Well no, because until the courts tell them otherwise, the banks will continue to insist their practise is legal.
well i'd advise the person in question to check that though im not 100% sure.
Well no, because until the courts tell them otherwise, the banks will continue to insist their practise is legal.
No, that is the case.well i'd advise the person in question to check that though im not 100% sure.
this thread isnt actually focusing on the reason why the banks are being taken to court.
but in a nut shell - yes you guys are right and the oft is wrong well done gz all round.
/sarcasm
Exactly what it says. Banks will continue to levy penalty charges, or "service charges", until they are told it is illegal to do so.what does that mean?
Yeah, I'm sure that if you're in current proceedings with the bank they would temporarily suspend putting any more charges on your account, but that just makes sense. And it's account specific too, ie. not everyone claims back charges.i'm kinda glad i got back my money before all the cases were stayed now
ohh and platypus im pretty sure that my bank didnt continue to charge me whilst i had my legal action against them. I said to them i would just add such future charges to my list (that occurred during the process)
Yeah, I'm sure that if you're in current proceedings with the bank they would temporarily suspend putting any more charges on your account, but that just makes sense. And it's account specific too, ie. not everyone claims back charges.
this thread isnt actually focusing on the reason why the banks are being taken to court.
but in a nut shell - yes you guys are right and the oft is wrong well done gz all round.
/sarcasm
I find it amusing that the people who manage thier accounts well regard themselves as "good" customers. If you keep a small balance in your account consistently and never go overdrawn the bank will be making no money off you at all. The people who are being charged these fees are making the banks millions in profits.
If you ran a company who would you regard as your best customers, the ones who make you minmal profit, or the ones who make you good profits?
In effect, the "bad" customers are subsidising the "good" customers. If the "bad" customers manage thier accounts perectly the banks will be making less income off them, so to recoup that money they will need to start charging elsewhere, hence the introduction of monthly fees.
Do we regard ourselves as good customers? I'd say I have good common sense when it comes to money, and I can manage my finances well. I've never said I'm a good customer for a bank to have, (although I actually would actually, given how much I have in savings with them).I find it amusing that the people who manage thier accounts well regard themselves as "good" customers. If you keep a small balance in your account consistently and never go overdrawn the bank will be making no money off you at all. The people who are being charged these fees are making the banks millions in profits.
Do we regard ourselves as good customers? I'd say I have good common sense when it comes to money, and I can manage my finances well. I've never said I'm a good customer for a bank to have, (although I actually would actually, given how much I have in savings with them).
I don't recall anyone saying "I'm a better customer then you because I don't go overdrawn".
I don't think anyone is deluded enough to imagine that customers in financial difficulties are banks "favourite" customers.
platypus said:I don't think anyone is deluded enough to imagine that customers in financial difficulties are banks "favourite" customers.
Well interestingly enough, Natwest sent me a credit card offer with a rather nice insurance deal as a sweetener, so I decided to take them up on it, with no actual plan to ever use the credit card. They then of course proceeded to reject my application, even though they'd requested I apply .
Tools.
I seriously hope banks lose their test case and have to repay everyone their money back.
I would imagine if they did - that a workaround would be introduced - possibly by an amendement to the Terms and Conditions or Terms of Service.
As per the original thread - if this happens - I can see everybody who holds an account with a high street bank having to pay for the privilege - which is bad.
Its a bonus for those who have legitimately been 'conned' out of money - but for the millions of us who havent incurred any bank charges or indeed claimed them back it may spell the end of free banking which the banks would be able to do quite easily.
Thats not to say that the problem couldnt be rectified by switching banks - but imo that would simply compound the problem and if it happened in any great number - it could create a period of unrest and see interest rates rise...
Not to mention the hassle of switching direct debits etc...
As I keep saying, it will be interesting to see how this one pans out!
Tom*