H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[Bookworm]

I'm not so sure, PM. After all, we don't get charged for a cheque clearing without problems, yet see what happens if it bounces.

 

Likewise, it could be argued that a payment that is let through then generates additional borrowing, and therefore costs the bank more (Yes, I know that it isn't the case, I am just going for devil's advocate here) and that they do at that point in fact provide a "service", for which there could be a reasonable charge made, whilst bouncing a DD provides no service at all. That is why I made the distinction between boucing, for which I don't think there should be a charge, and letting through.

 

What it boils down to is my old warhorse, which I have been trying to explain on MSE with no great success: zero tolerance on overdrafts. If you have it, it goes through (at no additional cost, as now) if you don't, it doesn't, at no cost. You don't have the money? Not the bank's problem, it never was.

 

Yes, there'd be kinks to be ironed, such as delayed payments (from abroad for instance) etc, but I don't believe that in this day and age of electronic communications, it would be such an issue. After all, up to last year, the banks insisted that it took 3 days for electronic payments to reach their destinations until they were made to introduce APACs and faster payment and now, the money is transferred instantly. If it can be done from bank to bank, I would imagine it can be done through the whole financial infrastructure.

[Bookworm]

Are you sure, Thai? :-? On a normal current account, Barclays got rid of that too when they brought in the accursed Reserve, now it's, wait for it, a glorious £1!!!

[Bookworm]

Aptly put!

I hear this zero tolerance stuff all the time 'Bookworm'. Let's face it if/when I win the lottery I can have the priviledge of making that comment.

Ah, but there's the thing: It's not when you win the lottery that you make that comment, it's now. This illusion of "extended credit" is nothing but the means to keep you in debt for longer.

 

I have 2 catalogues. Their mark-up is about 30% higher than the high street. But for years, they were the only way I could buy on credit, and they offer "interest-free" terms (ah!) and pay you commission so that it sometimes works out roughly slightly higher than the high street but with extended terms. I have been slowly paying my balances off, bearing in mind that at some point, I was paying them £300 a month. And I stopped ordering because one day, I realised that the longer I took advantage of their terms, the longer I'd be in hock to them. And here's the thing: When I pay them off altogether (only a few months now!), the money I will not be paying them every month will be enough to get goods in cash on the high street and take advantage of the bargains, sales and so on.

 

It took me a long, long time, but the penny dropped: debt begets debt. As long as the bank allow you to go over your limit, it's too easy to do that. If you hit a "bugger off" if you try to pay for shopping or get cash when you don't have it, sure you'd swear and be unhappy, but you'd soon learn not to try if you know it's not going to get through.

 

The banks have been fleecing us with our complicity. They bred in us this need for credit and then when we couldn't live without they put the squeeze in. If they were to put in place this 0 tolerance of which I speak, we'd soon revert to stop borrowing over our limits, which in turn breeds charges which put us even higher the limit, which breeds higher charges...

 

It can be done, I am certain of that and at a minimal cost (in terms of infrastructure) to the banks. what it would cost them is billions in lost revenue for squeezing those particular lemons. THAT's why they won't do it, and no other reason.

[Bookworm]

Shhhh, YB, no-one is supposed to know he is piggybacking off the neighbours' connection.

[Bookworm]

Spot on, my DrWHo-challenged friend.

 

We keep on hearing about the difference between such and such, but the reality is that it is all a simple software manip. Anyone has ever used an auto-reply "out of office" on their e-mail? It's that simple, one event triggers the auto-response, the only difference at the moment is in the parameters the bank chooses to set.

 

There are TWO cases where I can see a valid reason to charge more: a cheque, which still has to be manually processed. But cheques will be obsolete soon anyway. Besides, whether the cheque is processed and passed or processed and bounced, I am not sure that the difference in action makes such a big difference to the cost, so not sure that the argument holds water, tbh.

2nd case: ATM abroad, where there's a delay before the request gets processed here. However, in this day of APACS and faster payment, I am not sure how long that theory will continue to work either.

[Bookworm]

OFT v Foxton's

 

New thread here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/209256-oft-foxton-discussion-here.html#post2288008

[Bookworm]

OFF TOPIC!!!!!!

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

[Bookworm]

ME not a mod, nor have I been for nearly a year, so not up to me. ;-)

[Bookworm]

I could well be wrong, here, (ok, ok, it's happened once before!) but I don't believe any such permission has been sought, or indeed denied, by site admin.

