We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why Reclaim Bank Charges
Comments
-
If you don't pay the electricity bill they will eventually cut you off, after sending a deluge of letters beforehand. The banks often charge several thousand pounds before it gets to this stage, and they are dealing in money not a product.
So if it is product for the electricity company to monitor the status of an account which pays for a service surely it is prodent for a bank which deals in MONEY to do the same.
As regards keeping an eye on accounts and intervention I do believe banks should do this. It is in thier own interests as well as thier customers. But even if that is not the case they are committed to doing so by thier own codes of conduct, these are not rules I made and maybe the banks don't agree with them, but if that is the case they should work to change them not simply ignore them as they do now.
Part of the problem I think is that there are several different types of charges and, though they were all lumped together by the Test Case, I am not convinced they can all be grouped together. One thing occured to me when you were using the direct debit example. A returned standing order has a fee to and this does not have many features of the direct debit model. The only similarity is that no funds move, NOTHING is done, but the customer is charged.
I think Natweststaffmember has a fair point about understanding of charges. Is not to do with the amount. Consider for a moment in my current job I have spoken to customers who, if a payment is returned unpaid, are charged a fee straight away. Now I'd be willing to bet that fee will generate another one.
The other possibility, which is slightly better, is that the fee is applied to the account 28 days after the statement (they still don't put the date on though, wonder why, to generate more perhaps?). In this case, this time when working in a Bank, I have seen customer complain because they asked the cashier what the balance was and what charges were to be applied. They paid this off only to be hit with a charge the next month which did not show on the system.
There needs to be a better system in place for this. I think the problem, certainly in the archaic system we had, is that the charge wouldn't show as pending on the system unless the statement had been sent. Therefore it only showed up when the customer requested to close the account.
Of course all of this, including the debt spiral, would be avoided if banks invoice seperately for thier 'service charges' as most other businesses do.
I am not sure if you are serious about higher charges but I'll say again with some of the arguments being advanced in favour of charges what's to stop the charges being a million pounds? One charge and a person is bankrupt that'll teach 'em. Would you accept this? Would you see it as unfair?
Or would you shrug and say oh well as long as its clearly stated etc etc etc
which ignores the fact if you want to get paid you need a bank account.
It is a huge issue that bank accounts are not what people think they are, and I would have a lot more time for the argument that people are to blame if the banks did not so clearly administer thier charges in such a dishonest way.
I don't know that it is a bad thing if people were able to opt out of bank charges, I thought we were all in favour of choice??? Surely that is en ENTIRELY reasonable course of action for someone who does not want to take the risk of ever incurring a charge?
"Higher charges to increase the deterrant, or admitting that's its all a smokescreen and the only purpose is profit."
So are you admitting, for the sake of argument, its got nothing to do with deterrant? Personally I think this IS the case, and I think its a distraction when people talk about it being a deterrant. I understand banks are there to make a profit, same for any business, but the majority out there do it on the back of good products and service, not being as sneaky as possible.
"if thats true then they have more money than sense, and should be charged more!
See example above, a million pounds it is!
"if people cant be bothered to keep an eye on their money, even though its easier now then its ever been, why would they meet with their bank manager?"
Because if they didn't they could close the account. This would be an inconvenience for many people but a reasonable action by the bank in my view.
"its easy money, easy credit, easy stuff. thats the problem, lets not make it even easier."
The current processes do make it easier to get into debt so not sure what point you are making here. I think we'll have to disagree because I'm approaching this from the perspective that, for people on meagre incomes, one charge can start what is, for them, an unstoppable snowball of charges where in fact the most rational course of action is to not pay anything, or a pay a token payment and wait for the bank to send the account to a DCA.
Whereas you are coming from the perspective that most people are not bandly affected by charges and so deserve what they get. Maybe you are right, I don't know the exact split. The banks don't either because they cannot be bothered to look, all that information I bet is never seen by a human eye.Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.0 -
well in life its easy to generalise and tar all people with the same brush. its my position here that while there's a lot of people who have been hard done by with these charges, in the vast majority of cases peopler are incuring charges because they dont think monitering their money is worth the effort.
