Class action suit against banks

This is going to be a very interesting case I think. The combined fire power of all the banks combined will be formidable but what they have been doing is not pretty so perhaps the class action suit has a chance.

If you've ever been stung with some kind of penalty here is the place to sign up:
http://www.financialredress.com.au/
 
Indeed, why take responsibility for your own actions when you can just blame someone else, and better yet - sue them for it! :rolleyes:
 
Indeed, why take responsibility for your own actions when you can just blame someone else, and better yet - sue them for it! :rolleyes:

I agree, I hate hearing people complain about bank fees and charges etc. I pay almost none due to my setup and have never paid a cent interest or late fees. One of the guys in this class action was on the radio, only heard a few seconds of him. He is disabled (sounded ok, so I pressume he's physically disabled, not mentally), and he said the banks have taken advantage of his disability and stung him with a heap of overdrawn and late payment charges. :confused: Even if it was a mental disability, how is this the banks responsibility?! Although I see their point, about the charges being excessive, if that breaches the laws about late fees legally only being allowed to be the amount to recoup the costs of it being late. But still, it's like speed cameras - don't speed, don't pay. Late/overdrawn fees - don't pay late, don't pay. :rolleyes:
 
I agree that if you don't overdraw, you won't be hit with a fee......

but..... for banks to charge $35 for something that actually only costs them maybe 9 cents is such a huge rip-off that I hope they lose this case, just so that they realise that we are not all num-nuts who don't realise they are ripping us off.

(I have not paid any of these fees, but feel aggrieved for those who inadvertently have been hit with a $35 fee.)
 
but..... for banks to charge $35 for something that actually only costs them maybe 9 cents is such a huge rip-off that I hope they lose this case, just so that they realise that we are not all num-nuts who don't realise they are ripping us off.

(I have not paid any of these fees, but feel aggrieved for those who inadvertently have been hit with a $35 fee.)

The point many fail to see is that the fee is supposed to be a penalty and an incentive not to repeat the action. The theory is for $35 people will actually feel it a bit and try to alter their behaviour and not let it happen again. If they only charge 9c, no one will care and their accounts will be overdrawn every other day.

Guess who then comes and complains at the bank counter on their pay day and says "why did you let me overdraw my account" when half their wage is absorbed by the balance overdraw?

Guarantee you that now the fees are so much lower, the total number of overdraws each year with the banks will sky-rocket.

I guess the banks are damned if they do and damned if they don't - no matter what they do people will blame them.
 
The banks will likely argue that the fees are clearly set out in their terms and conditions. It's also common knowledge that they exist and it's the customers responsibility to manage their finances.

On the other hand the penalties far outweigh the costs to the bank.

It'll be an interesting case whichever way it goes.
 
Will be watching this one with great interest.

The banks may even just fold up their monopoly board and go elsewhere ;)

Cheers

Mick
 
The point many fail to see is that the fee is supposed to be a penalty and an incentive not to repeat the action. /QUOTE]

I disagree. I think these hefty fees are purely because they have been able to get away with them and make a great deal of money in the process - because some people are a bit dim.
You are surely not suggesting that the banks are charging these fees for our own good? You'd leave me laughing all the way to the .... well, you know.
I don't pay them either, and I think that anyone who does cop them willingly is a bit of a fool. But I can't agree that the banks have any altruistic motive in levying them at all.
And, if a class action like this can get up and succeed and force them to reduce these outrageous fees, isn't that just the market in action? ie, We don't like what you're doing and we're not going to put up with it.
I thought people on this forum would actually be fairly supportive of such a thing. *runs away and hides, in anticipation of reaction to follow*
 
I disagree. I think these hefty fees are purely because they have been able to get away with them and make a great deal of money in the process - because some people are a bit dim.
You are surely not suggesting that the banks are charging these fees for our own good? You'd leave me laughing all the way to the .... well, you know.

They're charging them because they don't want you to go over your limits or overdraw your accounts. You've got no idea how many stories I've heard about outraged customers storming into the bank because their automatic payment didn't go through for whatever, or the bank didn't tell them their account was overdrawn, or they...... - get the idea? I'd say if people actually did what they were supposed to do, they'd be able to lose one CSS from each branch on average which would save them $50M+ right there.

I don't pay them either, and I think that anyone who does cop them willingly is a bit of a fool. But I can't agree that the banks have any altruistic motive in levying them at all.
And, if a class action like this can get up and succeed and force them to reduce these outrageous fees, isn't that just the market in action? ie, We don't like what you're doing and we're not going to put up with it.
They've already reduced the fees. But obviously the lawyers saw this as an admission of guilt and smelling blood in the water, thought they may as well have a crack. Of course the lawyers aren't thinking of their comission, just the poor old Australian battler right? Why should he have to be responsible for maintaining his own finances?!

I thought people on this forum would actually be fairly supportive of such a thing. *runs away and hides, in anticipation of reaction to follow*
Most probably are, I'm usually alone in trying to point out things from banks perspective, instead of just taking the "yeah, those bloodsuckers are ripping us off, what have they ever done for us, all banks are evil, down with banks, stone them, booo hissss" *sigh*

How dare they charge a penalty fee they clearly defined in their PDS they would if I take an action they described. Surely that was just a bluff and I shouldn't have to pay it? Might try that with my suppliers and see how far I get, "yeah I know you stated it costs $x, but I only want to pay $y, and think I'll pay you in 200 days instead of 30 days. What do you mean you're going to charge me extra and cut off supply until I pay???!!! Now where's my lawyers number...."
 
