Bank charges: The banks have won!

"Bank charges: The banks have won!"

Oh? And what of the vast majority of bank customers who can run their accounts without, e.g., accidentally going (unauthorised) overdrawn every month?

I accept that of the minority of those that do incur these charges do so because of circumstances beyond their control, and that perhaps, something needs to be done for people in this situation, but most of those that do incur these charges do so because they can't (or more likely won't) manage their accounts properly.

I'm fully aware that people think this form of cross-subsidy is unfair, but so is the people who can run their accounts subsidising the credit risk of those who can't.

To take an analogy, credit cards now apply risk individually, giving the riskier customers higher APRs, while the less risky get lower APRs, and those who can manage their credit cards pay no interest whatsoever.

Are we to assume that those wanting people who can manage their current accounts to subsidise those that can't, also want credit cards to go back to the bad old days where the credit cards had the same APR for everyone who actually managed to acquire one (i.e. the most risky who could get a card today would then get a point blank refusal, even if they could manage the debt itself?)

At least this time the verbal minority haven't trampled over the silent majority.

I await with interest the results of trying to abuse the next loophole (Regulation 5.)

An issue that affects nearly the whole population in one way or another should, quite rightly, be prominent news. What most commentators seem to be missing however is the matter of proportionality. In morality terms, there could well be a case for attacking those wealthy enought not to incur bank charges against those for example on benefit. However what incurs my wrath is the size of the fee and by definition the proportionality. I don't think anyone thinks that banks don't have a right to charge for costs incurred. What enrages people like me is the size of the charge. Just last week I was hit by my bank the Abbey for 40 quid, because I had missed (and rectified without their prompting) a cheque going through making me over my limit of precisely 10.05 for 3 days. If all this brings a new bank that shows respect to its customers with demonstrable ethics instead of the disdain and sharkish antics of the current crop of sorry bankers then I say - bring it on!

I would have thought that the Motley Fool would be cheering a victory for those who manage their money properly and who won't now be charged to support those who can't be bothered to do their sums and consequently run into authorised overdrafts.

The idea that those who incur charges are subsidised by those who don't is a position that only muddle minded people could possibly adher to.

Banks make money all the time and still are doing, and it is always at the expense of all their customers. They are a very profitable business. Their recent screw up that almost brought the banking industry to its knees was subsidised too... and is still being subsidised by millions of tax payers, rich and poor. It was a cash flow problem caused by greed and one that many banks are currently reversing at a rate the rest of us can only gawp at. I forget which bank it was, but one of them paid back over 30 billion in a matter of weeks.

The idea that anyone who incurs charges is subsidised by those who don't is not rational but more a matter of self righteous twoddle. It may make you feel smart, but it shows that you are not.

Western countries, and that means you, have an affluent, relatively wasteful way of life, which has been subsidised for hundreds of years by third world countries whose commodities we have pilfered shamelessly. We have all been and still are sunsidised. No one who lives here can point the finger at anyone else about who is subsidising who, when the poverty and the corruption that inevitable accompanies it, caused by our callous indifference and blatant acquisitiveness, is inflicted on many countries by World Bank and International Monetery Fund policy dreamt up by our banking leaders. Should we complain that we are subsidising these countries and they should go to hell in a handcart?

The whole thing is unsustainable and unfit for purpose and banking has to change its tune. Clawing back extortionate banking charges is the tip of the iceberg. From every direction the banking community is getting a wake up call which shouts loudly that it cannot coninue in its present unequitable direction.

As ruthless as I may sound, I welcome this decision too.  If people can't manage their finances properly, they should not have any complaints if they are charged a fee.  As to whether the charges are fair, surely the higher the charge the higher the deterrent?  If I accidently forget to ensure that I have enough funds in my account to pay for something and get charged £30, I sure as hell won't do it again.

My view reflects that of a number of commentators. Bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts are absolutely fine (& the system would be unfair without them) but need to be proportionate.  A 'one off'  £15 overdraft over a few days, should never result in a charge. A serial offender but again on a small level, should clearly renegotiate their overdraft limit & pay a small fee for doing so....etc. I am making this up as I type. It is not rocket science. The banking industry should simply use their collective nouse.

