Me too!!

Sorry if someone's mentioned this already, but if you want evidence (and, indeed, encouragement) that this is not all over, then look at s52 of the judgement when the Supreme Court Justice says just that, and then goes on to blame government for not strengthening consumer protection they way other member states did: Lord Walker: "52. If the Court allows this appeal the outcome may cause great disappointment and indeed dismay to a very large number of bank customers who feel that they have been subjected to unfairly high charges in respect of unauthorised overdrafts. But this decision is not the end of the matter, as Lord Phillips explains in his judgment. Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider the matter further. They decided, in an era of socalled “light-touch” regulation, to transpose the Directive as it stood rather than to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision." [emphasis mine] This is not over. We've just been treading OFT water for 2 years. Onwards and upwards Caggers! The media narrative is causing some to lose heart and drop their cases, just like the banks want us to! The media were too quick to judge this one! Bank Charges Case: the Devil's in the detail (Part Two) - They think it's all over: it's not now! - Birmingham Post - Business Blog Bank Charges Case: the Devil's in the detail (Part One) - rewind, the banks may not have won, after all! - Birmingham Post - Business Blog Earlier, previously linked: Banks win - but it should still be payback time if the politicians have courage and are on the side of the consumer. - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

For what it's worth, here's my blog on the Birmingham Post in response to the decision, although I've not read the decision in full yet: Banks win - but it should still be payback time if the politicians have courage and are on the side of the consumer. - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

The OFT should now appeal the Penalty Charges decision to the Supreme Court, if it's not out of time. OFT should appeal to Europe, while they're at it. Supreme Court says Fairness could be looked at 'under other powers' but I suspect that will apply to future and not past charges? It's about the future, not the past I suspect now. We should have let the banks fail completely earlier in the year.

Unbelievable! We lost it!

Lost it!

Morning All! Lord Phillips here! Shall I tell you now!? Bet you'll remember my face one way or the other, eh? What can you tell from my face now? See you later! BBC 9.45 a.m.

Fasten your seatbelts everybody. Here we go.

Thanks, Bigmac versus. Shame there isn't a betting market on it.

So best bet is BBCNews Website for extended coverage and BBC News Channel for the immediate decision. JC

Thanks for reading up to 10 anyway, Barry_2008; I suspect you would have had apoplexy and snuffed it had you read the rest! We're all on the same side really on this site, even though our political views elsewhere might diverge.

Thought you might like a bit of light reading while you wait expectantly! My Blog on the Birmingham Post, 'It's payback time, Mr. Banker': It's payback time, Mr. Banker! - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

Here's the reply from the BBC on my request that Democracy Live cover the Charges decision live and in full. (I hope this means the BBC News website will cover the full works and not just the first 10 minutes.): Thanks for your email. I understand the BBC news website will be carrying the bank charges announcement live tomorrow morning and will, no doubt, attract a sizeable audience. More generally, it has been decided that the Supreme Court's proceedings will not be contained within Democracy Live. This is based on the fact that the court is now totally separate from government and the Houses of Parliament, whose proceedings are at the centre of the site's remit. I'm grateful for your interest in Democracy Live. Regards, Mark __________________________________________ Mark Coyle Launch Editor BBC Democracy Live Broadcast Centre, London (BC3 B1) W12 6WA W: www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive

Have just sent this to the BBC's DemocracyLive website, perhaps others could join in?: To:[email protected] Is Democracy Live going to cover the historic Supreme Court decision on Bank Charges on Wednesday 25th November at 9.45 a.m.? House Of Lords Court Decisions have been shown live in the past (e.g. Pinochet decision). This decision will be big news in any event, but the massive public interest will ensure massive viewing figures, especially if trailed. Bearing in mind the processes of the independent judiciary are a crucial part of the UK concept of Democracy, I would have thought that the key Supreme Court decisions should be covered (especially live) by Democracy Live. Bearing in mind the considerable change involved in the move from House of Lords to Supreme court it would be good to cover the event anyway so as to show the public how the new system works. A decision which will have a direct impact on the bank balances of millions and on an issue which has involved one of the most important and influential consumer pressure groups of modern times would be, I think, prime reasons for covering the whole judgement live and show off Democracy Live as being able to do this. At 9.45 a.m. there's not much else democracy going on anyway? I am assuming the judgement won't just be handed down and will be read out, by the way. I understand many representatives of the consumer pressure groups are travelling down to London to be present. John Clancy

Sorry about that; it is annoying. Assuming you've filled in the antispam letter box, you have, in my experience when things don't go right first time to copy the text you want to comment, come out of the site, go back in again. Paste it in afresh and type in a new anti spam code. Really sorry about that. CAG is much better!

I understand that a cheque is treated like cash there (there's no such thing as a cheque guarantee card there - just ID). However it's a criminal offence in France to write a cheque when there's no money in the account to cover it! You can also choose to have all debit transactions from your card (carte bleue -CB) to come out at the end of the month or on a specific date, as I understand it, though not for cash withdrawals. Now wouldn't that help financial planning? Er...perhaps not. In reality I think overdrafts do not exist in France. They are effectively illegal.

You're absolutely right, kennyh. Mind you, I think we should assert that the actual cost is nothing. If there's no money in the account, the direct debit and the cheque are simply not paid. They are only creating manual interventions and letters in order to make the charge and make a profit. That's the only motivation. By definition the intervention and the letter must cost them very little because they wouldn't make a profit otherwise. Why would the bank do anything except in order to make a profit? Take out the manual intervention and physical letter and it costs nothing. Automated e-mails could deal with the matter. We could opt in to have a manual intervention and letter (at cost price - less than £2, or the even just the price of the stamp/franking!) We know it's a moneyspinner dressed up in lily-livered lies. If I go to my online account and try to pay out when there's no money in the account, it doesn't cost me anything. Do they try to charge me for trying to do that? Perhaps we better not give them ideas. In reality, on the basis of their historical arguments for charging, they ought to. Shouldn't a flashing blue alert go off in the bank HQ when I try to pay a bill online when there's no money in my account, so someone can come and have a look, power up a computer and write me a letter that they have to walk to the post room with? I say we don't retire until it is accepted legally and otherwise that it costs them nothing! John Clancy

Don't think it did, Martin3030. It would be great if you tried again! John

Thanks, Michael. Of course I don't really give a stuff what the Banks themselves think. It's a provocative and rhetorical piece but is designed to give the consumer some rhetorical ammo. We have to stop ordinary consumers being lulled into bankerspeak. Caggers are already well in the know about these things, but as we all know non-cagger consumers are surprisingly ready to adopt 'banker speak'. "It was my fault, I shouldn't have set that direct debit up, shouldn't have written that cheque. They do look after my money very well. I love their debit card. Do you know they give me 2% interest on my current account?; I never used to get that. Free banking will end if we stop the bank charges....etc" Wittgenstein tells us that the words we use define our experience of the world itself and change it (er...I think so, anyway). You sometimes have to change the words of the debate to change the debate to change things. John

Thanks, masmit!

I have just written a blog on the Birmingham Post website in response to the RBS/NatWest decision and a provocative new definition of 'Free Banking'. Fellow CAG-ers piled in with great comments on a blog on bank charges I did there earlier this year and promoted here. Comments would be great! You don't need to register to comment. You'll find it here: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/busi...please-ho.html Hope you agree with me. By the way, I'm happy still to call them penalty charges - if it walks like a duck .....etc. John Clancy

I have just written a blog on the Birmingham Post website in response to the RBS/Natwest decision and a provocative new definition of 'Free Banking'. Fellow CAG-ers piled in with great comments on a blog on bank charges I did there earlier this year and promoted here. Comments would be great! You don't need to register to comment. You'll find it here: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2009/09/new-bank-charges-yes-please-ho.html Hope you agree with me. By the way, I'm happy still to call them penalty charges - if it walks like a duck .....etc. John Clancy

Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!" Professor David Bailey of the University of Birmingham Business School and I (John Clancy), a longstanding member of CAG, have just posted a joint Blog on Professor Bailey's highly influential and widely read Blog (which often crosses over onto the hard copy of the paper) on the Birmingham Post Website Business Blog called: 'Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!"' It's here. It makes the point that as we as taxpayers have bailed out the banks we are effectively now paying for all sides of the OFT 'test' case: all the lawyers for all 8 banks, the OFT's lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the expenses etc. Just for the banks to pursue a case that they are allowed to be unfair! It argues that the government through UKFI (the body set up to protect the taxpayers' investments in the banks) should order the Banks and their huges teams of lawyers now effectively subsidised by the taxpayer, to drop the appeal against the High Court decision that their charges should actually be subject to the test of fairness. It also argues that the banks should similarly be ordered as a matter of policy now (not legal argument) to return all bank charges which would involve a much needed boost of liquidity into the economy. The money to be used for bankers' bonuses can be used for the great bank charge payout. It would be great to have CAGers here also comment on the Birmingham Post website on this rather hard-hitting campaigning approach with a new angle on the debate. Obviously feel free to reply here too! Professor Bailey is a very well respected commentator and academic, it's great to have him on board. I have also started a separate thread here. Sorry if that's not protocol: if any site moderators would like to either reposition this thread or place it where it will be seen by more viewers that would be great. A good number of comments in response to the blog on the Birmingham Post website would also be a coup for our campaign here, I think and help push the agenda forward. John Clancy

Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!" Professor David Bailey of the University of Birmingham Business School and I (John Clancy), a longstanding member of CAG, have just posted a joint Blog on Professor Bailey's highly influential and widely read Blog (which often crosses over onto the hard copy of the paper) on the Birmingham Post Website Business Blog called: 'Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!"' It's here. It makes the point that as we as taxpayers have bailed out the banks we are effectively now paying for all sides of the OFT 'test' case: all the lawyers for all 8 banks, the OFT's lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the expenses etc. Just for the banks to pursue a case that they are allowed to be unfair! It argues that the government through UKFI (the body set up to protect the taxpayers' investments in the banks) should order the Banks and their huges teams of lawyers now effectively subsidised by the taxpayer, to drop the appeal against the High Court decision that their charges should actually be subject to the test of fairness. It also argues that the banks should similarly be ordered as a matter of policy now (not legal argument) to return all bank charges which would involve a much needed boost of liquidity into the economy. The money to be used for bankers' bonuses can be used for the great bank charge payout. It would be great to have CAGers from here also comment on the Birmingham Post website on this rather hard-hitting campaigning approach with a new angle on the debate and help move it into the mainstream there. Obviously feel free to reply here, too! Professor Bailey is a very well respected commentator and academic, it's great to have him on board. If any site moderators would like to either reposition this thread or place it where it will be seen by more viewers that would be great. A good number of comments in response to the blog on the Birmingham Post website would also be a coup for our campaign here, I think and help push the agenda forward. John Clancy

The judgment and case is clearly (as the bankers association says) about the banks' PRESENT terms and conditions. Do you notice that they call them their 'current' terms. That is deliberately to spook customers into thinking that their 'current account' charges are in the clear. Typical. With respect to stays - if cases are on old terms and conditions (which almost all are) then these outstanding cases have very little to do with the OFT Case and they should be decided on a case-by-case basis until a precedent is set for each set of terms. Which would put us back in the same position as before. Lloyds are in trouble because they have called them penalty charges. I say the OFT/FSA /HMRC arrange for a lift of all stays. If the banks didn't have the guts to put their historical terms and conditions before the court - another court should decide. It's upto the OFT to have their investigation and then report on the fairness or not: that's not a court matter. I say people should apply to the court to lift stays immediately.