Is everyone in agreement that the Co-op is the best of a bad bunch?

I think this is an excellent idea. I can see very little wrong with it, however if others can, please let me know. I'm about to start a facebook group calling for just this - it's very viral and should reach a very large audience in a very short space of time.

Those are held in a database ready for when the press ask for them - they are regularly given to the press (with express permission of the case), yet as I say, as far as most of the press is concerned it's old news. Most of the press requests we get now are from localised news - Radio Cornwall, The Weekly S****horpe Gazette etc... It's only when something big happens that the 'big' press want info from us.

The papers email us almost weekly for cases like the one you have mentioned - each week we put people in touch with them. They only publish articles about it when there is no news and very rarely give it a decent position in the paper - the Guardian were the exception to this rule. We used to be able to do just as you suggested, and indeed did so, but now as far as they are concerned the bank charges issue is old news. It may not seem like that to us on here, but the papers barely give it lip service these days. Josh - the HSBC have tied you into a contract saying that you cannot move bank accounts? That sounds like a breach of the UTCCRs to me.

Sounds good to me - I'm just trying to gauge the level of support for such a move before that happens. It would also be nice to have the backing of CAG on it, but that's not likely.

Are you saying you cannot change bank account because of your contract with them? I'm sorry (and this is said with all due respect), but that does sound like lazyness (I'm sure you are not lazy). It's easy to change bank account. No contract holds you to that supplier of a service in the banking industry - it's not like a Sky or BT contract.

Publicity is a problem - it costs money. Money we don't have sadly. We may have to start advertising soon in any case - hopefully this will bring the funds we need to make that sort of thing happen, but it won't happen fast. I agree, we are a thorn in their side - but that's it at the moment. It would be great to be a great big spear in their side and force them to behave in a decent way. Publicity can be found by creating stunts just like boycotting the 8 banks that have appealed. "Consumer Action Group urges boycott of 8 biggest banks" - says BBC! ;-)

darftblerk, you are exactly right. Lose this case, and it gives free range to all financial bodies to fleece us - knowing that there is no recourse. That's why we need to show that we can still have a choice - I know I've mentioned it before, but it's not that tricky to live without a bank account. I haven't got one, and it feels good. Very good. I don't fear the postman any longer. Although it's getting harder and harder to do this, it is possible. The banks need to be reminded who makes their obscene profits for them. Can anyone see a problem with changing to the least evil of the banks and ditching the 8 that have appealed?

We've already written to the master of the rolls, and indeed anyone and everyone we thought could (and would) make a difference. Guess what? It didn't (make a difference that is). We, as consumers, need to send a message and send it to where it hurts.

I do honestly think that any protest like writing to MPs is now a moot point - we've done it to death. We're playing their game on their court (no pun intended). I think it's time for change - their way hasn't worked. There is no real reason why this should take anything like this amount of time to sort out. Any reasonable person cannot expect a service from any profit making business for *free* - being subsidised by those that can least afford it. For the people we pay to stop this from happening to allow it for so long (turning a blind eye perhaps) and then when forced to do something about it (as someone so aptly put earlier in this thread) allow banks to stall and abuse their position for an extra 2-5 years is a disgrace. It's time to vote with our feet - we'd do it with any other industry. The fact that people fear the economic repercussions should surely show that this industry has become too powerful and needs to be kept in check. People happily (pretended to) vote with their feed with the boycotting BP campaigns that were going around (and I'm sure they were laughed at as we all were by Two-Jags at the time), so why not boycott the offending parties now? The banks probably know which way this is going to go - I don't and I don't pretend to know - and if it is in the right direction, they know what effect this appeal will be having and they do not care. I say we pick a bank that is the best of a bad bunch and anyone using the bad 8 move their accounts from them to whichever it may be.

The petrol protest are a different matter, however the support dropped simply because it changed very little and it hurt ourselves in the process. Time is now for change - even the police are not happy with the whole state of affairs - a dangerous position for any government to be in.

...and I don't believe we've ever truly had freedom of speech - and I think we are on a path to losing what freedom of speech we have left. By "talk is cheep", I mean it's easy to talk about this and do nothing. If my suggestion is not a good one, then ok, I'll concede, but only if a better plan is laid on the table.

I have to disagree there - I earn a very good wage yet over the past year I've been forced to sell my home and my car. Day to day living costs have risen faster than at any time I can remember (and yes, I DO remember the 80's). I agree that banks should make a REASONABLE profit, yet at a time when they are asking for handouts or our money and that of their shareholders they are STILL publishing pre-tax profits in the billions, a lesson needs to be taught. It is the banks that are forcing the poorest of society into poverty (that and other things that are out of the scope of this site). A boycotting of the 8 main offending banks won't make any difference - the same money will be in circulation, just in different hands. It will send a message that we are still their customers and without us they can't exist. Competition in any business sector can only be good - if 8 of them want to club together to create a virtual cartel, then the only option open to us if those that are paid to protect us from this profiteering don't do their job, is to vote with our feet.

Well, I suppose we could all sit about and talk about it - do nothing and leave it up to the OFT, FSA or whoever, whilst simultaneously having our hands tied behinds our back with regards to taking action through the courts - it might only take about 3-4 years that way after all. That's not a problem though - people at the bottom of society's pile being stuffed some more for a few more years won't hurt. Do you remember how hard it was having 40-60% of your wages taken off you each month in charges? I do. I didn't like it much. I don't suppose anyone does. But now, with a stay in place on any recourse to get it stopped, and let's face it, they're not really playing fair anymore, we're to sit back and let them lend irresponsibly, take money that doesn't belong to them and do 'credit checks' on people when no credit is applied for. Personally, and this is not the opinion of CAG, just my opinion: The gloves have come off - at a time when the banking industry's image is at rock bottom they go and pull a stunt like this, knowing full well that an appeal will take years, and knowing full well who is paying the charges, just so collectively they can fleece those who can least afford it another 4-6 billion. No, if the powers that be won't do the job they are supposed to and protect us from this sort of behaviour, then we have to do something about it. Talk is cheap.

I agree, perhaps off topic though. The time has come for the gloves to come off with regards to petrol, but that's another story.

MTM, I agree, de-mutulisation would be a very good threat. How do you go about doing that? Also, I'm only talking about boycotting the 8 banks that bought about the appeal. There are hundreds of other banks that would welcome our business (well, yours, there is no way on earth I am ever having a bank account again), and THEY can be the ones to invest for a change. I can't see having a boycott of the 8 main offenders having an effect on the economy.

Personally, I think the ecomony is devastated already. A run on the 8 banks damaging the already damaged economy can only be a good thing. It should force even a limp-wristed government like this one to wake up and regulate an industry of cowboys properly rather than letting them run renegade on the whole of society.

Should we not encourage a boycott (or a run) on the 8 banks that have appealed? Would this not be sending the message home even harder that consumers are completely ****ed off with them? It may even make them think twice if only the banks that are appealling have money withdrawn from them at a time when most are asking for shareholder money.

Fantastic! Nice to hear it.

Could you not just set up a paypal account and link it to your bank account. It does take 7-9 days to transfer money, but it will enable you to buy on-line at a lot of places.

I can assure you, without the proper permissions it is not possible to view a users email address if it has been kept hidden. With all due respect, are you sure you didn't include your email address in correspondence with them?

Nearly! Just along a bit - if he went any more South, he'd get very wet.

Me too. Hated it. Still, I got a LOT of reading done.

Nope, he's about as far away from Scotland as you can get but still be in the UK.