Re: Banks forced to pay back £200m in charges


"®i©ardo" <Here@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PFMoi.5003$%v3.3328@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tim..... wrote:
"®i©ardo" <Here@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Hquoi.1692$4_3.1366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robin T Cox wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:22:31 +0000, ®i©ardo wrote:


Whilst the Office of "Fair" Trading is desperately trying to change the
situation, you can, at the moment, have free use of a current account
provided you abide by the rules you agreed to when you opened it, and
the amendments to those rules subsequently advised to you.

Only by it being cross subsidised by the people that do pay
fees.

It happens that such cross subsidy is (probably) illegal under
contract law that has been in place for decades.
(If it is illegal) it is therefore incorrect to place the blame of
correcting this illegality on the messenger.

tim


Please prove that it is cross subsidised

Why should I have to. It is self evident that 'free' banking
is subisidised by something.

and also define "probably" in a contractual context.

Why, it is not pertinent to my point?

tim



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Banks forced to pay back =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A3200m_in_charg?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?es?=
    ... situation, you can, at the moment, have free use of a current account provided you abide by the rules you agreed to when you opened it, and the amendments to those rules subsequently advised to you. ... It happens that such cross subsidy is illegal under ... contract law that has been in place for decades. ... correcting this illegality on the messenger. ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Re: Banks forced to pay back £200m in charges
    ... Whilst the Office of "Fair" Trading is desperately trying to change the ... situation, you can, at the moment, have free use of a current account ... It happens that such cross subsidy is illegal under ... correcting this illegality on the messenger. ...
    (uk.finance)