peasepud 59 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 They still wont accept any claims yet, the court merely found in favour of the customer but left it in the hands of the ombudsman so until theyve given an answer and the court have stated what they think is a fair amount then the banks still wont accept any claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 I asked them for £952 knowing that there was no chance of getting it and they've just replied offering £217 plus 8% interest which is probably the best I could have hoped for. Hardly a life changing amount but better in my pocket than theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 I asked them for £952 knowing that there was no chance of getting it and they've just replied offering £217 plus 8% interest which is probably the best I could have hoped for. Hardly a life changing amount but better in my pocket than theirs. KB and they'll make you a better offer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Nah it's doubtful, they've offered me the difference between what they've charged and the £12 which is what is generally accepted as the standard allowed charge at the minute. The £952 was me asking for everything back plus compound interest and they were never gonna give me that but I thought I'd start off high and work from there, can't see them or an ombudsman giving me any more than they've already offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 They still wont accept any claims yet, the court merely found in favour of the customer but left it in the hands of the ombudsman so until theyve given an answer and the court have stated what they think is a fair amount then the banks still wont accept any claims. Martin Lewis was on TV today apparently saying if you can show that you're in financial hardship they have to look at your case immediately. He's updated his website to that effect too.... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/b...-hardship#guide Fill your boots dole bludgers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 They still wont accept any claims yet, the court merely found in favour of the customer but left it in the hands of the ombudsman so until theyve given an answer and the court have stated what they think is a fair amount then the banks still wont accept any claims. Martin Lewis was on TV today apparently saying if you can show that you're in financial hardship they have to look at your case immediately. He's updated his website to that effect too.... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/b...-hardship#guide Fill your boots dole bludgers He may save us a bit of money but he's still a complete bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges A Supreme Court judgement has struck a major blow to the hopes of millions of bank customers to be refunded billions of pounds in bank charges. The court has overturned earlier court rulings that allowed the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts. The decision follows more than two years of test case litigation. At stake is an estimated £2.6bn of annual income for the banks, which had appealed against earlier rulings. Seven banks and one building society wanted the court to overturn two previous rulings that would let the OFT investigate their overdraft fees. In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them. Historic claims All new claims against banks were effectively suspended in July 2007 when the OFT and the banks agreed to stage the test case to see if the overdraft charges were legal or not. The OFT has previously said that even if it lost, it would still try to use other powers, perhaps by instigating a full competition commission enquiry, to attack overdraft fees. The Supreme Court's president Lord Phillips said that bank customers agreed to pay overdraft charges as part of the price of having a current account, so they fell outside the scope of the appropriate regulations. But Lord Philips added that this was not the end of the matter as the OFT could still try to scrutinise bank charges under other parts of the regulations. "This will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed [put on hold] in which customers have challenged the relevant charges," he told the court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376906.stm Cunts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7312 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ah well, saves us cash machine charges i suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not sure that's the case. It could be seen by the banks as a green light to charge for anything they like. Pay for cash machines, pay for using debit card. And while we are at it let's hike the charges up.... Somebody in very senior Government must have been leaning very heavily to get the courts to agree to what amounts to daylight robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ah well, saves us cash machine charges i suppose I think that was a daily mail scare story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7312 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well the trick is to stay within your overdraft. Mins 1k and ive never used more than £200 of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them. What a fucking pathetic defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well the trick is to stay within your overdraft. Mins 1k and ive never used more than £200 of that What if works pay roll fucks up one month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well the trick is to stay within your overdraft. Mins 1k and ive never used more than £200 of that What if works pay roll fucks up one month? Your employer should reimburse any bank charges if it's their fault? That's what I've seen in various companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7312 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Then your well within your rights to ask them to pay your charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them. What a fucking pathetic defence. "I can't admit to this murder as I will be prosecuted for it". This reminded me of the SOS court case for bond holders - moving fans was a pisstake but the small print said it was okay - similarly the T&Cs of bank accounts are agreed to by customers (as they have no choice). I hope the OFT continue the case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well the trick is to stay within your overdraft. Mins 1k and ive never used more than £200 of that What if works pay roll fucks up one month? Your employer should reimburse any bank charges if it's their fault? That's what I've seen in various companies. I can see that in large corporations, but can't imaginre it happening if you work behind a bar or as a cleaner. Do the government reimburse if they fuck up your benefits one week too? Either way like, it's not just the initial charge. All your DD's get charges so you think 'I can't withdraw cash from that account too', so you start using credit cards and get charged for every withdrawl and what you manage to claim back 3 months down the line doesn't cover the exorbitant interest on those and it snowballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not sure that's the case. It could be seen by the banks as a green light to charge for anything they like. Pay for cash machines, pay for using debit card. And while we are at it let's hike the charges up.... I think if they were to do that then you'd get some of the newer banks that are emerging, Tesco etc. providing those services for free and taking all their customers. I only see this ruling as a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them. What a fucking pathetic defence. "I can't admit to this murder as I will be prosecuted for it". This reminded me of the SOS court case for bond holders - moving fans was a pisstake but the small print said it was okay - similarly the T&Cs of bank accounts are agreed to by customers (as they have no choice). I hope the OFT continue the case though. Could a person function today without a bank account? Are employers beholden to pay me in cash if I requested? I can't imagine. The idea that I choose to have a current account and willingly accept the charges is ridiculous given there is no alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I think if they were to do that then you'd get some of the newer banks that are emerging, Tesco etc. providing those services for free and taking all their customers. I only see this ruling as a good thing. I think one of the things NR should have done when they were nationalised was to introduce some anarchic ideas like proper free banking to attract customers - they could even have offered 2% mortgages and got a shit load of customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I only see this ruling as a good thing. How come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Could a person function today without a bank account? Are employers beholden to pay me in cash if I requested? I can't imagine. The idea that I choose to have a current account and willingly accept the charges is ridiculous given there is no alternative. I remember being told when I started working in 1987 that legally you could insist on cash - I've no idea if that still stands. I know a lad who's a bit weird who takes all his wages out as soon as they go in to his account and keeps the money at home - he doesn't trust the accounts or any kind of cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31592 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I think if they were to do that then you'd get some of the newer banks that are emerging, Tesco etc. providing those services for free and taking all their customers. I only see this ruling as a good thing. I think one of the things NR should have done when they were nationalised was to introduce some anarchic ideas like proper free banking to attract customers - they could even have offered 2% mortgages and got a shit load of customers. Illegal unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I only see this ruling as a good thing. How come? Misread it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I think if they were to do that then you'd get some of the newer banks that are emerging, Tesco etc. providing those services for free and taking all their customers. I only see this ruling as a good thing. I think one of the things NR should have done when they were nationalised was to introduce some anarchic ideas like proper free banking to attract customers - they could even have offered 2% mortgages and got a shit load of customers. Illegal unfortunately. Which part/how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now