I monitor my account less now than I did when I worked in the bank. Sometimes it only takes one charge to go out incorrectly and bang you get hit with charges left right and centre. I'll give you an example on historic charges for NatWest, a direct debit goes out of the account which is an error by the company concerned, so you go away for the weekend(dirty weekend if you want
) and come back on the Tuesday, the DD has gone out, so has other DD's so you got hit by a charge of £38 a pop plus excess overdraft of £28 plus a further £28 because it crossed two charging periods and that was an immediate charge. Yes, they failed to look after their account, yes they preferred the dirty weekend cos the payments they expected to go out went out. So they contact the bank and because of one previous error within the last 6 years which they admit was their fault they had had a gesture of goodwill so they say, contact the company who made the mistake and they'll be ok. The company bat them back to the bank saying it was their error so the bank shouldn't charge(yes have seen some of the scenario given). So, they could cancel payments and the companies would see that as a default or they make payments when the charges has cost them £90+ already. Are they not making the effort? Are they lazy scroungers?
the reason i think this is because i know what people are like, i know what the culture of spending without care is in this country, and my own personal experience.
We have the buy it now fuelled by finance, ie by now pay later. The bank I worked for lowered their income criteria to £5k about 7 years ago which meant even on benefits you could have a card. We didn't promote responsible spending cos we promoted the borrow the money and pay it back later. Have insurance on the loan and credit card even if you were not eligible for you cos it might not go through.
People could have said No, should have said No, but remember the banks' sellers were trained in persuading a customer from a No to a Yes because you trusted your local bank to specifically give you valuable advice(when they were thinking of that lovely bonus for achieving and exceeding their branch target),
perhaps not that amazed, but thats not the point. the point was that customers understanding of how charges work isn't a reason to incur them accidentally.
People not understanding how the charges work can be a reason why they didn't understand how much it was costing them. In fact, what the OFT have suggested is something I once said to a customer yet in a different manner. I asked them what they could do with x amount of money cos that was what they were giving to us each month(I used a yearly figure).
tell me what exactly would the concequences be of customers better understanding the charges?
Not incurring them is the obvious answer. Explain the charges is part of the investigation process of NatWest bank/RBS bank but not everyone can be bothered to do that. If you understand the charges and how to avoid them(perhaps that might be a better word) then you stop a cycle of charges on charges.
well im hoping youre right, but i read a post on here yesterday saying someone had been turned down their hardship case. what happened there then?
To be honest, without looking at that person's income and expenditure form then it is difficult to say why they had their case turned down or whether it was simply the bank charges part of their case. Financial hardship is a difficult thing to define so can I ask for the link, and I'll see if there is anything within their post to suggest why it was turned down.
yep its all statistics sadly.
They got money for achieving it
it sounds like you're saying that people have been sort of duped into believing that the charges were less than they actually were by making it too complicated to understand.
so the higher the fees charged as understood by the customer, the less likely they are to incur those fees?
if that is true then would a solution be better published, higher fees?
I think I have tried to suggest that knowing how the fees work rather then them being complicated as to when they go out would be better.
as far as i know wasn't the verdict that the fees form a part of the price of the product, and therefore were not subject to any "fairness" judgement?
The supreme Court ruled the OFT could not assess the charges for fairness. It did not preclude the individual consumer from doing so.
it will get spent! which was what i meant by "spending charges". didnt explain that very well did i.
If the individual is being charged £10 then they didn't have the extra £70 anyway so the very fact that it is being taken kinda sums up that the money wasn't there regardless of anything.
well im glad to see justice working.
.
see the above, I think....can we make our posts shorter?0 -
davidgmmafan wrote: »If you don't pay the electricity bill they will eventually cut you off, after sending a deluge of letters beforehand. The banks often charge several thousand pounds before it gets to this stage, and they are dealing in money not a product.
So if it is product for the electricity company to monitor the status of an account which pays for a service surely it is prodent for a bank which deals in MONEY to do the same.
im guessing its prudent for them to do what theyre doing now, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it.davidgmmafan wrote: »As regards keeping an eye on accounts and intervention I do believe banks should do this. It is in thier own interests as well as thier customers. But even if that is not the case they are committed to doing so by thier own codes of conduct, these are not rules I made and maybe the banks don't agree with them, but if that is the case they should work to change them not simply ignore them as they do now.
i dont understand what else the banks could be expected to do? send an email when funds get dangerously low? have meetings with customers to help them manage their accounts? fluff their customers pillows?
