Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges

Leaving aside the right/wrong argument for a moment...but I could have sworn this whole case is over the fact that banking regulations (or is it contract law?)state the bank can only charge an amount appropriate to the administrative cost of failed DD/unauthorised overdraft?

I've probably paraphrased that completely wrong, but thats the gist of it from what I understand.
 
RDM said:
Be more careful who you shop with and never use PayPal? :)

The "never use PayPal" is a good idea to be honest, company pretending to be a bank yet not having to follow any of the legislation. If you do use PayPal and you aren't very good with cash make sure you do not allow them to charge any cards or accounts, been a while since I went near them but I am pretty sure you can just have it as a funded account which you pay money in to?
Click to expand...

Right so never use Paypal (note that I hate paypal too) which means you can't buy or sell 99% of goods on ebay and never buy from small independent shops, only from big department stores and supermarkets. Excellent.
 
Sin_Chase said:
+1

Manage your money, do not get charges.
Click to expand...

I read that in the style of advice dog :o

advicedogmanageyourmone.jpg
 
Last edited:
People should expect to face consequence if they go overdrawn and that I have never had an issue with.

However, any charge levied should be fair and proportionate and £30 plus to go a few pence or a couple of pounds overdrawn is not.

While I see some banks have reduced charges, the question of proportionality is a fair one.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
This must have been a mistake. How did you manage to get an overdraft when you were < 18?
Click to expand...

I've had the same issue, bad transaction, I was 16 at the time and I got a £30 charge for it.

They wouldn't accept anything about "I'm under 18, I don't have an overdraft".

In the end they pretended they were being kind and refunded it anyway.
 
Charges are fine, but its unfair to get charged when you OD by a few pounds, and then get smacked with a £38 charge.

This ruling just shows that bankers really do control everything. Is there anything they can't get away with?
 
Itchytrigg said:
Leaving aside the right/wrong argument for a moment...but I could have sworn this whole case is over the fact that banking regulations (or is it contract law?)state the bank can only charge an amount appropriate to the administrative cost of failed DD/unauthorised overdraft?

I've probably paraphrased that completely wrong, but thats the gist of it from what I understand.
Click to expand...

Finally someone who speaks the truth , as far as i'm aware this case was only to allow the OFT to investigate chrages........

The OFT have already said they have several other avenues to pursue to be able to do this;)

Although of this really applies to me anymore as I got all my bank charges back many a moon ago :cool:
 
They've possibly ruled in favour of the banks because they know the banks can't afford to take another hit like this after what's happened in the last couple of years.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I bought a sandwich on my lunch break. Yet again I was charged more than it cost the company to make it. Rip off Britain! Disgusting! Boycott shops - they're all profiteering!!
Click to expand...

Why would you even pretend this is the same situation? Are you being dense on purpose? Or do you have an allegiance to a bank so feel compelled to rabidly defend them?

You are an example of the keyboard/e-warriors that have already been mentioned.

There IS a BIG difference between a shop selling a product and a bank fining you for a declined DD.

Hey, why don't shops fine you if your card is declined!

It's the same thing, yet I somehow believe you wouldn't be so supportive of that.
 
bledd. said:
Meh, I've gone overdrawn twice ever, a quick smile to the people in the bank and charges were dropped.

They do tell you when you open an account about going overdrawn etc
Click to expand...

Have you heard of Direct debit bledd.

Nearly all bills are paid using it. It means that complany X can screw up and take whatever they want (upto a limit) out of your account.

If you haven't been victim of it before count yourself lucky I've been lucky that when I had DD problems I had enough in the account been triple billed twice by companies (new) accounting systems. If I wasn't so stinking rich it would have been a problem.

I've never had the bank reduce my charges with a nice smile you must have one hell of a set of gnashers :D
 
lambda said:
Charges are fine, but its unfair to get charged when you OD by a few pounds, and then get smacked with a £38 charge.

This ruling just shows that bankers really do control everything. Is there anything they can't get away with?
Click to expand...

Until banks "charge" you what it costs them, they're technically fines as opposed to "charges".

fine (f
imacr.gif
n)n.1. A sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense.
Click to expand...
 
gambitt said:
Right so never use Paypal (note that I hate paypal too) which means you can't buy or sell 99% of goods on ebay and never buy from small independent shops, only from big department stores and supermarkets. Excellent.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the second bit of my post? You quoted it so I assumed that you actually read it, but it seems I might have been mistaken. If you are going to use PayPal use the function where you pay from money held in your PayPal account balance rather than from a card. That way if you are not very good at managing your money you can avoid charges by only spending what you actually have.
 
gambitt said:
They've possibly ruled in favour of the banks because they know the banks can't afford to take another hit like this after what's happened in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

Whilst I really feel disappointed with the decision, I doubt somehow that courts will over ride the rule of law for that reason.
 
RDM said:
Did you miss the second bit of my post? You quoted it so I assumed that you actually read it, but it seems I might have been mistaken. If you are going to use PayPal use the function where you pay from money held in your PayPal account balance rather than from a card. That way if you are not very good at managing your money you can avoid charges by only spending what you actually have.
Click to expand...

You still need to verify your bank account and credit/debit card with Paypal to lift the limits they put on unverified accounts. This gives them free access to take money from your account whenever they please. For example, you sell a laptop for £200 then buy something on ebay for £100. The buyer of the laptop then does a chargeback a week later so your Paypal account gets limited and the balance goes to -£100. Paypal can and will go to your bank account to withdraw this £100 because you authorised them to do this when you verified it.

Can you guess what happens if you don't have £100 in your bank account to cover this?

Did you miss the terms and conditions of a Paypal account? You admit to having a Paypal account so I assumed that you actually read them, but it seems I might have been mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom