Jump to content

jclancy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jclancy

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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

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

     

    JC

  4. I stopped reading here (10. All of the banks who don't happen to have shares owned directly by the taxpayer should be directed to pay up too, because they wouldn't be here without the system itself, within which they fortunately survived, being bailed out. )

     

    This is definitely a liberal site.

     

    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.

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

    • Haha 1
  11. 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

  12. Definitely take your point, Monty2007.

     

    I think the Great Bank Charges Payout, especially if businesses are included could well be in the £billions.

     

    However another point we make in the article is also that the great bank charges payout would be a good piece of economic intervention at the moment and can have a positive economic impact as part of 'quantitative easing' which we are about to be doing across the piece anyway. It would be another good lever to pull in economic/monetary policy. Especially as the chances are that the banks will end up having to pay a goodly amount of this money anyway, should they lose.

     

    We need the money in the economy now, if this goes to the House of Lords/Europe we could be well into a depression, never mind a recession, by the time it gets there.

     

    I think we need to be aware in CAG that this is now a different game. It is now a more political game. Even the Daily Mail is saying this morning that Banks and Bankers are in a state of psychotic denial. We need to press home the current political, not legal, advantage.

     

    It's important that we all get out there on as many non-CAG mainstream forums as possible and make sure that the emerging anti-banker narrative now has the Bank Charges issue attached to it along with the Bonuses.

     

    We might need to let the whole penalty charge issue go temporarily and concentrate on the test of fairness issue as the best and quickest way to influence the outcome on Bank Charges. The line that the Bankers are spending our money to prove that they have a right to be unfair is the key campaigning point here.

     

     

    You may not like John Prescott, but his campaign against the banks and their bonuses needs to have the Bank Charges fairness issue attached to it, so Caggers need to get on his websites (here and here) and tell him, because people who matter, and especially the media, are listening to him.

     

    Caggers ned to get onto their MPs again and ask them why we are wasting public money on backing bankers to go to court to prove that they have a right to be unfair. Get Bonuses linked in the public mind with Bank Charges and we are in a much better campaigning area.

     

    Fairness should be the agenda and the amount which is fair is "pence, not pounds."

×
×
  • Create New...