If the banks wish to gain some public engagement  over their unpopular practices they might at least publish some stats. which evidence the effect of these charges. Is there any empirical evidence to support the case that they actually discourage the careless &/or the spendthrift?   

HstG.

The Democrat - you are correct, if I have broken the law, I will have no qualms in accepting whatever penalties come my way.  But they will have to catch me first!  Perhaps then I will stop speeding.

I'm really lazy with my money.  I get reasonably paid, and my demands on life are small, so it tends to build up in my bank account, and currently stands at more than £10K.  Eventually, I'll do something with it, but intereest rates are so pathetic currently that it doesn't make all that difference.

The result of this is that I, also, am subsidising the bank.  They don't pay me any interest on it, though I'm sure they are making money on it.  All of those who run responsible accounts, without ever over-drawing them are in the same position.  The amounts are less, but added together over millions of accounts, the bank is holding a very large sum in credit, so please don't spin me the line that the bank is being buoyed up by overdraft fees, which are paying for responsible account holders.  I should think they are paying for themselves quite handsomely.

Many years ago, I had a splurge on my account and moved all but a small residual into an interest-paying savings account - then a cheque came in and ran my account into a very small overdraft for a day or two - and of course, the bank slapped a charge in it.  I remonstrated with them, and they took the charge off, but there's a matter of principle here - if I hadn't threatened to move a historically good account to another bank, they would have demanded a charge of £30 for an overdraft of less than £10 for a couple of days.  That's equivalent to an interest rate of 300% over two days, or 54,750% per annum.  Now I know some loan sharks rip people off, but 54,750%?  And this is a bank!

Now maybe I'm being naive, and maybe the bank incurs special costs in the handling of an unexpected overfraft of a few quid, but I don't suppose it mobilised any staff.  More likely, the computer program has a line like

if (capital < £0)  bankcharge = £30; send letter;

... and the letter goes out without anybody knowing anything about it.

Perhaps I'm super-naive, but I can't see much difference between an overdraft and a loan, and there are plenty of loan companies out there who will offer interest rates nowhere close to what banks charge on overdrafts.  I would personally favpour a system where the bank gave interest on positive balances, and charged the same interest on negative balances - although I suppose that would invite a lot of people to carry large overdrafts, and the country's debt situation would be worse than it is.

"so please don't spin me the line that the bank is being buoyed up by

overdraft fees, which are paying for responsible account holders."

£2.6 billion per annum is a lot of revenue from penalty charges alone. No one said it was buoying them up, but they themselves say without it they will have to charge for services (like what they do in other countries).

Jingle Bell hould be doing 20mph outside a school,during school hours,  as they do in the US- or be fined tons.

As for the 'going overdrawn' catch, to all those caught oout, can I recommend an account that provides a 'free' short overdraft? Of course it is not free as you pay a service charge, but it would avoid the penalties and comes with other inducements. Co-op have one , probablly others too.

Otherwise , you have to keep a large balance, or check daily that you are within your balance, easy now it is all on line.

I object to the three day BACS transfer, someone has my dosh in those three days , but does not give me interest on it, that is robbery.

Have no doubt that this a huge racket. The banks want it both ways. They bleat on about the cost of unauthorised transactions yet rub their hands in glees at the thought of slapping on charges to accounts that go overdrawn. There is a case for them to apply charges for unauthorised borrowing but there is a principle here; These charges should be fair i.e: at cost and not an excuse for profiteering.

If they have such a problem with this then there is a very simple solution; if you do not have enough funds in your bank account to fund a transaction it should be declined. If the banks decide to fund a transaction and place you in a position where you incur charges for what is an unauthrosied bowwowing, that is their decision.

I do not have an overdraught by choice and from time to time I get caught if I have forgotten a payment, direct debit etc has gone out of my account etc. The transaction is declined, I go home throw some money in my account and return to purchase whatever it is I wanted. A pain in the arse yes, but I do not get slapped with any ridiculous charges.  

Banks are gangster and theives not only from our pockets, but also the public purse.

Bank charges are a disincentive from going overdrawn, and when we have just spent half an hour writing a response to one of these blogs, the message "Oh dear, something's gone wrong", and the total loss of the response, is a disincentive from writing responses - even though it didn't cost any money at all.