Not permission from this side, Car. What YB is making out is that getting the info was such hard work that "they" won't allow for it to be published here, (which is fair enough), and of course, he knows very well why links are not allowed... Still, with a bit of luck, the baiting might help tease a few people to go and check it out elsewhere, thus creating at least some traffic...

[Bookworm]

Well done.

[Bookworm]

Yeah right, I'll believe that one when I see it.

[Bookworm]

RBS and Natwest have just reduced their charges to £5...

 

Yay, I was first! Remember that!

 

Sorry hun, you weren't:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/218674-rbs-natwest-reduce-charges.html

 

Beaten by a few mns by AFD.

[Bookworm]

Now Chris, you don't think that the banks would let something like a solemn undertaking get in the way, do you?

 

Remember, they also said that they would cooperate fully in the test case to bring as early a resolution as possible in everybody's interests! 2 years + onwards, doesn't that make you chuckle (bitterly)?

[Bookworm]

Pah, do you expect the next one will be any better? If anything, they will protect their mates even more, we've got fewer chances of seeing our money back under the Eton gang than under the current lot.

 

*bookie nudges IS for some space on the cynics top level soapbox*

 

 

Edit: Just read the article and MSE Martin is living in cloud cuckooland if he thinks that will ever happen. Experience has already shown us that the banks will stop at nothing to try and stop us from getting our money back.

[Bookworm]

Never mind him, if only we'd managed to get one of our cases in front of Judge McKay 2 years ago, we would have a precedent in our favour by now, which is what I am convinced prompted the test case in the 1st place, as it was only a matter of time before one of the cases slipped past the banks and actually went to court instead of the banks settling at whatever cost rather than explain themselves to Mr McKay. *sigh*

[Bookworm]

Don't the people at Robertson-Holbrook know how to use a spell-check? *wince*

[Bookworm]

[Bookworm]

Pah, he's behind us, Car, someone on the Halifax forum did the maths on that 2 days ago, lol.

 

Here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2507055.html

Edited October 17, 2009 by Bookworm
added link

[Bookworm]

*Bookie falls on her backside after the soapbox on which she and IS were standing collapses*

[Bookworm]

It makes me laugh (hollowly), the "we have to as it's part of their terms of employment" we have been hearing... My sister-in-law's company is cutting their wages by 10% and they have no choice in the matter (as well as massive redundancies, so they all know what would happen if they refused to take the pay cut), my brother's job has had all overtime cut when it was part of his terms. Times change, and sometimes one has to adapt. I don't see why they can't be told "sorry old chap, that was when we were privately owned and making money, times have changed".

[Bookworm]

Oh indeed, and look at our MPs, all "I'm sorry I got caught, I won't do it again, honest guv" a few months ago now howling with indignation at the mention they might have to repay some of it... My dear, the SHAME of it! (that they are being asked to repay it, not that they scammed it in the first place, of course... )

[Bookworm]

Awww, bless you Termi, you just gave me a laugh.

 

Did you actually use "banks" and "morally right" in the same sentence? With a straight face?

[Bookworm]

Only if you had filed your case at court, PF, otherwise s69 doesn't apply.

[Bookworm]

But Mac, you are thinking in terms of REASONABLE! When has that ever applied to them? Before the test case, we told them in our thousands that it would be cheaper for them to pay up staright away, and they still made us drag them through the court system, in many cases settling at the door (and in one of mine, actually going through the doors!). When the test case started, they spent more in stay applications and lawyers fees that a lot of the cases were worth. (Barclays sent a barrister for mine and my case was only for £120!) They have now spent no doubt hundreds of thousands on this test case which would have quietly settled an awful lot of cases. So where is the logic, where is the reasonable? You're looking the wrong way, buddy.

 

I don't know, I really don't. I suspect that the game plan is "resist to the bitter end" and not much more. I suspect that they think that if they cave, it will open the floodgates when word spreads that it's easy to reclaim whereas just their show of resistance will have put off a lot of people (which we know it has). And of course for people who are waiting for the end of the test case to get started, the 6 years clock is still ticking, although if we win, that should be very arguable under s32...

 

I think that maybe we are giving them too much credit (pun intended ): It may simply be that these starched, rigid pompous institutions are unable to adapt, still think they rule us and haven't woken up to the fact that people will take an awful lot before rising, but once they're up, it's virtually impossible to settle them back down.

 

I have no real answer. But I HAVE to hope that the justice system will not fail us.

[Bookworm]

And for those of us who included Contractual interest? Would we be allowed to pursue the case via the courts or will it be a "one size fits all" ruling that would define how interest will be calculated?

Your guess is as good as mine.