Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges

I read the other day that its no longer free to take money out aswell ? (at a cashpoint).

They charged me £30 for going £2.40 over my limit last month, even though they state that i can go upto £10 over the limit if i pay back within a week. Yet they simply told me i have to try to reclaim it even though they broke their own rules. When you try this, it gets suspended.
 
Asda is worse. Say I have £30 in my bank. I get £20 of fuel at asda. But because they are card only machines, they take £70 (max spend) then give it back somehow, anyway it goes on the statement yet ive only spent £20.

Bank charges me £30 even though I still have £10 left in the account. Utterly ridiculous.
 
Mekrel said:
The only thing I don't get with bank charges is what are they really for?
Click to expand...

Bonuses to bankers?

I believe banks say it's cost of admin and lending the money that's not been agreed,
Click to expand...

That would be a ridiculous lie. Which doesn't necessarily mean banks don't say it.

Seems more of a fine to me and an easy way to make more money?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

Most of the customers in support of bank fines believe that (a) they get free banking only because of the fines and (b) they are entitled to have other people pay for their banking. The former is wrong, the latter is an opinion I disagree with.

Banks don't charge for having an account because in this country at this time it is more profitable not to do so. The instant that changes, charges will be imposed. The scale of fines is irrelevant to that. The current approach is to push customers into agreeing to pay for their accounts anyway by labelling them as premium accounts and bundling some minor things hardly anyone uses into the accounts.
 
Last edited:
I know some people are unhappy with the results, but can we at least start using the correct terminology? The supreme court decision confirms it is not a fine, it is a service charge.

Remembering this was a matter of law, not emotion and opinion, would help too. The law is clear as crystal now (and the way many of us always said it was), and unless you support the nanny state intervention idea of going for new legislation to protect you from your own decisions, it isn't going to change.
 
twoblacklines said:
Asda is worse. Say I have £30 in my bank. I get £20 of fuel at asda. But because they are card only machines, they take £70 (max spend) then give it back somehow, anyway it goes on the statement yet ive only spent £20.

Bank charges me £30 even though I still have £10 left in the account. Utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you have a solo or electron card by any chance? Normal Maestro and Visa Debit don't do this at asda...
 
Do you mean the nanny state that requires you to have a bank account if you want a job or live a normal life? Choosing not to have a bank account is not a viable option.
 
twoblacklines said:
I read the other day that its no longer free to take money out aswell ? (at a cashpoint).
Click to expand...

See this is where banks are in the wrong - they've been wanting to do this for ages but public pressure forces them to back down. I hope this ruling doesn't give them the arrogance to think they can push this through this time.

If they do start charging me to access my own money then I'll simply go into the branch and withdraw the money from a cashier, which costs the bank a lot more than using an ATM. :mad:
 
Dolph said:
I know some people are unhappy with the results, but can we at least start using the correct terminology? The supreme court decision confirms it is not a fine, it is a service charge.
Click to expand...

Am I right to think that this in no way affects reimbursing late credit card fees and OFT decision that those were unfair? Or does this ruling actually make OFT completely toothless and give banks free hand to introduce any penalties they want as long as they can mask it as service charge (because that's what those are - fines - regardless of correct terminology)
 
Dolph said:
I know some people are unhappy with the results, but can we at least start using the correct terminology? The supreme court decision confirms it is not a fine, it is a service charge.
Click to expand...

It's a service charge in the eyes of the law, but in reality, it is anything but.

So i'll carry on calling it a fine thanks until the banks can explain how printing and sending a pre-written letter is worth £30.
 
Tute said:
It's a service charge in the eyes of the law, but in reality, it is anything but.

So i'll carry on calling it a fine thanks until the banks can explain how printing and sending a pre-written letter is worth £30.
Click to expand...
The charge isn't just for the letter you Manners please?, but a charge for you borrowing more money from the bank.
 
Tute said:
It's a service charge in the eyes of the law, but in reality, it is anything but.

So i'll carry on calling it a fine thanks until the banks can explain how printing and sending a pre-written letter is worth £30.
Click to expand...

Lulz at the thought that 'the eyes of the law' and 'reality' are completely divorced concepts.

Also lulz at the previous comment that bank charges fund bonuses.
 
Tute said:
So i'll carry on calling it a fine thanks until the banks can explain how printing and sending a pre-written letter is worth £30.
Click to expand...

Us IT people cost a lot, someone needed to write the code for that letter and someone needs to support it. :D:D:D
 
It's a service charge in the same way a "Penalty Charge Notice" is called a parking fine by 99% of the population - they are the same. Some people just like being pedantic when they want to say something but don't actually have a point to convey.
 
You have an amount in your bank which is yours to spend, the bank then gives you an overdraft as a leeway to protect you if you fall short one month or accidentally overspend.

If someone is stupid enough to go over that they should pay, simple as. The charges are quite clearly outlined when you sign the account contract. If you don't like it don't sign the contract and open an account or take out your cash when you get paid and keep it under your mattress.

If you get fined £30 for going £5 over your overdraft same as if you'd gone £10 into it what’s the problem? It’s not a sliding scale (you're aware of this when you sign the contract), speed through a camera and the fines the same whether your 5 or 10 mph over the limit. Simple.

If you're bad with money you've no one to blame but yourself and deserve everything you get charged as you agreed to it! To suddenly start crying about it is ridiculous.

As an example a friend works in a bank and yesterday a customer came in asking about what had happened with getting charges back, they were told the banks had won and no returns would be mad, the customer looked blankly and said 'but I’ve already spent it' this shows the mentality of such people who accrue charges in my opinion.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
The charge isn't just for the letter you baboon, but a charge for you borrowing more money from the bank.
Click to expand...


Because its *that* hard for the bank just to not pay dds and other automatic debit transactions if there are no funds available??????

Beggars belief...

No they would rather they paid it then hit the customer for the privilege.

They are directly profiteering from those that are financially less well-off when they should not be. They are a business but they have a duty to the community (e.g. similar in a way to hospitals, post offices and such)

It seems running a business seems to excuse one from all kinds of questionable activity and a certain individual moral responsibility. Afterall its just a business trying to make a profit right? People have such short memories i remember posting years ago the frankly obscene profit margins banks were making before the banking crisis.... oh how we forget!

Well its managed to make it into my top 5 most hated profession/industry yay :rolleyes:


(you're aware of this when you sign the contract),
Click to expand...

I've noticed this kind of excuse cropping up more and more these days - For any kind of questionable behaviour/contract or process apparently it is all fine and dandy IF and only IF said person signs the form agreeing to it. If they agree to it then all manner of immoralities can be committed upon them. It'll all be legal and in the contract though so thats ok.

No-one else in the entire forum see any problem with this? There has got to be one surely.
 
Last edited:
gambitt said:
Do you mean the nanny state that requires you to have a bank account if you want a job or live a normal life? Choosing not to have a bank account is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you want a bank account? Living in a cave still?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom