OFT test case

[Paintball]

Read it as;

 

If the OFT wins, some banking experts forecast the end of free current accounts as banks attempt to recoup their forecasted profit losses.

 

Try explaining that to peeps who've never been in the position of doing battle with banks ...

[jansus]

profit losses? i thought they were service charges that they made no profit on??

[darling1]

good point jansus -

[dave]

IMO, they cannot charge for an account. It breaches the ECHR Act.

 

The Wages Act states that the employee no longer has the choice of how their money is paid. The ECHR Act states that no EC citizen can be forced to buy a third party product or service through local legislation.

 

Thus, every employee is effectively being forced to buy this 'service' from a bank through no choice of their own.

 

I can see another huge campaign coming up.

 

Why should I not have the choice to keep my money in a shoebox without the intervention of a third party, profit making company?

 

How dare any government force me to use substandard services that I have to pay for?

 

It makes no sense, and I can't see any country in the EU getting away with it TBH.

[JOSH_IOU]

IMO, they cannot charge for an account. It breaches the ECHR Act.

 

The Wages Act states that the employee no longer has the choice of how their money is paid. The ECHR Act states that no EC citizen can be forced to buy a third party product or service through local legislation.

 

Thus, every employee is effectively being forced to buy this 'service' from a bank through no choice of their own.

 

I can see another huge campaign coming up.

 

Why should I not have the choice to keep my money in a shoebox without the intervention of a third party, profit making company?

 

How dare any government force me to use substandard services that I have to pay for?

 

It makes no sense, and I can't see any country in the EU getting away with it TBH.

 

 

I whole heartly agree to every point you make.

[podgydad]

Perhaps the media should paraphrase these banking expert quotes in the following way "if the banks charges are deemed to be unlawful, the banks will be forced to find a lawful way of making a profit without using the poor to subsidise the illusion of free banking."

[Bookworm]

Nearly right... Although the way society works, it would be more accurate to say "if the banks charges are deemed to be unlawful, the banks will be forced to find a lawful way of making a profit still using the poor to subsidise the wealthy ones." :-|

[photoman]

Perhaps the media should paraphrase these banking expert quotes in the following way "if the banks charges are deemed to be unlawful, the banks will be forced to find a lawful way of making a profit without using the poor to subsidise the illusion of free banking."

 

I agree, and suggest that perhaps CAG even circulate a Press release asking that the Press stop this unfounded and misinformed scaremongering.

 

Ask that the Press redress the balance, by analyzing and publishing just exactly how much profits the various Banks do actually make overall.

Show how it is derived, and what proportion is accounted for by all the various means; i.e. what proportion is derived from interest upon loans and mortgages and genuine service fees and what proportion actually comes from these charges.

Let it be demonstrated and made more publicly known, that although these charges are hugely profitable, they do NOT solely support and enable the provision of "free" banking.

 

If Banks in other countries are able to do so, then why can't ours?

 

Otherwise, I predict a scenario whereby, after the case is finished, and such charges abolished, then the Banks will introduce Fees for all accounts, and because (as Dave rightly points out) we have no choice, they actually end up making MORE profits as a result !!

 

We will actually have done them a favor !!

 

If in the end, the "pay per use" banking model is actually allowed to arise, then this should also be rebalanced, by a significant reduction in borrowing rates, and also with comparable interest rates (rather than just a quarter of the lending rates currently at best available) being paid OUT by them upon ALL positive account balances.

 

PM

[JOSH_IOU]

I'l go back to cash

[smutley]

and what exactly is 'free banking'... I m with barclays and have two additions accounts which have a monthly fee attached to them, well in fact as of yesterday now only have one, as I rang customer services to get the £35 they were charging me for bouncing a payment to virtually themselves, barclayloan. I didnt have to ask, the polite man, said i will refund that charge immediately an then proceeded to enquire why I had two additions accounts, there is no need to have to he said, I will refund the fee on one of them now and cancel.. I did ask for all the additions fees back, but think thats a letter job! Are the barclays appearing to be more helpful and this time I wonder?

[JOSH_IOU]

could be them covering up an obvious mistake.

[JonCris]

As I understand it the banks have already taken steps to recoup the equivalent amount of their unlawful charges by way of additional fees - some of which are already being imposed on customers - most customers of the main street banks have, or will very soon, received new T' & C's allowing additional 'service' charges - Advice read the small print

[fiestychick]

Having just read this thread from start to finish, I just wanted to say a few things.

 

First of all without this site I would never have been able to begin my claim against the banks. The help and support and kind words of many people here has bolstered my resolve to continue against the Goliath that is the banks.

 

Secondly, I'm very disappointed by comments made by some members (Ginan, Vortex) which attempt to belittle those who are suspicious of any number of the facets of this case. Why should people all of a sudden believe that any of the bodies involved wholeheartedly have the consumers best interests at heart? I believe that it has been made abundantly clear by the FIGHT people have had to put up to regain these charges, that the judicial system has thus far been prejusdiced to the side of the banks. Why should this now be any different? I personally take great exception to the belligerent and obtuse attitude of some of the posts on this thread. Just because people no longer have the naievete to believe that things are exactly as they appear to be, they don't deserve to be made out to be paranoid sad cases by you. As for people being unhappy that the room was reportedly only big enough to hold 11 spectators, I believe the fear was that the case would be about as transparent as the banks charges, and that as is the case when banks make up their charges everything will be agreed behind closed doors. This case may be being brought by the OFT, but it is on behalf of the consumer and as such IMHO the consumer has every right to know what is going on. As it stands the information received from the media etc thus far has been acceptable so luckily we are being kept in the loop.

