OnePlus 5 review
Supreme court finds in favour of the banks re overdraft charges......well what a surprise
it should be no surprise at all...
had the banks lost sensible people would incur bank charges instead of just those in unauthorised overdrafts.
happy the banks won, i will still get free banking do not want the old days of bank charges for everything.
I have no sympathy at all.
If you go beyond your pre-set authorised overdraft limit you have effectively taken money from your bank without permission, in effect the money has been stolen. So the bank has every right to impose penalty charges to try to dissuade customers from doing it again.
A typical example is the woman on TV this morning who ignored bank statements and letters, and worked out she'd accumulated £1,800 in charges over a couple of years.
It is up to us as individuals to manage our money, it's no good running up debts then running to a solicitor with tears in our eyes when the bank comes asking for their money back...
alan14 I've twice fallen foul of these charges (through no fault of mine) and I object to you calling me a thief.
Each time, within a day I had rectified the position but was still charged £35 each time. I'm not saying I shouldn't be penalised (as it wasn't my banks fault either - well it was because they could have prevented it).
To me it's about what's fair and reasonable.
If the banks think that it's such a dastardly thing to do why don't they put a stop on going over your limit?
So contract law means nothing and punitive charges are ok all of a sudden?
alan14, your example is not typical. Many people will simply make a bit of an oversight for a very short period of time.
And whats this nonsense about needing to charge people for basic banking if they do away with their punitive charges? Theyre hardly on their knees!
I don't have an issue with bank charges - you know what the penalties are, just like anything else. However, I'm not completely in agreement with the banks' charging policy as if the charges levied by the banks weren't as high as they are, say £10 instead of £35, this would probably never had turned into the issue it's become.
My issue is people saying "if you dont like the terms, dont sign up to them". This is fine, but in these modern times everyone needs a bank account and when every bank says sign up to these inflated charges or you get no account, then thats where I have an issue. I can't keep my money under the matress so I had to sign up to these charges. I dont mind bank charges, if I borrow beyond my means, then thats my fault, but to say that it costs them £35 is crazy. And its clear that banks have got themselves into the mess they find themselves in now following this crazy policy instead of trying to help people with debt problems
It's my understanding that this wasn't a case against the fairness of overdraft charges - it was the banks asking the supreme court if it fell within the remit of the OFT to investigate bank charges. The Supreme Court said it wasn't.
is correct. It wasn't about whether the charges were reasonable, but whether the OFT could investigate and rule on them.
My own personal view is that, although the excess fees are undoubtedly high, they are avoidable merely by keeping within your authorised overdraft limit. This ruling is a good one in my view and should encourage people to manage their money better rather than abusing their banking facilities and then crying 'foul' when they have to pay charges because of their own mismanagement.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.