Bank Charges - illegal?

Teerah

MrSmartprice wrote:

I administer my father's account at one of the High St banks (which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole with my money) and they are always making errors.

I now enforce a penalty charge on THEM every time they foul up. When they first got wind of this, they moaned like hell, but they never claim that the charges are unfair. They know you have them over a barrel, and now they pay up without question. So far I have charged them £220 in penalties and received every penny!

Hi MrSmartprice,

what sort of foul ups have you charged them for?

virgin_moneysaver

my other thoughts on this are, & it's not just banking but any application form that we sign, if we don't intend to abide by the T & C that we are signing for to say that 'I have read & understood the terms & conditions' does this mean that even if we sign on the dotted line our signature is no longer worth the paper its written on?

dchurch24

For a bank to allow people to 'exceed it's facilities' is entirely at the banks discretion.
This situation is created by the banks for their own benifit. If I don't have enough money in my account to pay someone in cash, then the cashpoint refuses to give me money. Fair enough. I don't get charged for not having enough money in the account to draw out a tenner if I owe it to my brother, so why should a DD be any different?

If I have a bank account that doesn't have enough money to pay a DD, then what business is it of the banks? It's purely an agreement between me and the person I am paying.

I can assure you that if banks had to reduce/remove overlimit/late-payment/recall charges, there would be an increase in interest rates on lending, and almost certainly a reduction on interest rates for credit balances on current/savings accounts.

That is a fair comment. If the interest and/or annual charges for services were increased then those fees would not penalise those that can not afford them the least and we would all be paying a 'fair' price for a service provided and we would then have the choice. Banks would then compete on a level playing ground and a consumer could choose which bank treats it's customers the best.

You all seem to forget that we lend our money to these banks for very little return. To bite the hand that feeds you seems quite bad business practice to me.

I suppose, if you like recieving services paid for by poor people, then ok - it's you that has to live with yourself.

if we don't intend to abide by the T & C that we are signing for to say that 'I have read & understood the terms & conditions' does this mean that even if we sign on the dotted line our signature is no longer worth the paper its written on?

It means that terms that are unfair are not legally enforcable. That is why the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts' regulations exist.

Secondly, give me a choice!
if anyone can show me an account that doesn't have these terms written in, then I will eat my words and sign up immediatly. The banks have a virtual cartel. People who don't realise this and think that these terms and conditions are fair, clearly don't have any morals.
Even if I had never been charged these 'fees', common sense tells me that only those that can least afford it will be affected.

The 'I'm alright jack' attitude is fine, if you think that you can handle the sociological effect of such an attitude...and trust me - think about it a bit, or at least do some research and you might think differently. I have a degree in Sociology and trust me, throughout history this type of thinking never allows for a succesfull society.

I rarely express my excasperation, but this attitude really upsets me and shows me the way that society is going in this country.

Still, it's largely academic, as I have proven 3 times that this type of charging (i.e. profiteering from a breach of contract) is illegal. I have sued Abbey, HFC and Smile(Co-op) succesfully on these legal grounds.

If their legal advisers thought differently, then there would have been a court case to answer - they all paid up before a date was set for a court hearing, plus interest and completely on my terms; for a change.

On Tuesday, I will start proceedings against Barclays. I sincerely hope that they have 'the balls' to take it to court - and in doing so, will pave the way for EVERYONE to get their 'charges' back when they lose. Sadly, I suspect that, like the others, they know the law and will 'roll-over' and pay up.

Still, for those of you that think that this sort of monopolistic behaviour is OK, I hope that you never fall on hard times, or never have an employer that doesn't pay on time, or pay the correct amounts, or fall ill and unable to keep up payments on something.

I feel that your attitude will change once this happens.

Good luck in life.

Caped_Avenger

dchurch24 wrote:

For a bank to allow people to 'exceed it's facilities' is entirely at the banks discretion.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are £3 from your overdraft limit, and request £10 at an ATM, the bank has to allow you to take it out. Otherwise it would be denying you access to the £3 that is yours.

dchurch24 wrote:

You all seem to forget that we lend our money to these banks for very little return. To bite the hand that feeds you seems quite bad business practice to me.

I lend my bank money for a reasonable return, I believe. The way i look at it, i have 2 options:

1) Put my money in a bank account, where it is (relatively) safe, and is accruing interest above the rate of inflation.
2) Stuff it under my matress, where it depreciates, and could quite easily be stolen.

Pretty simple choice, as i see it.

Actually, why do you even bother have a bank account at all?

dchurch24 wrote:

The 'I'm alright jack' attitude is fine, if you think that you can handle the sociological effect of such an attitude...and trust me - think about it a bit, or at least do some research and you might think differently. I have a degree in Sociology and trust me, throughout history this type of thinking never allows for a succesfull society.

