Why does it have to be as an individual, customers are a collective body and they do matter. Some customers may matter more than others (and this shows in the type of relationship that is cultivated between the two parties) but keeping your customers happy is important in any business. Keeping the customer base happy, however, does not necessarily involve keeping every individual customer happy, or meeting every single one of an individual customer's demands/desires/requests.
Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges
- Thread starter Neverwhere
- Start date
Why does it have to be as an individual, customers are a collective body and they do matter. Some customers may matter more than others (and this shows in the type of relationship that is cultivated between the two parties) but keeping your customers happy is important in any business. Keeping the customer base happy, however, does not necessarily involve keeping every individual customer happy, or meeting every single one of an individual customer's demands/desires/requests.
I'm sorry but you won't get anything further after this. My point regarding fairness and morality has been made but you keep dancing around it with talk about how everyday customers can obtain a banking license if they wish!A practical solution indeed. In a court you are allowed to counter claim which seems a fair system, I suppose the banks are above that though.
Not at all, the court case just proved customers aren't above the law either.
Some of us do have days off in the week you know...
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
The bank
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,439
- Location
- London
yes but is it the banks money??
Posts: 28,918
It appears you are quite fortunate with your days off
Posts: 28,918
It appears you are quite fortunate with your days off
Indeed I am, the joys of a 3 days in, 3 days off shift pattern
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 21,274
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Anyone think this decision had been purely because there is simply to much money involved for it to be ruled against them ??
Posts: 28,918
It appears you are quite fortunate with your days off
Comes in at about eleven posts a day, you have managed about half a dozen in this thread today while you are working and it isn't even midday.
No, the decision has been made because that is how the law is written. I'd be more concerned about the lower court decisions being made in face of the law by prioritising public minority but vocal opinion over the law...
Last edited:
Comes in at about eleven posts a day, you have managed about half a dozen in this thread today while you are working and it isn't even midday.
That's because I only post in select topics and not spam the forum with an opinion on everything.
Oh dear now that's 7.
Green was a fail choice of colour
My point still stands - you're making a demand of the market that doesn't have sufficient momentum to make it economically viable to supply. If it were economically viable to supply, someone would supply it. It's not blaming anything, it's just reality.
If you're in favour of twisting the market to appease the minority whilst shafting either the suppliers or the majority, that's fine, but lets not beat about the bush.
I would hazard a guess to say that's a little simplistic - it'd get recorded by the bank as an asset, much in the same way that cash sitting in a tin would be an asset. Unlike customer savings which I would have thought be recorded as a liability. In short, yes, it's the bank's money. And when you've got it, it's still the bank's money.
My point still stands - you're making a demand of the market that doesn't have sufficient momentum to make it economically viable to supply. If it were economically viable to supply, someone would supply it. It's not blaming anything, it's just reality.
If you're in favour of twisting the market to appease the minority whilst shafting either the suppliers or the majority, that's fine, but lets not beat about the bush.
I would hazard a guess to say that's a little simplistic - it'd get recorded by the bank as an asset, much in the same way that cash sitting in a tin would be an asset. Unlike customer savings which I would have thought be recorded as a liability. In short, yes, it's the bank's money. And when you've got it, it's still the bank's money.
Last edited:
From what I have been reading on other forums, it should not affect people who are claiming, as there are still other options open.
Um... yes. It came off their balance sheet.
Ahh the answer to the problem - dont use the service! LOL its unbelievable some of the comments some of you "pro-banks" folk come out with.
Surely the inconvenience of not using DDs and Debit cards (while both are handy, neither are essential especially with pre-pay "credit" cards available) is worth not getting lots of charges if you aren't all that good at managing money?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
likewise
however i doubt we're 'pro banks' more pro contractual agreement, 'free' services and spending what we have to spend.
Last edited:
This is probably going to be another analogyfail, but here goes.
If I were a numpty and kept on getting speeding tickets driving, a simple solution to stop getting them would be to stop driving.
If I were a numpty and kept using a payment method that charged me £35 every time I spent money I didn't have, a simple way to stop the charges would be to stop using the payment.
If you have difficulty using a service properly, to the extent that it becomes a signficant financial penalty to use that service, why isn't a simple answer to just stop using the service? No-one's forcing you to use a debit card, there's many, many different ways of paying for stuff.
See?
Really? What forums would this be?
Because the financial ombudsman has acknowledged it means the cases are pretty much dead.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html
I'd take their view over random websites (especially if it is one of the sites that mistakenly pushed this issue and are now trying to save face...)
That's because I only post in select topics and not spam the forum with an opinion on everything.
Oh dear now that's 7.
I like how you've failed to create a good argument and have resorted to a few tame personal attacks, excellent work.
It's even more shocking the views some of the 'lets baby idiots who can't control their spending' folk come out with.
A bank is a business, same as any other high street business, if you don't like the way they operate don't use them, if you are unable to control your spending don't use them, stop whining about contractual obligations that are agreed upon when an account is opened.
(I'd like to point out while the word you and a directed manner is written with it is not directed at the individual quoted but those that are ''anti-bank'')