Bank Charges - illegal?

comicmankev

I think i'll answer the question, as it was my post! This was all on a DVD website that charge on dispatch. I had money clearing on the Tuesday so I withdrew some over that weekend. Obviously, they dispatched all these items on that unlucky monday that they charged the card.

virgin_moneysaver

comicmankev wrote:

I think i'll answer the question, as it was my post! This was all on a DVD website that charge on dispatch. I had money clearing on the Tuesday so I withdrew some over that weekend. Obviously, they dispatched all these items on that unlucky monday that they charged the card.

so it was under your control - you admit that your money wasn't cleared until the tuesday & you knew that the DVD website were due to debit the account at sometime, you had authorised the transactions, so if you knew they were due why extract funds over the weekend that were already allocated - when you use a debit card or cheque it's on the proviso that the funds are already there NOT should be there at some point in the future - you do have some responsibility here for the overdraft occuring

dchurch24

eh? eh? Caaalm down!!
[in a Liverpudlian accent]

comicmankev

virgin_moneysaver wrote:

so it was under your control - you admit that your money wasn't cleared until the tuesday & you knew that the DVD website were due to debit the account at sometime, you had authorised the transactions, so if you knew they were due why extract funds over the weekend that were already allocated - when you use a debit card or cheque it's on the proviso that the funds are already there NOT should be there at some point in the future - you do have some responsibility here for the overdraft occuring

Well, I tried to put it straight enough in my original post, but I knew there would still be some 'high horsers' out there.

Let me put it to you as plainly as I can, and just hope you understand the question this time, instead of jumping on the offensive.

I am fully aware of what my account was, and should have been. I am fully aware that I would be charged if the money was debited. I am not, and have not complained about this.

This question I asked was. Do you think that the charges were 'fair'. the word is fair. I'm not asking whether or not you think 'that person can't look after their money, they deserve to be charged'. I am asking, if you were in this situation, would you think that these charges are 'fair'.

inmypocketnottheirs

virgin_moneysaver wrote:

so it was under your control - you admit that your money wasn't cleared until the tuesday & you knew that the DVD website were due to debit the account at sometime, you had authorised the transactions, so if you knew they were due why extract funds over the weekend that were already allocated - when you use a debit card or cheque it's on the proviso that the funds are already there NOT should be there at some point in the future - you do have some responsibility here for the overdraft occuring

Not necessarily, I would say. There is a time lapse between an authorisation and a debit clearing the account. Plus we do not live in an ideal world. Sometimes the view can be obscured from an ivory tower!

The whole point of conjecture here is the scale of the fees, if they were 'fair and reasonable' and 'representative of the work involved' then there would be no issue. But because banks use these fees as a 'profit mechanism' they jump at the chance to impose them.

Looking back at comicmankevs charges it is clear that the charges exceed the debit in every occasion. Therefore it is evident that all that the bank is interested in is levying charges and not preventing customer indebtedness. How can anyone in their right mind support this????

Plus it could be questioned as to why did the bank authorise the withdrawals when it had already authorised the DVD transactions. Answer ~ so it could levy charges!!!!

dchurch24

Banks hold on to our money for as long as possible (I once had a cheque take 9 working days, and a bankers draft take over 9 weeks).

The 'rules' are deliberatly vague and no-one can truly know where their bank balance stands at any one time - cash machine balances are almost a fabrication some of the time, quoting 'uncleared' funds as drawable, Abbey's on-line banking doesn't update at weekends etc... etc...

Anyone defending this position must either:

a. work for the bank.
or
b. hold shares in a bank.

No-one defends the indefensible unless they have an agenda.

inmypocketnottheirs

dchurch24 wrote:

Banks hold on to our money for as long as possible (I once had a cheque take 9 working days, and a bankers draft take over 9 weeks).

The 'rules' are deliberatly vague and no-one can truly know where their bank balance stands at any one time - cash machine balances are almost a fabrication some of the time, quoting 'uncleared' funds as drawable, Abbey's on-line banking doesn't update at weekends etc... etc...

Anyone defending this position must either:

a. work for the bank.
or
b. hold shares in a bank.

No-one defends the indefensible unless they are an immorral criminal lawyer.

Correct!!!! And for good measure, if the customer under stands the rules, lets move the goal posts just to trip em up!!!!

virgin_moneysaver

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

Not necessarily, I would say. There is a time lapse between an authorisation and a debit clearing the account. Plus we do not live in an ideal world. Sometimes the view can be obscured from an ivory tower!

The whole point of conjecture here is the scale of the fees, if they were 'fair and reasonable' and 'representative of the work involved' then there would be no issue. But because banks use these fees as a 'profit mechanism' they jump at the chance to impose them.

Looking back at comicmankevs charges it is clear that the charges exceed the debit in every occasion. Therefore it is evident that all that the bank is interested in is levying charges and not preventing customer indebtedness. How can anyone in their right mind support this????

Plus it could be questioned as to why did the bank authorise the withdrawals when it had already authorised the DVD transactions. Answer ~ so it could levy charges!!!!

yes, there is a time between a card payment being sanctioned & debited so that's why you allow for the payment in your figures of how much cash you have available.

and for the record I think a lot of the fees charged by banks & the like are high & always seem worse for a DD that was £4.00 than the same fee applied for one for £400

I also sympathise with people who genuinely come a cropper thru no fault of their own like the other poster & the non-appearance of their JSA - the DSS should, quite rightly, cough up in this case

Like I say, I don't agree with the level of charging, I'm not heartless as some people assume, but you have control over your own account to a degree - if you know your funds aren't going to be there cancel your DD's before they go out & arrange to pay some other way - at least with standing orders you are in control of when the payments are made as you can choose the date that suits you - DD's are convenient but are the biggest cause of o/ds & fees

and just another musing - how many of the posters on this website even gave bank charges a thought until they were hit with them themselves & got on their 'high horse' as I was accused of in an earlier post

comicmankev

So you also do not think the charges are 'fair'. I'm glad I could clarify that, I was getting the wrong impresion in your first post.

dchurch24

I've always thought it unfair and punitive.

It wasn't until I got hit that I researched it and discovered that the charges ARE penalties and thus not legally enforcable. It is my belief that banks are not above the law - I, of course did not realise the legalities of it until if affected me directly.

how many of the posters on this website even gave bank charges a thought until they were hit with them themselves

You could ask the same question about many things - e.g. how many people would think of campaigning for better 'justice for fathers' unless they'd been affected themselves?