Dame wrote: "If they have such a problem with this then there is a very simple solution; if you do not have enough funds in your bank account to fund a transaction it should be declined. If the banks decide to fund a transaction and place you in a position where you incur charges for what is an unauthrosied bowwowing, that is their decision."

This is exactly what should happen, but sadly its not what actually happens.

I've been reading a lot of comments on many different sites about this issue, and its one that I'm mroe than familiar with as I've been in the battle for reclaiming charges for three years.

The most common gripe I hear from those who don't like the idea of people baing able to reclaim their charges is that those charges are fair because you're going into an unauthorised overdraft. If only it were that simple!

I've NEVER went into an unauthorised overdraft. I opened my account with the Clydesdale under the understanding that going into an overdraft would be impossible for me, and indeed it is. I CANNOT borrow what I do not have, and this is the case for millions of us. If I go to a shop and try to buy something with my debit card and I have insufficient funds, I can't buy it, and that's fair.

But, direct debits seem to be another story altogether. What happens is that if I have 99p in my account, and a direct debit arrives for a pound, then the bank refuse to honour the transaction, it bounces, the transaction is DECLINED. No loss on my part, no loss on other bank customer's part, and no loss to the bank. The loss comes when the bank decides it has the right to levy a charge/fee of £35 on my account for that declined transaction. They're actually charging me for a service they're not providing! I lose. I lose to the sum of £34.01.

I wouldn't mind so much if the fee or charge were proportionate, but £35 for not providing a service and then sending out a letter telling me that they didn't provide a service, that's criminal!

I dont think we can assume the banks have won on this one just yet. I have faith in our justice system, even the civil one at times :].

I would like to add a thought though. If the DWP had kept to the old system of benefit payments which was via giro or benefit book that was cashed on a certain day at a post office, there would not be as many people in finanial difficulty having to try and balance a bank account.

I found it hard to adjust at first to direct payments instead of benefit book payments because the frequency of payment was changed from weekly to fortnightly. The major benefit of the old payment method was simply you could not get overdrawn! If you can't get overdrawn then you can't incur unauthorised overdraft charges!

If the goverment truly do want to help the countries poorest people they should consider bringing back the old payment method or at least refrain from insisting on direct payments IMHO. It may seem like a nanny state thing to do but i dont remember bank charges and overdraft charges being such a big issue a few years ago...

@Herman.

maybe because the banks have not of late been the best case study for living within their means... you do remember that massive state and taxpayer subsidy to a global banking system that showed itself to be too greedy and living outside its means, right? You understand that the banks were living outside their means by extending leverage ratios vastly beyond their own capital holdings, right? They're hardly the most prudent of institutions.

Whats all the fuss about?

Bank charges for UK customers - extreme!

You want to bank on the continent and then you'll be shown what real bank charges are. I have a Credit Agricole account. Everytime I sneeze at them they charge me. I am always in credit - charging for deposits, withdrawals, setting up new accounts, changing currencies - you name and they charge you.

However the sting in the tail is - you only get one warning if you go overdrawn and cannot pay a standing order or your cheque bounces. After that you loose your account and black listed by other banks in the country (France).

That keeps you on in the black.

TB

I have a message for all those self-righteous and unkind people who think that everyone who exceeds their overdraft limit is a spending-frenzied idiot.

I hope that you never experience working for a business that struggles financially and then goes bust without paying you (especially if there are no jobs to go to).  I hope you never get suddenly struck by a terrible illness or accident.  I hope you buy ethical insurances that will always pay out on the cover you think you have purchased.  I hope there is no sudden death of the major wage earner leaving you with young children.  I hope that your bank and all the companies with whom you deal never make a mistake, leaving you to pick up the pieces.  All of these have applied to either myself or close friends and family.

My point is this: although some people may exploit the system, many do not.   Please do not assume that all these people are spongers.  Things may have occurred beyond their control.  And not everyone can afford to live in the sort of area where high wages are the norm so they can't even hope to aspire to the plasma-screen tvs etc that are mentioned on this page.  Many can't afford a home.

