Banks win in High court (overdraft charges etc)

[Uncle Spielberg]

A lot of virtous pompous people on here. If people have got into trouble they are not necessarily bad or lazy.

 

[ROSM]

For the record I got lots of enquiries but have done NO applications from NSC. Therefore I have earned NOTHING. It is a facility I offer clients if they want to pursue it. I do not make a judgement or take any high moral ground. It is the clients choice. However if you had walked in my shoes in the last 2 years you would find you have very little sympathy for the banks and the high street lenders.

Oh please US. There are good banks and bad banks; good bankers and bad bankers; good ifa's and bad ifa's. But for this self serving comment of yours to have any merit we should try and get through the generalisations. Whether you have any sympathy is entirely irrelevant as to whether this legal cse of the next one is valid. At a very early stage in this process it was agreed these were fees not penalties and now it has been agreed they were in contracts and published. Nobody forces people to spend money they don't have to incur these fees or use the credit cards- except those selling something eh US?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I have never sold a credit card or loan in my life so your barking up the wrong tree there. My income is a third this year of what it was in 2007 and before if that makes you happy.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

For the record the company I use have no upfront fee for disputing a credit card or loan before 4/07 and over £ 3000. IF the contract is found to be unenforceable I will get £ 50per case if thats ok with you ROSM. If/when the debt is written off I am suppose to get something from the company on top but that is not guaranteed.

I am biding my time to see the results of the trial cases next week but if they are successful I will be pushing this hard.

My survival is more important than a bank having to write off debts if their paperwprk is found to be uncompliant or was shoddy.

 

[drew]

A lot of virtous pompous people on here. If people have got into trouble they are not necessarily bad or lazy.

Your comment implies that the majority are not bad or lazy. On what do you base that?

As for your comment about your salary being a third of what it was in 2007, the relevant question is what was it in 2007! If you were on £30k then you are hard up but if you were £180k then I don't see your problem.

 

[ROSM]

For the record the company I use have no upfront fee for disputing a credit card or loan before 4/07 and over £ 3000. IF the contract is found to be unenforceable I will get £ 50per case if thats ok with you ROSM. If/when the debt is written off I am suppose to get something from the company on top but that is not guaranteed.

I am biding my time to see the results of the trial cases next week but if they are successful I will be pushing this hard.

My survival is more important than a bank having to write off debts if their paperwprk is found to be uncompliant or was shoddy.

So now we're getting somewhere. I have admiration for anyone who goes into business on their own. I don't know if I'd have the balls to do it. But it is a risk/reward basis. At times it must have been an attractive proposition for you to do it? So now times are hard it is a sad thing for those who suffer. However that doesn't really cover off why those in debt should believe that 'technicalities' are the solution. Especially as has been proved today, many of these are based on flawed judgement. Martin lewis et al should be ashamed for pushing these ideas when they are nothing better than snake oil salesmen in the wild west. Building up false hopes.

 

[GT49er]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm



I for one am pleased. Had the banks lost they would have gained the revenue by charging in otherways which would affect everyone not just those who utilise overdraft facilities etc

Agree. I don't pay bank charges, so I don't want to have to start paying a monthly / annual fee just to subsidise people who regularly overdraw.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Your comment implies that the majority are not bad or lazy. On what do you base that?

As for your comment about your salary being a third of what it was in 2007, the relevant question is what was it in 2007! If you were on £30k then you are hard up but if you were £180k then I don't see your problem.

£ 180 k . In any case are you seriously saying someone who has a 2/3 drop in income is ok

 

[Deleted User X18H]

So now we're getting somewhere. I have admiration for anyone who goes into business on their own. I don't know if I'd have the balls to do it. But it is a risk/reward basis. At times it must have been an attractive proposition for you to do it? So now times are hard it is a sad thing for those who suffer. However that doesn't really cover off why those in debt should believe that 'technicalities' are the solution. Especially as has been proved today, many of these are based on flawed judgement. Martin lewis et al should be ashamed for pushing these ideas when they are nothing better than snake oil salesmen in the wild west. Building up false hopes.

But the suggestion that these charges were flawed originally came via the OFT. I also remember that initially many banks agreed to halve their charges in light in of the OFT findings and then refunded the difference to customers. It was only when they realized the enormity of this they sought further clarification. Has anyone not seen the connection between banks no longer charging excessive fees in and penalties in 2007 and the crisis in 2008?

