The banks again: Political or logical decision?

[R1Geezer]

http://tinyurl.com/yfpqz34
Do you think the decision was effected by the recent state of the bank's finances? I mean if they had to refund Billions across the board would that just mean they'd recoup it somewhere else or worse come to the government, ie tax payer to repay the err...tax payer? For myself I can sort of see the reasons why they allowed the appeal but I also have this nagging doubt that political pressure may have been brought to bear behind the scenes.

[another-view]

Common sense has prevailed. People are aware of charges when they take out a bank account, so why were they trying to claim them back?

[Oneeyedvic]

Political pressure would undoubtedly have been brought on this case, and if anyone doubts that they are naive.

Personally, I agree with the decision - though my business partner (we run a commercial finance brokerage company) disagrees and thinks that the charges are 'unfair')

[Gromit]

Logical. This case has been long running and under great scrutiny. I would think the decision was purely done on the basis of law and no commercial or political pressures influenced the result.

I personally think it is the wrong decision. The charges were disproportionate to the actual costs incurred. For going overdrawn without permission they would send a letter and charge £30 for that. It was estimated the costs involved were about £1.25. The banks were greedy.

[another-view]

The bank charges are well advertised when you join. They are businesses not charities.

[olddutch]

Hello Gromit

re your question "What were those words supposed to be ? " on earlier post re Harriet Harman
There were no extra words - I didnt put ANY words around the person postings name !!

Naomicorlet said that if you get famous on this site your name can be changed automatically by the site to "a special name " !!

[jno]

I doubt that political pressure was brought; though Brown is a slavish admirer of bankers, I don't think the government in general has anything to lose if a court rules that banks are extorting money from ordinary voters.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think people had much of a choice regarding bank charges - despite collusion being illegal they all seemed to have remarkably similar charge structures didn't they.

(Please don't insult people's intelligence wit the obvious "they could have chosen not to take out a bank account at all" reply - we all know how difficult it is to run your life without a bank account)

[samuelcat]

8 years ago my husband had to stop working because of a back injury. Our income was immediatly halved. The only benefit he received was £95 a week.It was a struggle but we managed.
My point is-We have NOT been overdrawn for 8 years. We live within our income.We dont go without anything. We eat well,take holidays,have a morgage,all the usual stuff.
If you live from month to month on your overdraft then you need some financial advice.

[R1Geezer]

yes samuelcat, correct, live within your means indeed I agree 100%. I do understand the issue though as gromit rightly points out, the costs are a couple of quid at most and they charge £25-40, so the crux really comes down to the deal that's done, so I gues it says somewhere in the small print we all sign that they can charge what they like. I have some sympathy but in the end if you stick to what is agreed the charges are tiny.

[olddutch]

Agree with Geezer, if Banks had to refund Billions they'd recoup it somehow from the tax payer to -hopefully - repay the tax payer. Political pressure may well have been brought to bear behind the scenes to save the Government further embarrassment of further funding the banks over this.

Like Gromit and I would guess most others, I think the decision is indeed wrong on the basis that bank charges are heavily disproportionate to the actual costs incurred. Charging £30 for letters that cost an estimated £1 to £2 to produce does indeed make the Banks a greedy load of ********s. Their level of charges should be made proportionate perhaps via legislation - or effective regulation (if such a thing can indeed be made to exist where the banks are concerned)

[ABerrant]

May I apparently insult jake's intelligence by expanding on his dismissal of the counter-argument.

It is not impossible to conduct your finances without a bank account but it would indeed be very, very difficult and time consuming. Banks allow you to forego this personal dedication of time and effort not only without charge but they pay you for the privilege, as long as you stick by the rules you voluntarily agreed to. I query the intelligence of those that complain when having broken the rules they are then charged at the rate they (again) agreed to.

[Gromit]

birdie1971

A similar thing happened to me when I was self employed. I only had £10 in my account but didn't have to pay anyone until I knew I would have some money to meet it. Unfortunately, the bank debited my quarterly bank charges of £13 putting me £3 overdrawn. I seem to remember it cost me about £35 when I could least afford it.

It still amazes me that banks can still take my money without first informing me the amounts they intend to take, and without submitting an invoice or a proper receipt. No one else can.

[another-view]

But you agree to these charges. It's hardly the banks fault if you forget about it.

[anotheoldgit]

People know the charges levied by the banks when they go over their account limit.hey go over.

The charges are high maybe, but so are the level of fines when one overstays their parking limits.