This is exactly what is wrong in our society; the Haves frequently preach their self-righteous twaddle to the Have Nots - the I'm All Right Jack attitude prevails.  This really needs sorting.

We need to have a fair system of taxation (where the rich must pay their share like the rest of us).  Major corporations must learn to think less about what's best for their shareholders and more about what's best for society as a whole.  Education must include Finance so that children learn how to manage these things (especially if their parents struggle). Small print should be abolished so that financial agreements are easy to understand. Government should act more like public servants and less like international celebrities.

At the end of all our bickering, I really feel for the teeangers and 20-somethings of today.  Their parents', and often grandparents', generation really have had-it-all.  Now their offspring must pay the price. 

For all you people moaning about your banks and wishing for one that valued its customers properly, there IS such a bank- the Co-operative Bank. The one (or two?) times we got hit with overdraft fees we phoned up and the person at the call centre had the authority, sense and goodwill to cancel the charges and suggest ways to avoid them in future. I am not saying that they don't make mistakes but when they do they give YOU £15. I am about £60 up on them. For savings and morgages they don't have the best rates but for current accounts they are fantastic. They also have an ethical banking policy for anyone who cares about such things.

Santa firstly I am definitely female.  Secondly I approached the banks and they offered me a loan with payment protection which is all profit profit profit for them and in the end I was still struggling.  I would have been able to ope financially if I hadnt been charged nearly £300 over about 5 days in charges between two companies.  Generally banks are only interested in "helping" when they can make money off you not when you are in the red.  I was working a job that paid weekly and fluctuated as it was a basic rate plus commission I moved to a job which was higher paid as standard and less on the commission side and still struggled as the charges I received then impacted on the next months budget and sadly I incurred more charges.  I was advised by a former client of mine who works/ed for the money program that I should claim back my bank charges as I was in financial difficulty - I never wrote any letters to banks etc as through all the previous dealings with them I knew I would get given the runaround and it wasnt worth the hassle - in saying that if the charges are all unfair and should be refunded I would be owed a nice tidy sum which I could use to pay off my IVA - the IVA that I had to arrange due to being messes around by banks and having extortionate charges added on and also partly due to not living within my means - I never said I was perfect.

My point though is that yes I HAVE been affected by these charges but I do also agree they should be in place HOWEVER they should be reasonable charges.  The cost of a piece of paper, the amount of printing ink used, an envelope, a stamp and maybe a small fee a reasonable one added on top like a handling fee.

If you want to refer back to the driving example given earlier and how you would receive a fine and lose points on your license and this is a deterrant for speeding - I am sure anyone would agree that yes losing points on your license for not driving as per the law is fair as you know what the speed limits are and you know you are breaking the law.  If your money has not been paid in on time and you are not aware of this in advance surely you should rely on the banks to decline any transactions rather than find they were sat there in their chair rubbing their hands at the thought of an extra £30 in their bonus come the end of the year as you didnt feel you needed to check your account as banks are trustworthy and wouldnt do all they could to make a profit out of you!

The problem is with the banks and the ways in which they operate.

In most cases the bank does not pay money out of the account if it is not there to be paid out so it does not actually cost them in that sense.

When a payment is declined from someones account everything is then computer generated from that point such as the letter to inform the account holder that a payment has been declined and that they have a fee of £30 plus now owing.

When the banks do allow monies to be drawn from the account with no funds then the decision is entirely the banks and not the customers which is wrong.

As for banks stating and allowing people to believe that by enforcing these type of charges they are making it possible for customers to have free banking is total poppycock.

What about looking at it from another point of view, for example: the customers place their money into the bank and the majority recieve miniscule or no interest at all but the banks use these funds to make themselves ever more and more profits. Surely this is why there should be free banking?

No bank on the planet could possibly repay all of their customers their money back if they all demanded it at once, fact. Banks have always, yes always used money that does not exist. With that non existent money they make profits also, fact.

So for those that are happy to penalise people that have very little currency for basic needs and requirements, how does that work in your minds?

Are you really happy believing that you get free banking simply because people with very little funds can be overcharged by banks because the are unfortunate enough to be at the bottom of the ladder and try to make what little they have go as far as possible but know it is a impossible calculation?

