Banks Win Supreme Court ruling!
25 November 2009, 01:52 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
I think I am right in saying the charges were challenged not because they were unfair but because they were unlawful
in that, in law, (apparently) you cannot levy a penalty that is out of proportion to the loss incurred
the argument was that it did not cost the banks £35.00 to print a computer generated letter
just because something is put in T&C's surely does not automatically make it legal
in that, in law, (apparently) you cannot levy a penalty that is out of proportion to the loss incurred
the argument was that it did not cost the banks £35.00 to print a computer generated letter
just because something is put in T&C's surely does not automatically make it legal
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 November 2009 at 01:53 PM.
25 November 2009, 02:33 PM
#33
I think this judgment flies in the face of government policy.
I was under the impression that we are supposed to reward failure - not punish it.
Maybe have to nationalise the banks in order to get some consistency in social policy.
Me thinks their Lordships are as out of touch today as ever they were.
I was under the impression that we are supposed to reward failure - not punish it.
Maybe have to nationalise the banks in order to get some consistency in social policy.
Me thinks their Lordships are as out of touch today as ever they were.
25 November 2009, 04:02 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
I think I am right in saying the charges were challenged not because they were unfair but because they were unlawful
in that, in law, (apparently) you cannot levy a penalty that is out of proportion to the loss incurred
the argument was that it did not cost the banks £35.00 to print a computer generated letter
just because something is put in T&C's surely does not automatically make it legal
in that, in law, (apparently) you cannot levy a penalty that is out of proportion to the loss incurred
the argument was that it did not cost the banks £35.00 to print a computer generated letter
just because something is put in T&C's surely does not automatically make it legal
I've never had to pay any of these charges as I manage money very well, and if I did go overdrawn and had to pay charges then fair enough providing they are reasonable.
25 November 2009, 05:49 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
over the past 6months my bank has been dubiously charging me and it wasn't until last weekend i finally twigged on how dubious the charges actually were when i got a charge for a missed Direct Debit that no longer existed! They have also tried to blame other companies for my charges and even blamed Royal Mail on the fact that i've never recieved notice of any charges or penalties that they have added onto my account! RBS are *******!
25 November 2009, 06:23 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Told the manager of the bank I was in this afternoon while having a chat.
He was shocked at the outcome and was sure it was a done deal that the banks would lose.
Hence all their recent changes with fees etc.
Now that they have won, it will be interesting to see if the "free banking" carries on as suggested it would if they won. Or have they decided to make the changes anyway, as as they didnt lose, can now only stand to gain.
He was shocked at the outcome and was sure it was a done deal that the banks would lose.
Hence all their recent changes with fees etc.
Now that they have won, it will be interesting to see if the "free banking" carries on as suggested it would if they won. Or have they decided to make the changes anyway, as as they didnt lose, can now only stand to gain.
25 November 2009, 06:58 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
same with mobile phones, why after the 600 free minutes cant the phone be blocked unless you enter a pin or siomething, instead of just racking up charges?
25 November 2009, 07:27 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
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!!
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!!
25 November 2009, 07:31 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
25 November 2009, 08:15 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
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!!
Supreme Court - WELL DONE!!
I haven’t been clamped privately – as I do not park where I shouldn’t
I don’t get many bank charges levied against me (I either accept them or complain if I think the bank have been unfair – and they always get refunded)
But I don’t think it as black and white as you portray – I don’t like behaviour of private clampers and I don’t like the behaviour of some of the banks.
And don’t you think the argument that if it were ruled the charges were illegal – they would simply raise the money some other way seem a little odd – think about it
Like most things in life a little transparency would have gone a long way to sorting this out
The banks settled cases on the basis that the charges were very very opaque – and they did not want to justify them in a court – just like dodgy wheel clampers
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 November 2009 at 08:23 PM.
25 November 2009, 08:50 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems the MSM haven't mentioned the complete reasoning behind the judgement. See EU Referendum: A stunning victory?
See the ruling here .... http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/...judgmentV3.pdf
"... 5. The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European
Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive
93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“the Directive”). The 1999
Regulations revoked and replaced similar regulations made in 1994 (SI 1994/3159) in
order (as the explanatory note to the 1999 Regulations puts it) “to reflect more closely the wording of the Directive”. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations does indeed follow
closely the English text of Article 4(2) of the Directive, which is as follows:
“Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall relate
neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the
contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration,
on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in
exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain
intelligible language.” ..."
Yet another aspect of our law where we have to bow to our European masters!
Not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling. On the one hand, as people have said, you sign up to a banking contract when you open an account. On the other hand, they do take the proverbial when they do charge!
