It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OFT bank charges investigation derailed by Supreme Court ruling

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

OFT bank charges investigation derailed by Supreme Court ruling


www.thelawyer.com

The Office of Fair Trading loses two-year fight to investigate overdraft charges by high street banks
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I honestly cannot believe what has just happened. These 5 Judges have just handed the banks the power to charge what they like.

Just today I received my statement pack going back to 2002, now I'm quite lucky as I haven't had a bank charge per sai for at least 3 years but back in 2003 / 2004 my finances weren't, the best shall we say. For the 2003/4 period I added all the "extra" charges up and it has come in at a whopping 1556 quid (pounds).

Question: I wonder how much of my money they paid the judges?

www.thelawyer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I can't believe this.

I've been offline for about 3 months - since when did Britain have a 'Supreme' court? Is it that the cronies of TPTB have been given the power to overturn whatever the hell they want?

Back on topic... I'm gutted. I'm a student who has been walloped with £200ish of charges recently because my old bank didn't cancel my direct debits, as I asked them to - I now have a budget of £20 a week, and that includes paying for christmas.

In total, Natwest have charged me about £400 over the last few years - but I suppose its alright, their bosses get a shiny new yacht and I get to eat noodles for christmas dinner.

Who could possibly see anything wrong with that...




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I was hoping for some of those 'unfair' charges back, but now to some palms being greased in the 'Supreme court' (IMO) then we're back to being in the bankers pockets. I say we should take back what is ours.

Leave whatever funds in your accounts to pay bills and direct debits, but all other 'spare' cash I'd suggest ( as I am going to do) that EVERYONE take out their money, as the banks play the field with the cash left in your account. If they don't have any cash to play with then they can't make any profits.

I bet you they'd have ( if they lost) claimed " we don't have enough to pay all of you", but then a while later declared profits in the billions.

I say take it out and we'll show them who runs them, maybe kick TPTB in the teeth as well.

These banks charged upto £35 for going overdrawn, one time I did go overdrawn by 50p,through no fault of my own and they charged me £35 for the priviledge, how is that fair? I should charge them for recieving, reading and environmentally friendly disposal of their junkmail?

Tell you all what, lets have a month or two of taking our money out of the banks, tell all of your friends and family and even strangers to do the same and we'll see what happens? I doubt the worlds economy would collapse ( or be in a worse off state than it is already), but maybe the banks would start treating us like customers instead of ASSets.

[edit on 25/11/09 by DataWraith]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


Unless the sheeples get organized, look at over all picture, analyze it and take the course of action, there is nothing an individual can do . There are ways that we can cripple the Government, the big Corporations and the elite. But we must do it in organized fashion. Get organized. Elect the smart and honest people that has the ability of analysis. Once they decide the course of action. Right or wrong, we must all follow it. You will see the results. Lets say we target Shevron Oil company, we all must put our efforts to find everything about them, provide all the information to our elected people and let them analyze the information. Based on the information analyzing the weaknesses whatever the course of action is decided, the elected people chart out the action for all of us to follow. This way we can target them. Don't forget that they will react to defend themselves. The elected people must be on top of it to keep adjusting our course of action. Eventually we can win. We don't have to be on the mercy of others. We can even find ways to elect our own honest Politicians to work for us. We can get rid of Congress. Through Computers we can vote for every thing from our own homes.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Now this is quite disturbing, one of the Judges who sat in on this case is lord David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury who "Upon graduation, he worked at the merchant bank, N M Rothschild & Sons, from 1970-1973'.

Jonathan Mance, Baron Mance another of the 5 Judges served as Chairman of the Banking Appeals Tribunal (1992-93) and President of the British Insurance Law Association (2000-02)

So, is there is a connection (albeit a slim connection), and should they have been allowed to sit in on the case.

Selfisolated, the "supreme court" came into force on the 1st of Oct 09.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeebsy

SNIP

Selfisolated, the "supreme court" came into force on the 1st of Oct 09.


Rather convenient timing. The banks already lost in 2 lower courts didn't they?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
this is such a *global* problem. it wasn't that long ago (here in the USA) that the overdraft check charge was $15 at most places. once everyone had check "debit" cards, the bank would just pay the "over" amount (usually under a few dollars) then bill you $35 for "overdraft protection" ...

meanwhile, there was never the option of being declined for insufficient funds. yes, i understand that people should track their checking accounts to the penny, but it's also sad that this "feature" hurts the poorest among us the most.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by elvisofdallas
 


This is why it's called the reverse Robin Hood, it's the poorer people that are paying for the so called "free banking".



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
i'm speechless at todays verdict, it makes you wonder just what is the point of the oft, what they have done today is one of the most stupidist rulings ever, they just keep pushing us and rubbing our face in the dirt



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by THELONIO
 


how can we change things ? write and write

protest and protest

we need more action and more people.

time the poor got looked after !



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Apparently the OFT case was only on a certain section of the regulations (Clause 6). This was acknowledged in the judgement and the judges said that the OFT could consider bringing a new case using Clause 5 instead so it's not dead yet although it will take a long time for anything to happen again.

MSE article

It's no surprise that this was the result though. This country is run for the benefit of banks, rich people and corporations. The little guy will never get justice against them.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Chris McGee]




top topics



 
1

log in

join