Using my super human skills of observation and powers of deduction I have come to the conclusion her name is Maria Dobson, who won nearly £4,000 from the Abbey! Regards Mailman

Can someone point me to where this sub forum is please...for the life of me I cannot find it anywhere! Mailman

Haha...sorry but I havent Everyone knows banks could make this problem go away in 30 seconds...but they arent. The reality of this is also you are your own master of your destiny, if you are drawing on money you dont have then, in all honesty, you only have yourself to blame. As I said early, just because your cat lets you kick it doesnt make kicking your cat right. Be a man, take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming others. Mailman

Yeah, still doesnt hold water as the end result is as a direct consequence of something YOU have done. Your arguement is that the banks shouldnt let you, which of course they could fix in 30 seconds...but we all know there is no money in that! Mailman

Yes its a bit rich isnt it, a tax being charged on top of a tax! Then again, what ever it takes to make money for this corrupt and inept government! Mailman

There is a £12.50 monthly account fee! Mailman

Yes, yes, yes, you can question it as much as you like BUT at the end of the day it will come down to the fact that it was you spending money you dont have. Your arguement really is this, you want a car manufacturer [banks] to stop you from running over pedestrians [drawing on money you dont have in your account] (even though the car is in perfect working order) when the reality is its not the car manufacturers [banks] behind the wheel [account holder]. What you are saying is that its the car manufacters fault you ran over a pedestrian even though there was absolutely nothing wrong with your car. Of course you are I are both in agreement that this shouldnt happen anyway, and its also something the banks themselves could fix in a heart beat...but you and I both know there is no money in that for the banks! Mailman

And of course this gets even muddier when the banks create the situation where 2 DD are bounced because the 3rd, and biggest, is applied first, thus taking all the money that would have covered the first 2! Thus earning them two fees instead of one! If only I could run a business like this! I would have retired years ago! Mailman

I am babbling on about the fact that people should front up and take responsibility for their own actions. Its not the banks fault you are spending money that isnt in your account...although it would only be a 30 second fix by the banks to ensure you cant do that (but then again, there is no money in this for the banks is there!). Again, you will have a hell of a time trying to convince a judge that its not your fault you spent money that isnt in your account. Further, banks will counter that you dont have an agreed over draft already in place, thus making this a case of where you have gone overdrawn because of your own actions (whether the bank allowed that to happen is neither here nor there, just as whether the cat let you kid in in the gonads doesnt make kicking your cat in the gonads right:)). Of course you will never get the chance to test that in court, because as you point out, the banks are scared Mailman

Yeah, you will have one hell of a time arguing your case in court if you try and argue that your overdraft, the one that only exists because you spent money you dont have, is authorised. Essentially your argument is one where its not your fault you spent money that you dont have...somehow I very much doubt it any judge, no matter how enlightened, will support your position??? Again, just because you can do something does not automatically make that something "doable", "right", "authorised" etc. The fact of the matter is you created a certain situation by spending money you dont have. Of course this situation would go away overnight if the banks just refused to allow any transaction to go through where that transaction will take you in to the red without a prior arrangement in place. Then again, there is no money in it for the banks if they actually did this is there??? Now, as for the situation where that "unauthorised" overdraft is being created by the banks...well, thats a whole new argument altogether! Mailman

Dave, I think you are splitting heres hair If you dont already have an overdraft arrangement with your bank in place and you spend money you dont have in your account, thus taking you in to the red then there is no way you can consider that an "authorised" overdraft. Just because they let you do something, doesnt necesarilly mean its ok. Just as in just because your cat lets you kick it doesnt automatically make kicking your cat right. However the simple solution here is to NOT let people draw money out they dont have in their accounts! Its not rocket science BUT I guarantee you the banks wont make any money out of that! Mailman

Well to be honest, if you strip all the emotion away what the guy is saying is essentially correct from the banks point of view (hahaha). So he isnt telling fibs at all, jus telling it like it is from their pov! Having said that, setting all cards "floor limits" to zero would negate this arguement anyways! The other thing is this...if the banks could make more money from "authoriosed" overdrafts, do you reckon they would keep allowing people going for "unauthorised" overdrafts or do you reckon they would push everyone in to having an "authorised" overdraft??? Regards Mailman

Dont be so sure, there are a number of recent cases decided in the House of Lords that went the way of the small guy (Arctis comes to mind!). Mailman

So you can make some moolah off the back of us mere mortals! Mailman

All the money you get back from your unlawful fees challenges? Mailman

Im just going to step out of line here for a second BUT I believe the impact on the economy would be far higher if Northern Rock was allowed to fail. In my opinion, NR should be nationalised (and maybe renamed "The Peoples Bank" ) since the Government is dumping in billions of pounds anyway. Mailman

What is interesting is that she trotted out the old " the charges are for a service rah rah rah". You know what is really interesting about this? Is the times I have been charged overdraft fees is because the previous month when my account went in to the red was because the banks fees took me in to the red! So, can someone please explain just what service I am being charged for? In my situation...the banks are creating the so called service! Mailman

If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their losses. Correct me if im but can someone please explain to me how one can lose money they never should have had in the first place? Mailman

Well to be fair, the size of the court room is probably way down the list of things for the OFT to be worrying about! Mailman

One can only live in hope Regards Mailman

I do not believe this is the case as the six year rule only comes in to it if your lodged paperwork with the courts is outside that time frame...however if you lodge your claim today, and it takes 10 years to hear your case it does not mean the banks can say you are outside the time limits as your claim was clearly lodged within the required time frame. Well, thats what I believe is the case anyway. Mailman

Well, this one will surely get your blood boiling. What gets me though, is senior managers can front up proclaiming profits will be hit if the banks have to give back money unlawfully taken YET on the other hand, here are examples of banks making millions, nay billions in profits on the back of fake charities. The other thing that is so dodgy about this is that in most of the cases no money has been paid out AND the real charities didnt even know their names were being used! Revealed: how UK banks exploit charity tax laws | Business | The Guardian Regards Mailman

Its been 20 days Seahorse...any updates? Has the bank sent the heavies round your place to round up your kids as barganing chips in this ongoing crisis? Regards Mailman

Yes, attacking the judge is distasteful, especially when people go on about conspiracy this or conspiracy that. The fact is the judiciary has shown time and time again that they are completely and utterly independent of the Government. Then again, I guess it just makes thing spicier if you can make a conspiracy out of nothing Mailman

You know, reading through the decision quickly it strikes me that the banks seemed to have saved themselves by 1. trying to reach a settlement outside the courts, 2. them paying back everything outstanding. I reckon, had the bank not paid back anything and not made the offer to settle that this may have had a different ending. Anyways, thats just my reading (very quick reading) of this whole sordid affair! Mailman