I rarely express my excasperation, but this attitude really upsets me and shows me the way that society is going in this country.

It's funny you say that and, to you, this may seem like petty backbiting. Now if that's what your degree tells you is what is leading me to post this response, then you believe that, but i promise you that that isn't the case.

Your attitude is the one which actually exasperates me beyone belief. The "i'll take anyone to court if they cross me" attitude. I personally have no axe to grind against you, but i would love it if you lost one of your petty little court cases.

Anyway, you've skirted two questions that have been put to you, either intentionally or not:

1) Why sign up to terms and conditions you fully intend to break?
2) Why exactly should those of us who can operate our accounts as we agreed to when we signed the T&Cs be punished for those who are incapable of doing so, or simply choose not to?

Oh, finally:

dchurch24 wrote:

Good luck in life.

Nice. Thanks very much. I love coming on here to be patronised.

virgin_moneysaver

I'm sorry but don't accuse me of having any morals! - so you're playing the 'education' card & have a degree in sociology & anyone who isn't educated to your standard doesn't know what they're talking about & should listen to you because you have a degree & so you are right & those of us who don't have a degree are wrong? - what about taking responsibility for ones own actions - I'm fed up of this 'it's not my fault, guv' attitude that prevails in this country & 'compo culture' - to quote you 'what business is it of the banks if you haven't the funds to meet your DD' - not the Bank but this time the company that you SIGNED the DD with to pay an amount that you owe them, you signed a DD to pay them via your bank account then 'it's not my fault, I'll take the bank etc to court' when you don't leave enough in your account to pay the people you owe the money to - everyone has a choice - if you haven't the funds to meet the payments , don't write chqs you can't honour & cancel any d/ds you know you can't pay beforehand & come to some arrangement with the company - you take your car to a garage to be repaired & they tell you the charges up front, when you collect your car you decide their fees are too high in your opinion & so you refuse to pay & decide to take them to court? - these boards/forums are for everyones opinions whether they agree with yours or not - it's not for you to take the moral highground & decree who has morals & who has not, it's all a question of opinion - you have yours & I have mine - FYI we fell on 'hard times' as you put it & my husband had 48 hours notice that his firm was closing & he had no job - the DSS weren't helpful as he worked Sats & Suns which weren't calculated in his entitlement - that was the 1st & last time he was in the DSS - he walked from there to the job centre where he picked up the 1st job available which was low paid but kept us going until he could find something more permanent as we had a 3yr old & I was 6 weeks away from the birth of our 2nd child - we were one of the 'poor people' as you put it!

Mr_Skint_2

Caped_Avenger wrote:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are £3 from your overdraft limit, and request £10 at an ATM, the bank has to allow you to take it out. Otherwise it would be denying you access to the £3 that is yours.

And at what cashpoint can you get coins at... :beer:

They do allow you to go a % over your overdraught apparently
using a debit card, Always for me anyhow with TSB.....

M_Thomson

Caped_Avenger wrote:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are £3 from your overdraft limit, and request £10 at an ATM, the bank has to allow you to take it out. Otherwise it would be denying you access to the £3 that is yours.

The majority of banks will not allow you to do this. They will decline a transaction at the ATM so you have to go into a branch to get money out.
I agree with your post above regarding bank charges 100%.

dchurch24

1) Why sign up to terms and conditions you fully intend to break?

I don't 'intend' to break the t&cs. All banks have these t&cs - if you have to have a bank account (and in 1986 Thatchers administration got rid of an employees right to choose how they get paid, so now nearly everyone will be paid directly into a bank account - no account, no pay), you have to sign up to these illegal t&cs.

2) Why exactly should those of us who can operate our accounts as we agreed to when we signed the T&Cs be punished for those who are incapable of doing so, or simply choose not to?[/quote]

How are you being punished? If you mean that if charges are removed (and I think they will be within a year) then the banks will start charging a fee, then I wouldn't see that as a punishment - I would see that as a fair price (I would imagine that competition would see the banks having a price 'war')

Your attitude is the one which actually exasperates me beyone belief. The "i'll take anyone to court if they cross me" attitude. I personally have no axe to grind against you, but i would love it if you lost one of your petty little court cases.

I'll take anyone to court that tries to steal money from me - it's illegal, end of story. I don't want to live in a litigious society, but if someone was to steal from you - you would report it to the police, and you would hope that they end up in court. I just had to do it without the police.

To virgin_moneysaver, what choice did I have when my employer didn't pay on time? I don't have psychic abilities. I could not foreseen that money wasn't going to be in my account when it should have been. When it was on time, it was rarely the correct amount - leaving not enough in the account to pay for things.

you take your car to a garage to be repaired & they tell you the charges up front, when you collect your car you decide their fees are too high in your opinion & so you refuse to pay & decide to take them to court?