The whole system is rotten to the core and just because those of you like to tow the bank party line because you are better positioned financially than the majority and are able to make ends meet, then shame on you.

As for claims that these people, not whingers and moaners like some refer to them but people cant manage their money, which is totally incorrect, the truth of the matter is they dont have enough to be able to manage it. It is simple math. If your basic outgoings are £100 per month  and you only have £80 income then which Einstien out there can get that equation to add up?

The problem is when it comes to stone throwing, most people are to willing to do so without checking out the facts and evidence and looking to themselves.

Whenever I feel the need to comment on a subject I attempt to look at it from all angles and do my research firstly.

In the case of banking I have done plenty without going into too much detail.

I would suggest to others that you check out the history of banking and how the truly operate, it may just open your eyes to the truth?

At last some good news from the banking sector! The result of this judgement going the other way would have been a banking system that delegated bad behaviour enforcement to the police as they do in the USA or the very extreme blacklisting system described by 'laplennerie'. There is much whigeing here by people who, despite their protestations, can't manage their finances, however, all of them seem to miss the point that these charges are not for overdrafts but for UNAUTHORISED overdrafts, i.e. taking money that simply isn't theirs to take. That's theft in my book and if you steal then a charge of a few (up to a lot) quid is better than a criminal record I think. For those who complain that they have enough io other accouns to cover the money that they 'borrowed' I have an answer, move your account, there are plenty of accounts that allow funds to be pooled in this way, not doing so is simply another indication that you can't organise your finances.

ljtherock,are you being deliberately perverse? This is not an arguement about morality but about charges for taking what does not belong to you. If i plan to be charitable I'll be charitable but I do not expect to be forced into charity by someone else who willfully fails to look after their finances. Your final paragraph is simply the politics of jealousy.

The correct way to deal with those who have more than you is to find a way to get into a similar position and not to whinge and force everyone to descend to the same level. The former is how capitalism improves, the latter is how communism caused famine.

Here's some solutions.  NO-ONE - banks or anyone you have a direct debit or standing order with should ever be allowed to take a fraction of a penny more than you have agreed to and any charges should be on the date you expect, not days earlier ie before we poor working Joes actually get paid. 

I frequently find that if I issue a cheque, it's been debited from my account days before the date I wrote on the thing - isnt that illegal?

Or if this happens ie the ordinary Joe could not have expected an increase of an amount or an earlier date - charges are returned promptly.  Or a service like RBS - a text if your bank account looms towards a (say less than £5 mark).

Ah but banks wont like any of these things because they just LURVE it when they can whack an automatic charge on you - no matter what the circumstances because its free money for them. Free because it doesnt cost them a bean, a second thought - guilt-free unethical practices.  Gone are the days when the bank manager you deal with regularly (who?) knows you usually have your account running properly so what they're looking at is obviously not expected/a mistake - so they forestall whacking the charge on you.  Like when a credit card company CALLS you when a £1000 bill in Las Vegas appears on your account when you live on a farm in Auchtermuchty!  If they can do it.....

I loathe banks with such a passion right now.

I think the article very much oversimplifies the ruling. It was on a very narrow technical point only and is not the end of the matter or the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning! [with apologies to W S Churchill] 

The best news is that the automatic stay has been lifted on pursuing existing claims through the courts. Hundreds of thousands of claims already filed will now be able to be pursued and the -ankers will continue to have to pay out under Clause 5(1) of the UTCCR 1999, rather than going to court to defend the undefendable and economically unviable small cases to defend, all over the country. The OFT/FSA/FOS were never going to reduce the charges to zero and were/are in bed with the bankers. We can now get statutory interest added! Where else can you get 8% on your money on the two year delay? 

Class Action cases, as suggested by some? No way; the only people to get money out of that are the lawyers.

@laalaa41: sounds like you're writing post-dated cheques - your bank will at least frown on this practice and worst-case you may be infringing on the conditions of your account by doing this.

Cheques should have today's date if you write it today.  Banks don't ordinarily take note of the payment date, except to check that it isn't more than six months ago.