i have noticed that there seems to be the idea that the banks should take some responsibility for managing peoples finances, and that seems to be your argument here. i can only guess as to how this idea came about, because it makes no sense to me. in my opinion a person should take control and responsibility for their affairs, and this should be encouraged for all people.
but more than this, i am convinced that no matter what the banks did to help people, only a very very small minority would actually be helped by this, the rest would simply ignore it. the cold fact is that money talks and its what makes people pay attention. can you really see all these people coming into the bank to have a meeting with the bank manager to help manage their finances, really?davidgmmafan wrote: »Part of the problem I think is that there are several different types of charges and, though they were all lumped together by the Test Case, I am not convinced they can all be grouped together. One thing occured to me when you were using the direct debit example. A returned standing order has a fee to and this does not have many features of the direct debit model. The only similarity is that no funds move, NOTHING is done, but the customer is charged.
yep i totally agree, lumping all the charges together was a mistakedavidgmmafan wrote: »I think Natweststaffmember has a fair point about understanding of charges. Is not to do with the amount. Consider for a moment in my current job I have spoken to customers who, if a payment is returned unpaid, are charged a fee straight away. Now I'd be willing to bet that fee will generate another one.
The other possibility, which is slightly better, is that the fee is applied to the account 28 days after the statement (they still don't put the date on though, wonder why, to generate more perhaps?). In this case, this time when working in a Bank, I have seen customer complain because they asked the cashier what the balance was and what charges were to be applied. They paid this off only to be hit with a charge the next month which did not show on the system.
There needs to be a better system in place for this. I think the problem, certainly in the archaic system we had, is that the charge wouldn't show as pending on the system unless the statement had been sent. Therefore it only showed up when the customer requested to close the account.
Of course all of this, including the debt spiral, would be avoided if banks invoice seperately for thier 'service charges' as most other businesses do.
its almost certainly the case that there's a better charges/fees model out there, improvements can always be made. however im of the opinion that its up to the banks to sort out their business models, and customers to sort out their own affairs.
how is it that on the one hand the general public are being touted as morons who cant manage their affairs and need the banks help, yet at the same time are the pillars of wisdom in determining how banking charges should work? theres an inconsistancy there that speaks volumes.davidgmmafan wrote: »I am not sure if you are serious about higher charges but I'll say again with some of the arguments being advanced in favour of charges what's to stop the charges being a million pounds? One charge and a person is bankrupt that'll teach 'em. Would you accept this? Would you see it as unfair?
Or would you shrug and say oh well as long as its clearly stated etc etc etc
which ignores the fact if you want to get paid you need a bank account.
a million pounds would be ridiculous.davidgmmafan wrote: »It is a huge issue that bank accounts are not what people think they are, and I would have a lot more time for the argument that people are to blame if the banks did not so clearly administer thier charges in such a dishonest way.
this is an interesting area we are talking about, and here's why:
what would happen is the banks charges were lower and more "honest" as you say? do you think that people would still go over their agreed credit limits by the same frequency? because i dont, it seems to me that, in the vast majority of cases, people would do it more because the penalty was less.
were not all wondering around innocently waiting to be attacked by the banks "unfair" charges model. its partly there because people generally arent in control and need a wake-up call.
it is quite clearly the case that the overwhelming majority of cases are ones where people arent paying any attention to their finances. they dont have the time or the inclination (either that or they are doing it on purpose?). the "honesty" (as you put it) of the charges is irrelevant, so is the "fairness" or any other aspect of the charges because were talking about people who arent paying attention. theyre not going to sit down and read that their charges have changes for the better in their favour, and then go out and then pay even more attention are they?
what matters as i see it is that the charges make the customer pay attention, and compensate for the increased risk and lack of financial liquidity to the banks. the current charges seem to satisfy those criteria.davidgmmafan wrote: »I don't know that it is a bad thing if people were able to opt out of bank charges, I thought we were all in favour of choice??? Surely that is en ENTIRELY reasonable course of action for someone who does not want to take the risk of ever incurring a charge?
people do have a choice, but they cant be arsed, either that or theyre being held hostage by an unseen force.
pay bills by cheque or bacs, dont use direct debit, dont use debit cards or credit cards, check your balance before getting cash out every time.
how difficult is that?davidgmmafan wrote: »"Higher charges to increase the deterrant, or admitting that's its all a smokescreen and the only purpose is profit."