 

[BensGrandad]

A financial expert/reporter on The One Show when asked if this was then end of the battle replied this particular case is now over but the battle will go on for years as the OFT will try to bring the banks to order under different legislation.

 

[Beach Hut]

US in bleat again as self-employed, nothing new here then.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

US in bleat again as self-employed, nothing new here then.

Thanks for that

 

[beorhthelm]

A financial expert/reporter on The One Show when asked if this was then end of the battle replied this particular case is now over but the battle will go on for years as the OFT will try to bring the banks to order under different legislation.

maybe, but its likely a change of government will change their focus. as said before, it would probably be more productive to work on getting fees reduced and procedures more fair for the future than fighting over back payments.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Specialist subprime mortgage lender A arranges £50m of subprime mortgages, with an expected return of £70m (taking into account the high interest payments but also the estimated number of defaults). A then sells these on to bank B for £55m.
B takes £27.5m of this asset (expected return £35m) and combines it with £25m of normal mortgages (expected return £30m), and sells to bank C for £55m.
C takes £27.5m of this asset (expected return £32.5m) and combines it with £25m of government bonds (expected return £28m), and sells to bank D for £59m.

Now we have three banks holding at least part of this package of £50m of subprime mortgages. Defaults go up, and instead of the package having an expected value of £70m it turns out it is only worth £40m. All three banks have assets that are not worth as much as they thought they were.

Now bank A may have been American, B British and C American. There was no deliberate offloading from the US to the UK, or vice versa, more a continual flow across continents. Also, the problem was not selling the volatile debt in the first place, more to do with the value at which it was sold.

The final problem was that, as soon as the banks realised that these assets were worth less than they originally thought, instead of telling everyone they kept quiet, in the hope that they could continue to trade assets to make up for the shortfall. Therefore everyone kept going and making the system worse, until Lehmann Brothers collapsed. Only at that point did everyone realise that the current model was completely unsustainable, and at that point everyone knew that everyone else had been doing it, so there was no trust between branches of the same bank, let alone different banks.

I'm sure people on here can give much more technical descriptions - I am not a banker. But that is my understanding of the major problem that caused the crisis.

I think this just goes to show you what a bag of wank the finance world is: estimates based on estimates based on estimates. No wonder the banking world got caught out. I'd like to see the science, if there is any, behind these predictions.

 

[Beach Hut]

Thanks for that

Emphatically my pleasure matey as your incessant whinging at being self employed (eventhough through choice) and how bad off you are and despise those in a salaried job is an awesome show of self pity.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'd like to see the science, if there is any, behind these predictions.

there were/are very few models, those which were around had been made up with little to no verification. the banks where paying big money to Maths and Physics grads as Quantitative Analysts as those with Economics backgrounds couldnt handle the maths involved. meanwhile the regulators didnt have a clue what was going on, and if they did they didnt have the tools to understanding it fully, i heard the US regulator was modelling the entire US economy on a single Dell desktop.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Emphatically my pleasure matey as your incessant whinging at being self employed (eventhough through choice) and how bad off you are and despise those in a salaried job is an awesome show of self pity.

With respect you haven't got a clue have you. Enjoy your comfy life. Nothing like empathy and you have nothing like empathy.

 

[dougdeep]

This is a very bad day and you can expect these fees to now be aboused, ie £ 150 for a bounced dd, why not £ 500 ?. The banks now have carte blanche to do what they want.

Do you think you might be exagerating just a smidgeon? And what does aboused mean?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Abused obviously. The point is the banks are now answerable to no one.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Banks are just a conduit for peoples income & expenditure. It's up to customers to manage their accounts-if they expect the bank to do it then they pay the published tariff. After all you wouldn't go in to M & S for a shirt & socks, pay for the socks and think about paying for the shirt sometime when you feel like it. If you take money that isn't yours i.e.exceed o/d facility, you should expect to pay for the bank to decide how you pay it back. Good, careful customers are rewarded with no charges. Bad, lazy customers pay the price. Suits me.

But the banks have set things up to encourage unauthorised lending. At my bank debits are always processed before credits and often credits take days to turn up whereas debits are usually processed within 24 hours. I once transfered money between accounts online to cover payments coming out only to find I had been charged a fee as the money took more than 48 hours to credit in the account, ridiculous when you consider that both accounts were with the same bank!

I would prefer it if the banks didn't allow the transactions to go through, didn't allow you to take money out when you don't have the funds. After all M&S wouldn't actually allow you to take the shirt out of the store without paying for it, would they?