If people don't want high charges why not just get an authorised overdraft?  Whils I never spend more than I get each month - because I have 4 differnt sources of income coming in a different times each month I do sometimes overdraw.  It costs me between £1 and £3 per month for this with Nationwide which I'm quite happy to pay for the convenience.  If you haven't made some kind of provision don't blame the banks.  To me this is just anotehr example of people not facing up to their own responsibities very typical today - I'll bet most of the claimants are in the 20 - 40 age range

Im sorry to say this but im glad the banks have won.

EVERYBODY HAS TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR WHICH THEY FAIL TO READ FOR SOME REASON

SIMPLE IF YOU DONT HAVE THE MONEY THEN DONT SPEND IT

riab1879 - if they dont offer you an authorised overdraft, theirs a reason BUT WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALISE IS THAT THEY ARE PROTECTING YOU FROM GETTING INTO DEBT (OR FURTHER)

Petitemisschief - i agree with your statment but would say that the age range is 18 - 30, basically because we have been brought up in a loaning / credit enviroment.

I myself dont have any debts, i have a 0% on purchases credit card for a 12 month period, but as i have my head screwed on i do a little trick which im sure other people like myself have realised.

Would be good to hear from feedback on this article

In addition to an unauthorised overdraft fee, my bank (LLoyds TSB) charge an additional fee for each item they refuse to pay because there are insufficient funds in the account (due to an unauthorised overdraft). They claim that this fee is for a service to me - to wit, that they have considered and made a decision on each item. However, their decision appears to take no account of : previously unblemished credit record, monthly salary infallibly paid into the account over 24 years, a payment having fallen due just prior to said monthly credit, a monthy credit delayed by 2 days after its due date, the payments refused being trivial amounts - smaller in fact than the charge the bank made - that the same decision was made and charged twice on the same day for the same type and amount of payment.

If this is a service they are providing for me, it ought to be possible to demonstrate that a decision could under some circumstance be made in my favour. I am at a loss (literally) to understand how. Otherwise their "service" is either fraudulent, or not provided with due diligence. Perhaps the ombudsman would agree. I intend to find out.

Don't just cry "unfair", and wait for the courts or the government to sort it out. Make a complaint. Do it in writing, not to a call centre, and when you get the standard letter back (or no reply) follow it up with a letter to the Ombudsman.

Ijtherock, you assume too much, I have no interest in this matter other than the obvious one of not wanting to pay for others fiscal imprudence, however, your ire simply shows you to have been pricked by my comments.

On Jealousy this:

" Should you see a banker that sits at the table of a fine and expensive

restuarant as you walk by or even have the pleasure to be in the same

restuarant then never forget to walk over to him, congratulate him,

shake his hand and hand him half of your monies as a reward for his

ethical policies and his helpfulness in assisting society to stay true

to humanity."

is pure jealousy, you may be comfortably off but you feel that you can stand as arbiter of decency, you can't. Bankers may not toil worthily to your eyes but I think that without them you would find it difficult to live.

On stealing the act of taking money without consent, however done, is theft, it fails to meet the constraints of the theft act on the technicality that in some cases there is no intent 'permanently to deprive' but however you may have caused the money to be taken without consent, whether it be by writing acheque without funds to cover it or committing yourself to payments which take you beyond the available funds to meet them it is still theft.

Your moralising about who should be allowed to do what is painful to read and you don't understand perverse as a concept, of course you can be perverse and moral, perverse simply means deliberately taking a position which is against the evidence the moralising that you indulge in is that of the communist who seeks to reduce all (others) to the same level whilst maintaining their own position. Read Animal Farm then look up the Ukrainian famines and see the logical outcome of your position.

I am intrigued that the vast majority, if not all, of the posts are about bank charges and nothing about the judgement itself. Isn't anyone just a teensy little bit worried that the people who made this judgement are the same people who invested in Equity Life and then passed a ruling that bankrupted the company in order to make sure their investment was OK? And the same people who mix with company directors in their spare time. These guys aren't Judge John Deed! Or am I just seeing conspiracy theories where there aren't any?

Mart1984 the banks haven't actually won they have just won on this point and as others have mentioned if the charges werent unfair why did they get money paid back to them??