So are you admitting, for the sake of argument, its got nothing to do with deterrant? Personally I think this IS the case, and I think its a distraction when people talk about it being a deterrant. I understand banks are there to make a profit, same for any business, but the majority out there do it on the back of good products and service, not being as sneaky as possible.
think you're quoting yourself there
anyway i do think that its partly a deterrant. and everyones sneaky, have you ever seen a tv advert? have you heard the music behind the british gas and tesco adverts? if not listen, then find out the lyrics. very sneaky.davidgmmafan wrote: »"if thats true then they have more money than sense, and should be charged more!
See example above, a million pounds it is!
lol.davidgmmafan wrote: »"if people cant be bothered to keep an eye on their money, even though its easier now then its ever been, why would they meet with their bank manager?"
Because if they didn't they could close the account. This would be an inconvenience for many people but a reasonable action by the bank in my view.
there would brobably be some legal problems with that, with people not being able to be paid and all. however i would welcome that, but i cant see it happening.
anyway why should the banks be forced by law to help customers against their own interest when they are providing a service to them?
please excuse me im going to rant now ...
{rant mode} god its never enough is it. we've got free banking, bacs, direct debit, internet banking, its never been easier to be in control of your finances, but its somehow not good enough. no its "unfair" because some people take the mickey even though its never been so easy and then get charged, oh my god no - charged! what its not like they killed anyone is it? why arent you out there catching real criminals?
why cant people grow up and take responsibility its pathetic it really is. even worse they then ruin it for those who really need help
{end of rant mode}
sorry about that. thanksdavidgmmafan wrote: »"its easy money, easy credit, easy stuff. thats the problem, lets not make it even easier."
The current processes do make it easier to get into debt so not sure what point you are making here. I think we'll have to disagree because I'm approaching this from the perspective that, for people on meagre incomes, one charge can start what is, for them, an unstoppable snowball of charges where in fact the most rational course of action is to not pay anything, or a pay a token payment and wait for the bank to send the account to a DCA.
in my opinion the current process discourages people from seeing money as something that they can spend without consequence as they are charges quite heavily for acting that way.
as for meagre incomes, thats just a red herring. i am on a meagre income, im having to work extra hours just to keep my head above the water. and im earning more now than i ever have. i have never incurred a bank charge because i couldnt afford to waste a whole load of money when all it takes is a little attention. maybe im special?davidgmmafan wrote: »Whereas you are coming from the perspective that most people are not bandly affected by charges and so deserve what they get. Maybe you are right, I don't know the exact split. The banks don't either because they cannot be bothered to look, all that information I bet is never seen by a human eye.
hehe. i bet someone looks and doesnt tell anyone.
but yes thats my perspective, and really to me it seems obvious. the ironic thing is that we need people spending stupidly to keep the economy going, and one day its all gonna come to an end and well have the mother of all recessions.
consumerism wont last forever, maybe these poeple are just enjoying it while they can :rotfl:0 -
natweststaffmember wrote: »I monitor my account less now than I did when I worked in the bank. Sometimes it only takes one charge to go out incorrectly and bang you get hit with charges left right and centre. I'll give you an example on historic charges for NatWest, a direct debit goes out of the account which is an error by the company concerned, so you go away for the weekend(dirty weekend if you want ) and come back on the Tuesday, the DD has gone out, so has other DD's so you got hit by a charge of £38 a pop plus excess overdraft of £28 plus a further £28 because it crossed two charging periods and that was an immediate charge. Yes, they failed to look after their account, yes they preferred the dirty weekend cos the payments they expected to go out went out. So they contact the bank and because of one previous error within the last 6 years which they admit was their fault they had had a gesture of goodwill so they say, contact the company who made the mistake and they'll be ok. The company bat them back to the bank saying it was their error so the bank shouldn't charge(yes have seen some of the scenario given). So, they could cancel payments and the companies would see that as a default or they make payments when the charges has cost them £90+ already. Are they not making the effort? Are they lazy scroungers?
arent the company that made the mistake liable in that situation?natweststaffmember wrote: »We have the buy it now fuelled by finance, ie by now pay later. The bank I worked for lowered their income criteria to £5k about 7 years ago which meant even on benefits you could have a card. We didn't promote responsible spending cos we promoted the borrow the money and pay it back later. Have insurance on the loan and credit card even if you were not eligible for you cos it might not go through.
