| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Supreme court backs bankers | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 26/11/09 11:27:00 |
| “The point is not everyone wants a bank account but if you are in employment the chances are you have to have one. If banks start charging simply to operate accounts, even ones that don't overdraw or incur other charges, we are then in a situation where people are forced to pay to be paid! It's all very well for those amongst us that have savings or accounts that are permanently in credit but, there are many people who simply operate accounts to receive their wages/pensions/benefits etc.” - Absolutely, Bernadette. If such charges do happen, they’re likely to disproportionately affect pensioners now obliged to receive their money via ‘Direct Payment’ into an account. Now we have learnt the judgement for this case rests on EU law, the British government may be obliged to go to the EU Commission to get the law changed and have pensioners exempt from such charges. Such a change in the law would then require the agreement of the EU’s 26 other member states. The other likely alternative would be for the banks themselves to make exceptions for the likes of pensioners – which makes you wonder what type of inducements would have to be made for banks to accept this. Then again, our retail banking brethren may just do it out of the good of their own cold hearts. |