Dave
See the ruling here .... http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/...judgmentV3.pdf
"... 5. The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European
Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive
93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“the Directive”). The 1999
Regulations revoked and replaced similar regulations made in 1994 (SI 1994/3159) in
order (as the explanatory note to the 1999 Regulations puts it) “to reflect more closely the wording of the Directive”. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations does indeed follow
closely the English text of Article 4(2) of the Directive, which is as follows:
“Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall relate
neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the
contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration,
on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in
exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain
intelligible language.” ..."
Yet another aspect of our law where we have to bow to our European masters!
Not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling. On the one hand, as people have said, you sign up to a banking contract when you open an account. On the other hand, they do take the proverbial when they do charge!
Dave
25 November 2009, 08:58 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
25 November 2009, 09:15 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
25 November 2009, 09:22 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They made a mistake and fixed it - excellent service I would say!
I had to take CURRYS to court to get any kind of service, you are very lucky to have such an understanding Bank
I had to take CURRYS to court to get any kind of service, you are very lucky to have such an understanding Bank
25 November 2009, 09:31 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite why people sign up to things they don't understand is beyond me, and if they do undestand then they should pay up .......... sign if you think the charges are acceptable ........... it's pretty straight forward.
25 November 2009, 09:37 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
but I agree the more stupid people in the world makes life a little bit easier for the rest of us
long live the idiots - for they sharn't inherit the earth (fvckers got clamped)
25 November 2009, 09:48 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idiots are indeed the reason sensible people pay less for things or get them free. I have free banking, don't pay for my Credit Cards and take advantage of discounts in shops because the previous customer didn't ask for a discount!
Long live the half-wit numpties of this world!
Long live the half-wit numpties of this world!
25 November 2009, 09:56 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember ther good old days when you used to call in at the office on Friday afternoon and pick your wages up in cash ,i didn't need a bank account then and i never incurred any charges 
25 November 2009, 11:56 PM
#54
Pete, as Hodgy says, it's not always black and white when it comes to bank charges.
Banks make mistakes as well as customers, and while they are quick to charge you over the odds for that when it's your mistake, they are often difficult to fight (get money back from) when it's theirs, if you do at all. It's not always just down to customers being bad with money. And as Hodgy said, it's also more about the punishment fitting the crime so to speak.
I agree that banks are businesses, not charities, but it cannot be denied that they take the **** at times.
I would have thought you may have been a bit more open minded here tbh. It wasn't that long ago that you complained about a business you had no experience with, charging you for a job on your car. The details are fairly irrelevant. You slated them because they didn't just sort you out free of charge/lesser amount. Funnily enough, they too are a business, not a charity, and not knowing you, they didn't give special treatment. Yet you think it's fair to complain.
People can bank at the same place for years, and whether it is their mistake or the banks, they can be stung for charges, far outweighing the crime. No account given to their history or loyalty, and you think that is fair??? Yet on the other hand, not being given free/cheap work, somewhere you were unknown was unfair? At least be consistant.
Not everything is clear cut all of the time. Banks are quick to take one way or another, but often give very little back.
Banks make mistakes as well as customers, and while they are quick to charge you over the odds for that when it's your mistake, they are often difficult to fight (get money back from) when it's theirs, if you do at all. It's not always just down to customers being bad with money. And as Hodgy said, it's also more about the punishment fitting the crime so to speak.
I agree that banks are businesses, not charities, but it cannot be denied that they take the **** at times.
I would have thought you may have been a bit more open minded here tbh. It wasn't that long ago that you complained about a business you had no experience with, charging you for a job on your car. The details are fairly irrelevant. You slated them because they didn't just sort you out free of charge/lesser amount. Funnily enough, they too are a business, not a charity, and not knowing you, they didn't give special treatment. Yet you think it's fair to complain.
People can bank at the same place for years, and whether it is their mistake or the banks, they can be stung for charges, far outweighing the crime. No account given to their history or loyalty, and you think that is fair??? Yet on the other hand, not being given free/cheap work, somewhere you were unknown was unfair? At least be consistant.
Not everything is clear cut all of the time. Banks are quick to take one way or another, but often give very little back.
26 November 2009, 06:51 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 November 2009, 07:19 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short but sweet...
I agree with the "you should manage your money" brigade, but I disagree with the extortionate amounts that you get charged regardless of the amount you go overdrawn, whether deliberately or accidentily. £35 charge for example for going 12p overdrawn for one day?? (Yes it's happened but not to me - I'm perfect you see).
Also, Lisa you made a very good point re. Pete and his recent issue with a Subaru specialists. I'd like to know his take on this. Pot kettle springs to mind unfortunately.