People could have said No, should have said No, but remember the banks' sellers were trained in persuading a customer from a No to a Yes because you trusted your local bank to specifically give you valuable advice(when they were thinking of that lovely bonus for achieving and exceeding their branch target),
yeah fair enough, the banks want to take advantage of people and get them to use their services.
but isnt that what being a business is all about? personally i find that morally suspect, and i would probably never get a job that means i would have to do something like that, like sales or something.
but at the same time thats the way it is, and just because i wouldnt do it doesnt mean that i dont enjoy the benefits of a free market economy, and cheap services and products etc. nor do i resent those that do these things. i may not even like them as people, but i dont judge them because they are people just like me.
basically its not my business. yes, let the salesmen and blaggers get on with it, while i get on with living my life. i may buy goods off them, i may not.natweststaffmember wrote: »People not understanding how the charges work can be a reason why they didn't understand how much it was costing them. In fact, what the OFT have suggested is something I once said to a customer yet in a different manner. I asked them what they could do with x amount of money cos that was what they were giving to us each month(I used a yearly figure).
either:
a - people are incuring charges accidentally, in which case they wont know what the charges are until after the event so what is the point of getting them to "understand" them beforehand?
or b - they are doing it on purpose!natweststaffmember wrote: »Not incurring them is the obvious answer. Explain the charges is part of the investigation process of NatWest bank/RBS bank but not everyone can be bothered to do that. If you understand the charges and how to avoid them(perhaps that might be a better word) then you stop a cycle of charges on charges.
avoiding charges isnt a matter of understanding, its a matter of effort.
understanding them is only relevant if you intend to incur them.natweststaffmember wrote: »To be honest, without looking at that person's income and expenditure form then it is difficult to say why they had their case turned down or whether it was simply the bank charges part of their case. Financial hardship is a difficult thing to define so can I ask for the link, and I'll see if there is anything within their post to suggest why it was turned down.
sorry i couldnt find it. but i bet 15 trillions dollars that there are more than a few people, many more, who will try to claim their charges back on hardship grounds when they have no business doing so.natweststaffmember wrote: »They got money for achieving it
natweststaffmember wrote: »I think I have tried to suggest that knowing how the fees work rather then them being complicated as to when they go out would be better.
isnt understanding how they work less important than understanding how much its going to cost. and as i said above, understanding them is only relevant if you intend to incur them.natweststaffmember wrote: »The supreme Court ruled the OFT could not assess the charges for fairness. It did not preclude the individual consumer from doing so.
i think thats a good thing.natweststaffmember wrote: »If the individual is being charged £10 then they didn't have the extra £70 anyway so the very fact that it is being taken kinda sums up that the money wasn't there regardless of anything.
it is there, they will get it, you cant create money out of thin air (please no conspiracy youtube links).natweststaffmember wrote: »see the above, I think....can we make our posts shorter?
ok lets try :rotfl:0 -
"a million pounds would be ridiculous."
Why? For what reason? At what point would a charge become unreasonable £30, £50, £100, £1000? People often object to an argument being pushed to extremes little realizing that if they are not good for extremes they are not good for any case. The last sentence is not something I came up with, I believe it was said around 200 years ago.
"what matters as i see it is that the charges make the customer pay attention, and compensate for the increased risk and lack of financial liquidity to the banks. the current charges seem to satisfy those criteria."
Clearly they don't, I can think of £2.6 billion reasons to support this...
"so what if it is profit? how else are the banks going to make money from people who constantly go over limits and default on payments? they are running a business, thats the way it works, we live in a free market economy!"
You have no problem with the reason being profit, so please clarify is that the reason? I believe it is. That's what this
"Higher charges to increase the deterrant, or admitting that's its all a smokescreen and the only purpose is profit."
was referring to.Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.0 -
"understanding them is only relevant if you intend to incur them."
I'm sorry but this is !!!!!!!!, if you inadvertantly incurred a charge of course you need to know how they can and do mulitply. Of course I'm SURE there are thousands of people out there watching widescreen TV's and enjoyed carribbean cruises all funded by bank charges
"im guessing its prudent for them to do what theyre doing now, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it."
Well I've already speculated that they may make money from selling the debt on, I doubt it but I can't see any other reason for allowing people to build up debts they can't pay.
I still don't understand your disagreement with the £1 million bank charge. You argue on the one hand that the charges need to be high to get people to realize, but the current level clearly isn't working as it generates £2.6 billion a year. Therefore logically they need to be higher. But some level is magically unreasonable?
"there would brobably be some legal problems with that, with people not being able to be paid and all. however i would welcome that, but i cant see it happening."
I'm pretty sure banks CAN close accounts provided they give notice, It would be reasonable for them to do that if they were consistant. In what instacnes did they actually close accounts? In the early days they closed accounts where people had claimed charges back.
This was a retaliatory measure which was condemned by the FOS. Now this brings us to the heart of the matter. The banks like to pretend they don't like people who incur charges but if that WAS the case they'd go for the aforementioned interview and close the account if the terms weren't adhered to. Three strikes and you are out perhaps.
Except that they don't do that, they LOVE the people who incur charges because it makes more money for them.
"anyway why should the banks be forced by law to help customers against their own interest when they are providing a service to them?"
Well its in the banking code etc, and the reason why I think it should be is its not like other services is it? If I want to get paid EVER I HAVE TO have a bank account. I could live without gas if times were hard, not so with a bank account. Which is why I agree with n earlier comment there should be an account on which charges are not possible. You might want to think about why such an account does not exist. I'll give you a clue ££££.
So basically I don't believe the deterrent argument, because the banks make a fortune from these charges.
"arent the company that made the mistake liable in that situation?"
Yes they probably are, but unfortunately the customer won't get anything for the 8 or so hours they spend telling people how to do thier job, but that's another issue
And finally I can't resist
"how is it that on the one hand the general public are being touted as morons who cant manage their affairs and need the banks help, yet at the same time are the pillars of wisdom in determining how banking charges should work? theres an inconsistancy there that speaks volumes."
How is it on the one hand banks can lecutre the public on fiscal responsibility whilst at the sametime having to be rescued by the tax-payer, literally in some cases, or figuratively with other arrangements, as well as payiny eye-watering bonuses. I know its a cheap shot but you walked right into that!Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.0 -
davidgmmafan wrote: »"a million pounds would be ridiculous."
Why? For what reason? At what point would a charge become unreasonable £30, £50, £100, £1000? People often object to an argument being pushed to extremes little realizing that if they are not good for extremes they are not good for any case. The last sentence is not something I came up with, I believe it was said around 200 years ago.
so to continue with your logically flawed argument - no charges then?davidgmmafan wrote: »"what matters as i see it is that the charges make the customer pay attention, and compensate for the increased risk and lack of financial liquidity to the banks. the current charges seem to satisfy those criteria."
Clearly they don't, I can think of £2.6 billion reasons to support this...
its not the job of the customers of a business to measure its profits for its own financial gain.
perhaps if more people spent less time worrying abut the banks profits, and more time keeping an eye on their own finances, they wouldnt be adding to them.davidgmmafan wrote: »"so what if it is profit? how else are the banks going to make money from people who constantly go over limits and default on payments? they are running a business, thats the way it works, we live in a free market economy!"
You have no problem with the reason being profit, so please clarify is that the reason? I believe it is. That's what this
well they're not exactly going to purposely make a loss are they?davidgmmafan wrote: »"understanding them is only relevant if you intend to incur them."
I'm sorry but this is !!!!!!!!, if you inadvertantly incurred a charge of course you need to know how they can and do mulitply. Of course I'm SURE there are thousands of people out there watching widescreen TV's and enjoyed carribbean cruises all funded by bank charges
hehe
from my perspective all i need to know is that they are too much. £10, £100 its money down the drain for nothing.
unless i neeed to go over my agreed limits for some reason, then i will factor in the cost of doing so, and therefore need to know the charges.
i think that the "inadvertantly incurred" charges that you talk of arent really so inadvertant in many cases, most certainly the second time round.davidgmmafan wrote: »"im guessing its prudent for them to do what theyre doing now, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it."
Well I've already speculated that they may make money from selling the debt on, I doubt it but I can't see any other reason for allowing people to build up debts they can't pay.
