³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

British Bankers' Association here. We hope we can relieve some anxiety here.

First, there are no current plans to end free banking - either at the cash point or on current accounts generally. Major banks have committed themselves to retaining the fee-free model.

And please note that Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling is not about the fairness of bank charges - that is subject to a separate and ongoing Office of Fair Trading investigation which is yet to conclude. The case will only look at whether a piece of EU legislation can be applied to current accounts. We posted a factsheet which explains it all at [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator], and we really hope it is of some help.

Sounds like a very helpful link that has been removed. Could the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ please have a look at posting it.

how many people r ware that unsecured loans or bank charges have a time limit in law,plz tell other viewers that 6 yrs is the dead line.interim justica do not aknowledge this they take advantage of people not aware of the law,they buy the debt then hound the debtor,this happened to me until i told them that should they continue harrassing me i would c about going to court with a writ for harassment from them,i invited them to speak to a soliciter to assess thier position.they r worse than provident style loan sharks.

i was being charged for going £5 over drawn but on my bank statments it said i had a £10 overdraft limit when i finally found out what was going on i rang the bank (barclays) they told me i dident have an overdraft so is it my fault i was getting overdrawn??? no its not its the fat cat bankers onlu thinking about there own pockets and i think the supream court will favor the banks because of the way the econemy is at the moment.. the people will never get justice when money is concerned. i am owed £1500 and i could make sure my son has a nice christmas but no this is just a dream because this country is going down the pan and i blame labour all the way. this is the time when the people are gonna see this what this countrys goverment is really like...

the supreame court is a joke they are not thinking about the people. i was on benifits and now am in big debts because of these overdraft charges they are just greedy i think this country is complete rubbish

This is excellent progress. A good decision by the Law Lords.

About time these greedy complainers were set back. Lots of things in life are excessively expensive, you just have to avoid getting yourself into the situation of being able to be charged them. We all knew bank charges are high for breaking their rules, get over it pay up and get on. You took money without asking first and without permission, from any other company, or person, you would be in jail for theft, so count yourselves very lucky it is only some fees!

I hope ALL the claims are thrown out as they deserve to be.

6. At 10:25am on 27 Nov 2009, JamesStGeorge
------------

At first I thought your comment was genuine, then I thought perhaps it was ironic, but on reflection I think you mean it.
It is not theft to have an unauthorised overdraft because the bank is foolish enough to allow the overdraft to go over the agreed limit, and secondly is outrageous in charging the customer because THE BANK has allowed the account to be further overdrawn than they have said they will allow in the knowledge that they can make extra profit from penalties.

7. At 4:44pm on 28 Nov 2009, KitGreen

I do have some agreement with you in that banks should bounce every single transaction that would take more than you have from your account. They would of course charge you for the letters informing you and a fee for bouncing the payment etc. However I suspect most who contravene the rules would rather that did not happen, and make even more fuss if it did.

As they operate on the basis that you may dip you hand in their pocket and get charged for it, it is up customers to ensure they only take what they have agreed they may. Of course it is not pure theft but the generalised principle is that taking what is not yours without asking.


Like all commercial operations Bank are only here to make money out of us. They 'cheat' in far more serious ways to my mind than charging what they said they would. The worst 'crime' in my book of banks is the deliberate sidelining of savings accounts. I would regulate that all accounts offered have to maintain the highest advertised interest rate, relative to a reference like the official bank rate or their own libor thing. They may close them to new customers, but never, ever, ever, drop the relative rate below the rate people took out, no sidelining down on 0.1% interest. It is an underhand practise deliberately intended to take advantage of particularly older people who thought they have put their savings away sensibly, and not part of their 'cheating' world of new customers count for more and despising of old customers.

Declan,

Apologies for putting this in the charges thread, but I need to get this point over following today's programme.

Clearly having only reported on business for 15 years you are not old or wise enough to understand that in the past any borrowing (except in very long standing and trusted relationships ) by limited companies from Banks would be supported by personal guarantees from it's directors.

Part of the reason for that is one of legal entity ..a limited company being entirely entity to that of it's directors. It was there as a protection, the Banks often sought these guarantees even in the situation where other security was also held.

To suggest otherwise and that it is unfair in such times as this really sows the message that Banks are being difficult over this issue, whereas in fact they are only returning to the tried and trusted principles of prudent lending in the past. Please do not try to sell it in any other way.

Guarantees are not required from partnerships / sole traders as personal joint and several liability exists in law making individuals responsible for their borrowing.

Please understand this rather than continually building up a myth and decrying a well valued principle of good lending practice of the past.

9. At 5:14pm on 30 Nov 2009, wholistens

I think we mostly know Ltd companies are separate legal entities, this makes banks try on the demand for personal guarantees. Completely defeating the point of there being separate identities. By getting personal guarantees the banks do not have to care if the loan is sensible or repayable. I suggest that it leads to bad lending. If banks had to be convinced the Ltd company could repay the loan they would be forced to be more diligent and careful in lending. If Directors/owners can not get the loan that way then they should take out personal loans and put new cash into their company for shares if they think it safe, or find other investors. If it is not safe to put your own money in then it is not for the bank either! We rely on debt far too much instead of investment, or retaining profits, inside the company.

I agree with much of what you say, except the bit about banks not having to care about whether loans are sensible or repayable. Retrieving loan defaults from directors by guarantee or pledging of personal assets is not a pretty or satisfying experience for anyone involved, including banks.

Directors can be asset rich but are not now used to or prepared to support the business needs of their company either through additional capital as you suggest or supporting their business banking facilities by means of personal guarantee which historically was often the route.

In fact, although a guarantee ties directors in to a greater extent than a personal loan, in cost terms it may be less, with no interest to pay from day 1 which would not be the position with introduction of cash or capital by means of a loan. The comeback only comes on failure to repay facilities provided to the company.

We have a small family business. To fund an opportunity for growth we approached RBS for a small business loan which was in the scheme where 75% of the loan is underwritten by the government.
RBS kept us waiting 12 months, saying it was approved in principle but coming up with all kinds of delays; people off sick, on holiday, paperwork going missing. It would have been better for us if we had been refused the loan, we would then have been able to go else where.
When we finally received the money much of the new business opportunity had been missed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.