You wrote riab1879 - if they dont offer you an authorised overdraft, theirs a reason BUT WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALISE IS THAT THEY ARE PROTECTING YOU FROM GETTING INTO DEBT (OR FURTHER)

I realise that they refused an overdraft due to money issues I am not stupid but everyone else like yourself who are defending the banks are saying why didn't you go to your bank and ask for help - help was declined on many occasions when I was trying to sort out my finances and it really is not as simple as going and asking for help as I mentioned before unless they can make a profit they are not interested!  Oh and by the way THERE and THEIR have two different meanings.  I may not have managed my money effectively but at least I can spell and know the difference.

I have not asked for my unfair charges to be returned despite the fact they would alleviate over £4k of debt but what I want is for the charges to be reasonable - if this means you earn less interest on your money GOOD!! As unless you spend a week or two living hand to mouth and keeping track of every single unnecessary thing you buy you will never understand why people en-mass tried to reclaim these charges.  I recently read an article in a newspaper which I think was the daily mail and it was about a lady who earned a 6-figure salary and out of curiosity spent a week trying to live off job-seekers allowance £65 for a week.  She found it extremely difficult and it made her realise how much she takes for granted - maybe some of the self-righteous people on here should try it just as a little experiment as it really isn't easy.

nosbort........

I can declare that your points are well contested and thought out but are they personally true to me?

Your consistent point of my jealousy toward the rich for example is made on the basis that because I make a sarcasm toward some of them that it is simply sour grapes.

Why would you assume such a belief especially in light of you do not know me?

I aimed the sarcasm at the top level bankers in particular for the way in which they carry out their business and how they achieve their high level salaries and creamy bonuses, which by any standard of decency are extravagant to say the least.

In consideration of recent events such as the bailing out of banks by taxpayers and their over inflated salaries/bonuses and not least the unethical practices carried out in order to make ever larger profits year upon year at the cost of others, if it were not for technicalities what charges could be bought against them?

The point of theft that you insist on driving home to me and the so called technicalities of why it may not be chraged like so to the account holder committing the possible crime, what part within the crime could the banks be charged with?

Aiding and abetting?

That is assuming your definition of it being a crime is correct of course.

If being moral is perverse within your realms then so be it but in my beliefs it is part and parcel of being human and acting accordingly and maybe if all attempted to be moral in everyday events we would not be in such a sorry state of affairs through out the world.

At no point within my moralising did I state who could or should do what or not, I simply stated, yes with sarcasm that capitalism does not work because it continues to filter the cream to the few at the top at the expense of the masses at the bottom but will eventually implode upon itself thrrough its own self fulfilling prophecy.

Also, why do you keep with your connotations toward me and communism?

Why is communism so engrained within your mind?

I myself do not side with any party politics, in fact they do not enter into my way of life and have never done so.

I have read animal farm, twice. I have even seen the film based upon the book, it is very thought provoking and allows its philosophies to be drawn upon by a wider audience, good I am sure you will agree?

However, I also have a good knowledge of events past and present throughout the world and do concur that their are people within it that are starving where there is no communism.

As to maintaining my position, whilest attempting to bring all others down to the same level. I shall interpret that statement as such. I maintain my position as a humanitarian and will continue to do so for my entirity and if all others could be bought down to that same level of humanity then surely it would be a better life for all?

Is the above statement stil communism?

Finally, If you truly find morals to be so painful maybe you should ask yourself "Why is it so"?

So once again the banks cast justice, fairness and morality aside."

"If it's not actaull illegal its OK".

Once again the people they hit hardest are those least able to pay, and where do all those unfair fees go? To yat another round of totally irresponsible lending in Dubai, and massive bonuses for thse responsible for the irresponsible lending.

As in most other things in life, the parasites have taken over the host, with the banks and government living symbiotically with each other off the back of the rest of us.

Next question: How come the two lower courts were so incompetent as to completely misunderstand the law?? 

Judges' quote : "....he is spendthrift & improvident...", "....She is disadvantaged & finding it hard to make end meet.". Both very true , depending on circumstances, as we have all - mostly -  experienced at some time.

Neil commented "The banks fought on through their hard times....". Did they hell! No, they were unbeleivably massively bailed out, & still grabbed their obscene bonuses & pensions, unlike the "disadvantaged", who DO have to fight on through their hard times, with an ever increasing burden.