Only a Game Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Can anyone explain the issue of "fairness" to me? I understand (and agree the Banks are wrong to) the issue with claiming these are admin charges because clearly it doesn't cost that much to the bank to reclaim their costs in processing, but I still don't see how people don't understand the fact these charges are clearly identified in the contracts they agreed when either opening the account or arranging the overdraft. What's the difference between somebody spitting the dummy when they get penalised for going over their overdraft, and somebody trying to say the price they paid for a luxury car was "unfair" months after they agreed the deal with the dealership and have been driving the car around? Both knew (or should have known) the ins and outs of any contract they were getting involved with before they signed it. Basically its not a "luxury" to have a bank account. In fact if your working its just about essential to have one. In this case the issue of fairness relates to whether being charged ?30-?38 for a transaction that costs the bank less than ?1 to perform is "fair" Yes you do indeed know the terms of the contract before you sign up to it. But thats what the OFT exist for. To establish and judge whether that contract was actually fair. Because essentially, if you didnt sign up to that contract, or a similar one at another bank, you wouldnt be able to operate a bank account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoked-Glass Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The answer to your question is the same as for most businesses- to make a profit. Why does that explain why banks are hated as opposed to, say, toy companies whose motivation would be exactly the same? cause i don't use the other companies. The banks look after MY money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 cause i don't use the other companies. The banks look after MY money. Holy ****. Please tell me you don't actually believe that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The court dont get to decide if the charges are unfair, its the OFT who do that. "In April 08 the High Court judge, Mr Justice Andrew Smith, confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years, that consumer contract regulations, known as ?Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations? do apply to bank charges, meaning 'fairness' counts. While it's not the end of the line, the decision is a massive step and paves the way for the OFT to decide whether it thinks banks' charges are unfair." This case was brought to court by the OFT on behalf of bank customers who complained to them.They won (subject to appeal) and THEY now have to decide if bank charges are unfair. I'd imagine that they will decide they are, otherwise why bring the case in the first place. It is quite clearly a case where one side wins and one side loses (contrary to what you posted). In this case (subject to appeal) the banks have lost and if they dont win the appeal they have lost BIG TIME !! I didnt need to look it up (apart from the exact court date etc) as I have already successfully claimed over ?1700 in bank charges (prior to this case going to court and payouts being suspended) I also have 3 family members who have claims currently suspended who are delighted with the decision as they will now be able to claim interest as well as the charges (provided the appeal fails). Interestingly I only learned I could claim from a thread started in here about 18 months ago. This will cost UK banks billions of pounds and will change the face of domestic banking for good. All that has been decided is that bank charges are covered. And it's not the OFT who make the decision. The information on MSE is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 All that has been decided is that bank charges are covered. And it's not the OFT who make the decision. The information on MSE is incorrect. Tbh the people on sites like that are muppets who spread there incorrect views as fact. Did OAG read his post? He has basically said the plaintiff gets to decide the outcome of a legal case Its utterly ludicrous that he thinks that is true Ultimately the charges will probably go down to around ?15 ( the ?12 deemed "fair for credit cards plus a few pounds inflation) and the banks will make up the short fall and more by charging far more charges on other aspects - cash withdrawals, BACS and Chaps transfers, new cards, statements, etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Payton Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Basically its not a "luxury" to have a bank account. In fact if your working its just about essential to have one. In this case the issue of fairness relates to whether being charged ?30-?38 for a transaction that costs the bank less than ?1 to perform is "fair" Yes you do indeed know the terms of the contract before you sign up to it. But thats what the OFT exist for. To establish and judge whether that contract was actually fair. Because essentially, if you didnt sign up to that contract, or a similar one at another bank, you wouldnt be able to operate a bank account What about the aforementioned account with the co-op though? I take what you're saying about having a bank account being almost essential in today's society, but it strikes me that there are alternatives out there that don't carry these "unfair" charges, but people want the best of the both worlds with "free" accounts as well as no overdraft charges... Me me me all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 What about the aforementioned account with the co-op though? I take what you're saying about having a bank account being almost essential in today's society, but it strikes me that there are alternatives out there that don't carry these "unfair" charges, but people want the best of the both worlds with "free" accounts as well as no overdraft charges... Me me me all over again. I think the dispute here is not over whether you expect to pay charges if you are overdrawn without authorisation. The dispute is over the level of charges being levied. By any stretch of the imagination ?38 is unfair for a transaction that costs less than ?1 to administrate. The banks had an opportunity to reduce this to a standrard ?12 but declined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 All that has been decided is that bank charges are covered. And it's not the OFT who make the decision. The information on MSE is incorrect. The OFT do make the decision as to whether they are unfair. That is a big part of their very reason for existing. If the banks dont agree the decision has to be upheld and imposed through the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 You didn't but why does the bank charge this much? Is it trying to pull a fast one? No wonder the banks are hated Meh Meh Meh, The big bad banks. [mod edit] Honestly, and you even attempted to call me a dim-wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The OFT do make the decision as to whether they are unfair. That is a big part of their very reason for existing. If the banks dont agree the decision has to be upheld and imposed through the courts. So what your saying is that basically the banks have a lifetime of appeals because the decision is illegal - quite ironic that What your suggesting is Akin to a judge saying a murderer can sentence his own trial:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownkg Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So what your saying is that basically the banks have a lifetime of appeals because the decision is illegal - quite ironic that What your suggesting is Akin to a judge saying a murderer can sentence his own trial:confused: know I shuldn't but...... "you've taken that too far" as ever If you go outside your front door you might see trees, grass, sunshine the birds singing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoked-Glass Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Meh Meh Meh, The big bad banks. [mod edit] Honestly, and you even attempted to call me a dim-wit. Did more than attempt mate. Succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
this_is_my_story Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Can anyone explain the issue of "fairness" to me? I understand (and agree the Banks are wrong to) the issue with claiming these are admin charges because clearly it doesn't cost that much to the bank to reclaim their costs in processing, but I still don't see how people don't understand the fact these charges are clearly identified in the contracts they agreed when either opening the account or arranging the overdraft. What's the difference between somebody spitting the dummy when they get penalised for going over their overdraft, and somebody trying to say the price they paid for a luxury car was "unfair" months after they agreed the deal with the dealership and have been driving the car around? Both knew (or should have known) the ins and outs of any contract they were getting involved with before they signed it. Not trying to be a smart-arse, and of course, you are 100% correct in stating that people should be aware of the conditions of what they are signing for, but - haven't you answered your own question with the bold text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 You are a bit of a MOD EDIT though - your attitude to the op is not great for someone that works in a branch - maybe a customer service course would be worthwhile - also I assume you are not qualified to give financial advice so as the face of RBS on JKB you may want to be a little more reserved with your personal judgements on products on the market.... Your assumptions are wrong. I am fully qualified as an Introducer, with an FSA qualification. I am 100% qualified to advise on financial products, with the exclusion of giving reccomendations and advice on Insurance products, which is illegal. If you're an RBS customer, you're more than welcome to pop in, and i'd be happy to review your accounts and see if we can save you money on your borrowing. Hell, i may even be able to wipe off a few charges? If you could refrain from the personal abuse with the 'dimwit' comment, as you will be aware of the rules of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Did more than attempt mate. Succeeded. You're boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Payton Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Not trying to be a smart-arse, and of course, you are 100% correct in stating that people should be aware of the conditions of what they are signing for, but - haven't you answered your own question with the bold text? Not really- I would agree that it's a bit "underhand" to describe what are actually penalties as "costs". I wouldn't agree this is unfair though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.