I agree with the "you should manage your money" brigade, but I disagree with the extortionate amounts that you get charged regardless of the amount you go overdrawn, whether deliberately or accidentily. £35 charge for example for going 12p overdrawn for one day?? (Yes it's happened but not to me - I'm perfect you see
).Also, Lisa you made a very good point re. Pete and his recent issue with a Subaru specialists. I'd like to know his take on this. Pot kettle springs to mind unfortunately.
26 November 2009, 08:13 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
what would have been fantastic is if he got clamped in the Subaru Garages car park by their outsourced "parking control specialists" -- for a minor parking infringement
26 November 2009, 09:19 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, as Hodgy says, it's not always black and white when it comes to bank charges.
Banks make mistakes as well as customers, and while they are quick to charge you over the odds for that when it's your mistake, they are often difficult to fight (get money back from) when it's theirs, if you do at all. It's not always just down to customers being bad with money. And as Hodgy said, it's also more about the punishment fitting the crime so to speak.
I agree that banks are businesses, not charities, but it cannot be denied that they take the **** at times.
I would have thought you may have been a bit more open minded here tbh. It wasn't that long ago that you complained about a business you had no experience with, charging you for a job on your car. The details are fairly irrelevant. You slated them because they didn't just sort you out free of charge/lesser amount. Funnily enough, they too are a business, not a charity, and not knowing you, they didn't give special treatment. Yet you think it's fair to complain.
People can bank at the same place for years, and whether it is their mistake or the banks, they can be stung for charges, far outweighing the crime. No account given to their history or loyalty, and you think that is fair??? Yet on the other hand, not being given free/cheap work, somewhere you were unknown was unfair? At least be consistant.
Not everything is clear cut all of the time. Banks are quick to take one way or another, but often give very little back.
Banks make mistakes as well as customers, and while they are quick to charge you over the odds for that when it's your mistake, they are often difficult to fight (get money back from) when it's theirs, if you do at all. It's not always just down to customers being bad with money. And as Hodgy said, it's also more about the punishment fitting the crime so to speak.
I agree that banks are businesses, not charities, but it cannot be denied that they take the **** at times.
I would have thought you may have been a bit more open minded here tbh. It wasn't that long ago that you complained about a business you had no experience with, charging you for a job on your car. The details are fairly irrelevant. You slated them because they didn't just sort you out free of charge/lesser amount. Funnily enough, they too are a business, not a charity, and not knowing you, they didn't give special treatment. Yet you think it's fair to complain.
People can bank at the same place for years, and whether it is their mistake or the banks, they can be stung for charges, far outweighing the crime. No account given to their history or loyalty, and you think that is fair??? Yet on the other hand, not being given free/cheap work, somewhere you were unknown was unfair? At least be consistant.
Not everything is clear cut all of the time. Banks are quick to take one way or another, but often give very little back.
Firstly, let me be clear - I think £35 for a letter, £20 charge for a £2 oversight is extortion. The Banks also thought that, so - while this case was going through the channels of law - they reduced many of their charges and made them more transparent for fear of clocking up more compensation claims.
I am no fan of the Banks - indeed, I have been charged Bank charges in the past ..... a simple telephone call to the Manager soon put things right and I was immediately refunded. In most cases I have also had an 'extra' goodwill gesture given to me for my 'inconvenience' ... the wife has received a box of chocolates when she next visited the Branch.
My point being that no-one needs to pay Bank charges .... in the same way no-one needs to pay a speeding fine. They are optional payments which you opt to pay for by your actions. That is it in a nutshell.
Your analogy of my encounter with a Subaru Specialist isn't quite the same thing - although I am willing to discuss it here ........ I was led to believe (on here and via verbal contact with other Scooby owners) that they "Would help you out, would give you advice, would bend over backwards" ........ what I found was the opposite, to be honest with you. Attitude was, "Yeah, we can read your error code, would take 5 minutes, but for me to do it I want £xx". I did not pay them to do it, I did it myself in their Car Park (45 seconds). They couldn't have been less interested. They lost a job that day (I was more than willing for them to sort the problem) I just wanted some advice and a double check on the error code, but that was just too much trouble for them!
So, they lost a job and a future customer ...... not really the same as a Bank Account Customer situation is it? I get free advice from my Bank, they will tell me what I have in my accounts if I ask them, they come around to my house and discuss financial options, they provide a warm office at their bank with coffee and biscuits ...... and I have never paid them a penny! A WORLD away from the Subaru Specialist who will only help for a palm full of silver!
26 November 2009, 09:21 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That doesn't mean that you have to manage your money with any less care, does it?
You managed when you were paid in cash .... how does having a bank account change things?