 

Thirdly, the thing I am must annoyed about is that either of you has dared to attck the MODS and site helpers for not doing more! How bl**dy dare you. People give up their time to help out others so that we can take on the banks that have walked all over us . How dare you make comments about their relationship with OFT. If it is so easy to have this wonderful working relationship with them - you bl**dy do it. As for being disappointed by not having a CAG rep at the test case, as discussed there is no need. However, why don't you put yourselves forward as reps, take time off work and time away from your family, spend money out of your own pocket and go yourselves!

 

Rant over.

[smutley]

well said fiestychick!

[ginan]

Thirdly, the thing I am must annoyed about is that either of you has dared to attck the MODS and site helpers for not doing more! How bl**dy dare you. People give up their time to help out others so that we can take on the banks that have walked all over us . How dare you make comments about their relationship with OFT. If it is so easy to have this wonderful working relationship with them - you bl**dy do it. As for being disappointed by not having a CAG rep at the test case, as discussed there is no need. However, why don't you put yourselves forward as reps, take time off work and time away from your family, spend money out of your own pocket and go yourselves!

 

Rant over.

 

I think to be fair, I do tick every one of thoes boxes. And it's also worth

mentioning that the average attendance so far for the 25 feed room places by members of the public is just 8.

[Guest Wild Billy]

I think to be fair, I do tick every one of thoes boxes. And it's also worth

mentioning that the average attendance so far for the 25 feed room places by members of the public is just 8.

 

 

Just in case anyone here wants to know what has actually been going on, you could do a lot worse than read something from a member who has bothered to attend. As you can see, it has been a murkey world of double-dealing and espionage so far so the fears of many have been well-founded. Stay in the shelters tonight and wait for the sirens...

 

Day 1 - Penalty Charges Forum

[jansus]

I think to be fair, I do tick every one of thoes boxes. And it's also worth

mentioning that the average attendance so far for the 25 feed room places by members of the public is just 8.

 

 

yes apparently plenty of spaces - day two was even more interesting.

 

the judge (i think) was critisised for comments towards bank defence

 

defence also intimated the charges were not just for the mis-demeanor but included the service fees involved in running the account. But with that argument those not going OD dont pay service fees at all? does not sound fair and it seems the judge saw that one . IMO only from what I have read.

 

Jan

[Kinc]

I wanna go up, after doing jury service and knowing a few barristers, this is one show I wanna see.

 

Funny how the banks are moving all over the place, basically trying to get the judge to see their point of view. Won't be surprised if a different adjusted arguement comes from each bank's QC's (collosion) in an effort to maximise on judgement and judges views. (sorry for spelling)

[johnnymitch]

Well done Feistychick -that's a good sum up of a lot of peoples feelings.

 

Well, Wild Billy , the wind seems to have changed from your direction since you posted this :

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1322982.html

 

You now seem to think there are murky goings on afoot.......

 

Just in case anyone here wants to know what has actually been going on, you could do a lot worse than read something from a member who has bothered to attend. As you can see, it has been a murkey world of double-dealing and espionage so far so the fears of many have been well-founded. Stay in the shelters tonight and wait for the sirens

[Kinc]

OFT should of sent this out

 

Bank Charges

 

Who Loses? The poor

 

Who Gains? Fat cats

 

Do you get free banking? No

 

Current accounts have no interest yet all wages are delayed in the system allowing bank, whether your overdrawn or not to make money on you.

 

CHQ clearance - doesn't occur

 

Plenty More- time for a proper Cracker style investigation, not some pony arse quango gov committe.

[Castlebest]

One thing no one has yet brought up, there are in this huge world of ours many banks who are perfectly capable of moving into new territory and offering the same service they do in Europe and the states, some of them are already major shareholders of our "British Banks".

 

Also I'm sure the "good" Mr Branson will be only too pleased to offer a new way forward when he has Northern Rock re-branded Virgin Bank and good luck to him.

 

I think whatever happens in the test case win or loose the days of "free banking" are now numbered, the eyes of the worlds accountants are watching and there will be an open season on the British Banks.

[Guest Wild Billy]

Well, Wild Billy , the wind seems to have changed from your direction since you posted this :

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1322982.html

 

You now seem to think there are murky goings on afoot.......

 

Er no. You misunderstood. Read the report and tell me if you think all the paranoia has been well-founded or not... Just don't let them see you... They are everywhere... You know who I'm talking about... Them...

[Alphageek]

Five ways the Banks fleece us - Article from The Times Online

[JOSH_IOU]

The Lloyd's claim that there charges and not fees.

[alecmac18]

£35 for missing a direct debit.

 

Whether they are called 'charges', as a penalty, or 'fees' for a non-existant 'service'........it makes no difference (although it will to lawyers)......

 

The end result is the always the same.

 

- Illegal

-Against the spirit of FSA regulations.

- Unfair

- Immoral