I still don't understand your disagreement with the £1 million bank charge. You argue on the one hand that the charges need to be high to get people to realize, but the current level clearly isn't working as it generates £2.6 billion a year. Therefore logically they need to be higher. But some level is magically unreasonable?
again nice try, but there is an unreasonable level.
there is a lot of money floating around you know.davidgmmafan wrote: »"there would brobably be some legal problems with that, with people not being able to be paid and all. however i would welcome that, but i cant see it happening."
I'm pretty sure banks CAN close accounts provided they give notice, It would be reasonable for them to do that if they were consistant. In what instacnes did they actually close accounts? In the early days they closed accounts where people had claimed charges back.
This was a retaliatory measure which was condemned by the FOS. Now this brings us to the heart of the matter. The banks like to pretend they don't like people who incur charges but if that WAS the case they'd go for the aforementioned interview and close the account if the terms weren't adhered to. Three strikes and you are out perhaps.
Except that they don't do that, they LOVE the people who incur charges because it makes more money for them.
and thats the way it should be. going over agreed credit limits costs money, you would hardly expect the banks to pay for it would you?
oh of course maybe its too much? maybe theyre making "too much" money out of it?
how dare they win!davidgmmafan wrote: »"anyway why should the banks be forced by law to help customers against their own interest when they are providing a service to them?"
Well its in the banking code etc, and the reason why I think it should be is its not like other services is it? If I want to get paid EVER I HAVE TO have a bank account. I could live without gas if times were hard, not so with a bank account. Which is why I agree with n earlier comment there should be an account on which charges are not possible. You might want to think about why such an account does not exist. I'll give you a clue ££££.
So basically I don't believe the deterrent argument, because the banks make a fortune from these charges.
well i think its partly deterrant partly profit.
why should there be a bank account that doesnt incur charges (even though there may be one)? we live in a country where we have to manage your finances, just as we have to manage our emotions and other business. perhaps some people need to accept that the management of our finances are a part of our responsibilty and obligations to the rest of society?davidgmmafan wrote: »"arent the company that made the mistake liable in that situation?"
Yes they probably are, but unfortunately the customer won't get anything for the 8 or so hours they spend telling people how to do thier job, but that's another issue
if some company made an unauthorised direct debit from my bank account i would be as annoyed and frustrated as anyone else, probably more to be honest.davidgmmafan wrote: »And finally I can't resist
"how is it that on the one hand the general public are being touted as morons who cant manage their affairs and need the banks help, yet at the same time are the pillars of wisdom in determining how banking charges should work? theres an inconsistancy there that speaks volumes."
How is it on the one hand banks can lecutre the public on fiscal responsibility whilst at the sametime having to be rescued by the tax-payer, literally in some cases, or figuratively with other arrangements, as well as payiny eye-watering bonuses. I know its a cheap shot but you walked right into that!
1. i dont remember the banks lecturing the public on fiscal responsibility
2. the credit crunch is a seperate issue from bank charges
3. the reason for the credit crunch is worldwide greed on the part of governments, companies, banks, and individual people. blaming the banks alone for it is an ignorant and incorrect assumption.
4. you didnt actually answer my question.0 -
"again nice try, but there is an unreasonable level."
What is this level and how is it determined?
I am not saying there should be no charges, merely that they should be proportionate. As I said earlier they need to be renamed, profit boosting levy, shafted customer fee, something along those lines.
I did not answer the question because it is clearly a loaded question.
Nobody is 'monitoring the banks profits' we're simply pointing out that the charges levied are much higher now (well relatively recently) than they were in the past and the work involved has diminished greatly. Again NO OBJECTION to charges being levid but in calling them admin fees or similar the banks hid the true nature of the charges.
"from my perspective all i need to know is that they are too much. £10, £100 its money down the drain for nothing.
unless i neeed to go over my agreed limits for some reason, then i will factor in the cost of doing so, and therefore need to know the charges.
i think that the "inadvertantly incurred" charges that you talk of arent really so inadvertant in many cases, most certainly the second time round."
Oh Jesus I'm losing the will here. Firstly you need to consider for a moment there are people in different circumstances to your own. People for whom one charge can start an unstoppable spiral. At the very least you must concede those people, in this circumstances, get a very poor deal.
But you hold they are not the majority, that most people incur hefty charges deliberately? Erm run that by me again? People Like charges? They like wasting money?
"and thats the way it should be. going over agreed credit limits costs money, you would hardly expect the banks to pay for it would you?
oh of course maybe its too much? maybe theyre making "too much" money out of it?
how dare they win!"