I don't read it, or whine about the fees, either. Like I say, I don't pay them and I totally agree with the view that you shouldn't if you don't want to - just like parking and speeding fines, they're pretty much a voluntary tax.
But I reckon if you're charging in the order of $35 for something that actually costs you about 9 cents then you'd be dead-set happy if every one of your customers ''bought'' one of those items every month - that is bounced a cheque or missed an automatic payment. Wish our business could run at that sort of a profit.:p
 
But I reckon if you're charging in the order of $35 for something that actually costs you about 9 cents then you'd be dead-set happy if every one of your customers ''bought'' one of those items every month - that is bounced a cheque or missed an automatic payment. Wish our business could run at that sort of a profit.:p

You do realise banks actually lose money on tens of thousands of their customers right? Yes they make money on the ones that have a mortgage, credit cards etc. but that bloke at the counter causing a scene and demanding to see the manager because he's been charged a $35 fee when all he has is a savings account or three - they make zilch on. Why do you think they have a monthly account fee and 0.01% interest on 'savings accounts'?

But they have to have a branch there with staff in it to serve this bloke - he's an important customer don't you know. :rolleyes: Same goes with the pension brigade that troops in every other week to withdraw their entire payment and aren't seen again for a fortnight. Millions of customers like this that cost the bank to have, which they have to make up for with profit from their other clients.

How well would your business run if you had hundreds of clients per week queuing up that you lose money on, but still demand nothing but the best of service and had to have extra staff on hand to please them? There's always another side to it, yes their margins are great in some areas and non-existent in others.
 
Has nothing to do with margins, dis-incentives, penalties etc. Financial Institutions are only permitted to recoup the costs they incur with penalty fees such as overdrawn accounts and bounced cheques.

You may have heard that many dropped their fees form $35 to $9 in the last year.

It's all about being able to justify the penalty charged to the customer as a reasonable recouping of costs. Obviously if the figure is $0.09, which is possible considering its now electronic/automatic and no pleb banker has to go through a ref report each day, then the charges cannot be defended as cost recouping.
 
How well would your business run if you had hundreds of clients per week queuing up that you lose money on, but still demand nothing but the best of service and had to have extra staff on hand to please them?

results speak for themselves. what did CBA post last week?

fortunately for all the dud customers there are plenty of others you can stiff. they have no choice. and the govt has gauranteed your business. the stuff dreams are made of.
 
You do realise banks actually lose money on tens of thousands of their customers right? Yes they make money on the ones that have a mortgage, credit cards etc. but that bloke at the counter causing a scene and demanding to see the manager because he's been charged a $35 fee when all he has is a savings account or three - they make zilch on. Why do you think they have a monthly account fee and 0.01% interest on 'savings accounts'?

But they have to have a branch there with staff in it to serve this bloke - he's an important customer don't you know. :rolleyes: Same goes with the pension brigade that troops in every other week to withdraw their entire payment and aren't seen again for a fortnight. Millions of customers like this that cost the bank to have, which they have to make up for with profit from their other clients.

How well would your business run if you had hundreds of clients per week queuing up that you lose money on, but still demand nothing but the best of service and had to have extra staff on hand to please them? There's always another side to it, yes their margins are great in some areas and non-existent in others.

So how many bank customers don't have a mortgage or a credit card - or an overdraft (poor fools) these days? How many just have a savings account? Sweet F A I'd say.
And ''they have to have a branch there with staff in it''... have you seen them close a branch? They couldn't even define remorse, let alone feel it. Have you seen how many bank branches have closed in recent years?
How much do you reckon they make out of the poor foolish pensioners who have an account there because they know the money's coming in each fortnight. Banks know that too, hedge it overseas and do all sorts of clever stuff.
Pfft. Sympathy for the poor banks and how tough they're doing it carrying all these customers who bounce cheques and make a scene at the customer service department. They're making squillions, and they're doing it by squeezing money out of people - some of whom deserve it, that's true. But that's about the best you can say of it. Pftt!
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about posting about this class action, but Amadio well and truly beat me to it. I was sure this would get a solid reaction - as already proven! :)

I don't have an issue with these fees - as others have already pointed out, they are well documented in the paperwork when you open an account. I spose my attitude is somewhat relaxed since I've never paid any of these "exorbitant" fees.

But for those suggesting that "it only costs the bank 9c, so why should they charge $x?", have you bought a can of soft drink from a convenience store recently?

I can go to my local supermarket and buy (bulk) Coke for about $0.60 a can. Go to a convenience store and you'll be pay about $2.50. So a huge margin - don't see any class actions on that one! :D
 
Pfft. Sympathy for the poor banks and how tough they're doing it carrying all these customers who bounce cheques and make a scene at the customer service department. They're making squillions, and they're doing it by squeezing money out of people - some of whom deserve it, that's true. But that's about the best you can say of it. Pftt!

Right, think I'll leave it at that with you then Tuppence. You're clearly quite emotional on this subject. I don't feel sympathy for the banks, I can however look at the situation subjectively and see them just as I see any other business making a profit (some with higher margins than banks, others with less - heck I make a better margin, should I be sued?), something you obviously don't want to consider.
 
But for those suggesting that "it only costs the bank 9c, so why should they charge $x?", have you bought a can of soft drink from a convenience store recently?

I can go to my local supermarket and buy (bulk) Coke for about $0.60 a can. Go to a convenience store and you'll be pay about $2.50. So a huge margin - don't see any class actions on that one! :D

That's because it isn't a level playing field. Your average corner store pays lots more for coke products than the supermarkets do. A 1.25ltr coke product sells for around $1.80 to $2.10 at the supermarket - A carton of 12 1.25 bottles costs the average corner store around $28 plus GST.

Coke estimates leakage at over 50% - i.e. small operators can buy cheaper from a supermarket than from Coles/Woollies - so guess what, they buy from the supermarket, giving the chains even more power.
 
Top