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*