When you take your car to a garage you are paying for a service that's been provided - you are not being penalised because you took your car there. A £39 fine for not paying a direct debit, can hardle been seen as a service in anyones eyes.

Nice. Thanks very much. I love coming on here to be patronised.

For that, I apologise.

bargainhunt_3

The charges system in the UK is simply down to the type of model we have for banking. For example most people expect free banking on their account, in return you expect counter service, phone banking. internet banking and other services for free. In reality all of these cost some money, it may not be much but I have heard that on paper at least most banks make a loss on offering the most basic forms of current account. They do however start to recoup some of that when you start paying interest on overdrafts and it can become profitable when charges are added.

As most people probably keep within their banking agreement the banks have to make a profit from every one else. So in reality it is those who incur the changes, which in many cases are in the worst financial position that end up paying for the banking services of everyone else, even the very wealthly. So the next time you walk past a branch of High Street Private Bank X or someone similar, and notice their plush offices for those with accounts with over £100,000 in them, just remember they are benefiting from your charges.

So in effect banks are the opposite of Robin Hood, they rob the poor to pay the rich.

I fail to see how it costs £30 to pay an already authorised debit card transaction which pushes you over the limit. I do think it is fair that there is some charge, but it should be lower and be applied more fairly for example a £1 or somthing like that.

Also if we really do want to see an end to unfair bank charges it means that those who are currently enjoying free banking and are hence being subsidised (quite often by the poor) would need to start paying for everyday banking transactions, or even just a flat fee per month. However I cannot see the rest of us being willing to start paying for basic banking services. A few years ago it was calculated that to offer a current account cost around £140 for each customer. This has to come from somewhere.

The model in the UK contrasts sharply with many other countries where you have to pay for a current account, or if you dont you pay for additional services like web banking etc. I am sure we would complain at such things in the UK, however the upside is that the charges for breaking agreements (I will need to check this), or even making international payments are much lower.

In essence the UK model charges for exceptional events, such as going over your limit and these charges have no relationship to the actual cost of the event. Where as if we want fair banking we need to lower these charges and share the costs more evenly around all the customers.

dchurch24

Bargainhunt, What you say is entirely correct.

It seems to me that everyone wants something for free, subsidised by people who are worse off, either financially or because they do not have basic banking skills (and let's remember, I didn't want to become a banker - those that run banks wanted that).

However, I have a current account in France; there are no annual fees or charges, and there are no penalties. Indeed, once they let me go €36k overdrawn for a few weeks and they didn't even charge me interest.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are £3 from your overdraft limit, and request £10 at an ATM, the bank has to allow you to take it out. Otherwise it would be denying you access to the £3 that is yours.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps you may wish to research 'facts' before posting them. This is not the case, the bank does not HAVE TO allow you to take it out at all, it is, as I said, entirely at the banks discretion.


I honestly cannot understand why people think that it's ok for banks to operate above the law. In any other situation with anything other than a bank operating outside of the law, the same people would probably be horrified.

just out of interest - you say you've done this 3 times & are about to start another 2 cases - do you set out on purpose to accrue bank charges just to make a point?

Not at all, we had a situation where my employer didn't pay up on time for 3 months on the trot, and also didn't pay the correct amount. As, at the time my partner and I had dealings with 4 banks (HFC, Barclays, Abbey(x2) & Smile) each of them didn't receive money on-time, and thus each account incurred these illegal charges, the first month over £600, which of course meant that there was not enough money the following month - I asked Abbey to cancel some DD's, but they didn't. They gave me a £200 overdraft, which I didn't want, which, even those with basic maths skills can see, was not going anywhere to covering even their charges, let alone leaving me with anything to feed my family with. Anyone who thinks that this behaviour is justified, clearly doesn't have any morals. I said it before and I stand by it.

I couldn't believe that these banks could literally drive me into the ground financially and so quickly over someone elses mistake, so I researched it and then took legal action against the biggest offender - Abbey.
Now I am methodically going about getting my stolen money back from the others.

Some of you have mentioned that these are 'petty little cases' and hope that I lose - fair enough, you are entitled to your rather uncharitable opinion - to me that money is not petty - I earn good money but at one point I didn't have enough left to buy shoes for my daughter after paying these charges. I have very little debt (and the debt I do have is due largely to these charges) so this situation was not bought on by myself, it was bought on by a greedy bank determined to screw me into the ground and an employer that was useless at paying.

I don't find that petty at all.

FYI: I no longer work for that particular employer, they are, I believe now defunct.