Pay for what? Un unpaid DD or standing order where NOTHING happens, no money changes hands and there is no manual intervention, yeah the costs they bear must be immense. I believe it is too much, how much too much we don't know because they won't tell us, but this links into your earlier point that "there is an unreasonable level".
Of course businesses are there to make money, some choose to do it by having good products or services, and some do it by srewing people over. With regard to charges, for the most part, banks do the latter. I can only hope such business models fair badly in the long run (although I guess Rogue Traders, and Watchdog et all would dis-agree!).
"well i think its partly deterrant partly profit.
why should there be a bank account that doesnt incur charges (even though there may be one)? we live in a country where we have to manage your finances, just as we have to manage our emotions and other business. perhaps some people need to accept that the management of our finances are a part of our responsibilty and obligations to the rest of society?"
If its deterrent thier ultimate goal is to change behaviour, in which case there would be no revenue. If its profit then they are accepting the behaviour will not change.
And there should be such a bank account because you need to have an account even for benefits. If you open a basic bank account and say can I go overdrawn I honestly believe most bank staff would say no, but they would be wrong.
Not being experts in banking most people do not realize that the ONLY way to have an account which cannot go overdrawn is to have a savings account, and yes they do whtm with cards.
But then you can't have DD's, which attract hefty discounts, so either way the poo get screwed. Strange that.
"if some company made an unauthorised direct debit from my bank account i would be as annoyed and frustrated as anyone else, probably more to be honest."
It happens all the time, and the direct debit guarantee in some instances is a complete joke, but that's a whole other issue
"1. i dont remember the banks lecturing the public on fiscal responsibility"
I don't have a source but I'm sure there would be examples of that floating around. You know people like Angela Knight who live in a bubble and can't imagine circumstances different to thier own. On the day of the ruling she said "most customers do not incur charges", and there has always a kind of moral issue to all of this.
Hopefully someone has a handy source to post, I really can't be bothered to look.
I wouldn't mind so much about the banks being so badly acqutined with the truth if they'd been honest from the outset. Did they say yeah we make loads from these charges? No they said oh well we incur costs you see blah blah blah. At every stage when thier lies were exposed they still never admitted any wrongdoing.
Even Natwest which I believe had the biggest reduction in charges (from £38 to £5 for an unpaid item I believe), hasn't made any kind of admission that the previous charges were extracting the urine. I'd say you can infer it from thier actions but that's not quite the same thing.
And what's happening now, Halifax claims to charge 0% APR when, if the APR were calculated it can be several thousand per cent under their new charging regime. This is what banks are like, and the more people that know that the better.Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.0 -
"how is it that on the one hand the general public are being touted as morons who cant manage their affairs and need the banks help, yet at the same time are the pillars of wisdom in determining how banking charges should work? theres an inconsistancy there that speaks volumes."
I never said they were morons, I was merely stating that a bank, indeed any business, has no interest in letting customer build up debts they cannot repay. The current system does that in spades.
Furthermore surely those who have experience of charges are best placed to advise banks, the government, or whomever what it is like.
They may even ALSO have experience of complaining to the bank about anything and finding out they are very good at writing replies which do nothing to address the points which were made.
Since we're asking loaded questions here's one for you
How is it that, in a supposedly competitive market, there was almost uniformity in the level of the charges?
I can think of two reasons , one of which the OFT is concerned about. People dont' switch, for whatever reason and therefore that stops true competition. Secondly there is a cartel, what's the point of switching when they are all the same? I know these two points are very close together but they are not quite the same.
It was never about full refunds, the law which was being used initially was seen as a mechanism to get the banks to disclose thier costs. This has been done in a limited fashion through the OFT, but the banks definately did not want this info to come out.
And as for people who did get full refunds you can't just look at the issue of charges in isolation. You have to throw in all the issues around how crap the DD guarantee is, how crap banks are at handling complaints (its about feel good not do good), and the general feeling that these banks are too big (certainly too big to fail) and can pretty much do what they want.Mixed Martial Arts is the greatest sport known to mankind and anyone who says it is 'a bar room brawl' has never trained in it and has no idea what they are talking about.0 -
Cleany what is so bad about simply blocking all payments where there is no funds and doing it automatically without a fee? what is the problem with it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards