreme Court - WELL DONE!!

stilover

I've never been overdrawn in my life. I didn't want to have to pay for those that can't manage their money properly.

Go overdrawn - pay the charge. Simples

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

"Campaigners said they were shocked and disappointed with the decision" - understatement of the year, what a scandal

TX.

Xx-IAN-xX

So if you mess up you should pay the charges , if the banks mess up we have to bail them out .Someone posted earlier that they are a business , well with that view we should have let them go under instead of wasting our tax money bailing them out .

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Don't agree. Point me toward a Bank that doesn't charge more or less the same as all the others & I'll be straight there. Doesn't exist ergo ridiculous charges for stuff that costs the Bank almost nothing. That's not profit, it's super profit which is out of order.

TX.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

it would have effectively been the 'retard tax' on the rest of the goodly population had banking charges come into effect due to the forced reduction on charging the idiots who cannot manage their money.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Interest charges

TX.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

You didnt do economics at school did you?
You cannot let the banking system go pop because it underpins almost every other sector which would follow suit soon after.
While fight club is a good film and the principals behind it are morally correct, it is still fiction.

Xx-IAN-xX

But thats just it its not just Joe Public that are not managing their money its Mr Banker that can't manage your money as well

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

The banking sector suffered because every moron who made £20k on their property believed that they could withdraw it and buy a nice new car and kitchen suite.
They didnt plan on the bubble bursting and actually having to pay that back, I mean jeez, pay back money, whatever next.

Still enjoy your car and kitchen

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Would it really have been so bad? The banking industry might have learnt a lesson from it too as well as the Govt ...

If below is true then it really is a licence to print money

TX.

Xx-IAN-xX

But the banking system failed , do you not see that .

SunnySideUp

You have a slight mix up of priorities I suspect.

In the one case, a private individual cannot live within their means - yes, they pay, there should be a penalty for being a numptie.

In the other case, bailing out a Bank - to save the deposits of the savers, to save the Banking system, to stop the economic collapse of a whole country.

I would say they are a little bit different and were treated differently. The Banks were as irresponsibly as those who overdraw ...... but the penalty for the Banks would have been unthinkable.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

The banking system was brought down, do you not see that?

Now you have to consider that they allowed themselves to be brought down to a certain extent and so have to face some consequences and they also have to have their power brought down a peg or two, but they are inextricably woven into the very fabric of our society, like it or not.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Isn't it always that way ... individuals get abused & conglomerates get away with murder.

TX.

Meant for SSU's post

"In the one case, a private individual cannot live within their means - yes, they pay, there should be a penalty for being a numptie.

In the other case, bailing out a Bank - to save the deposits of the savers, to save the Banking system, to stop the economic collapse of a whole country.

I would say they are a little bit different and were treated differently. The Banks were as irresponsibly as those who overdraw ...... but the penalty for the Banks would have been unthinkable."

Xx-IAN-xX

So how much more money do you expect Joe Public the tax payer should have to fork out to keep the banks and the numpties who invested their money in these banks afloat

Dan Gleebits

*thank Gawd all mine's under the carpet in the spare room

Dan Gleebits

**Damn! I just thought that out loud, didnt I

MJW

While I don't advocate the mis-managing of personal finances, the charges banks levy are not really proportionate to the work they have to do in situations like this. The ruling today, along with yesterdays revelations of a £65bn back-hander to HBOS just reinforces the opinion that it's the banks who actually run the world, not governments.

SunnySideUp

We will be getting it all back - with healthy profits too!

Numpties who cannot add up and subtract and get a slight positive on their Bank balance need charging ........ I refuse to pay a Retard Tax (a lovely term mentioned above!)