[Sussex] Bank charges, important court case

[Nic James Ferrier]

Andy Smith <andy at lug.org.uk> writes:

> I think it because if the charges have to be equal to the cost of
> refusing the transaction and generating a nasty letter then will
> they actually provide any detriment to going massively overdrawn?
> In which case other punishments would have to be used, like not
> giving out overdrafts in the first place, or closing accounts.

I think you are quite wrong.

It is part of the banks duty to protect their investors by ensuring
that they don't give out debt willy-nilly.

I don't think they take as much care about this as they ought to.


> My problem is with people who are now routinely claiming these
> charges back when they could have easily prevented themselves going
> overdrawn in the first place.  I am confident that accounts for the
> majority of such claims, because I have seen forums full of people
> (not just MSE, but elsewhere too) who were getting on quite
> comfortably suddenly hear they can claim back charges and go through
> years of statements to add it all up.  And they do get it all back.

Banks don't make it easy to not go overdrawn. They WANT you to go
overdrawn. Because they make money that way.


I think it would be fairer to have a bank that charged it's
customers. Most business banking is done this way (as I'm sure you
know) and it seems fairer for that.

Partly that might be because the high-street banks have some serious
competition for business banking.

-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk