£30 for £1.09 o/d!!!!!!!!!!!!!

natweststaffmember

KimYeovil wrote: »

Paying £0 per year year after year strikes me as more advantageous to those on benefits and those who are poor than asking them to pay £180 bank charges each and every year.

Of course, that does not mean the way the charges are distributed is fair - but it does mean the op is a turkey voting for Christmas.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Do not get too dug in by the banks argument about the end of free banking. We have never had it and we never will have it.
Bank Charges can be made and they can be fair. There are charges that some banks make that is quite frankly ridiculous, for example, exceed your overdraft by 1p and we hit you with £30 charges. Why not have a high interest amount perhaps similar to a loan from the bank. When you get a loan are you charged £30 for it? The answer is no, you are charged interest. There could be a system of banking which may offer a fee for high/medium/low useage which is deemed fair. Or simply a reduction is charges. For example, and I can say this, I get £60.50 a week JSA. If I had a cheque/DD returned that could take £38 from my budget and the bill isn't paid even if the bill is £3. what if they charged me £2.50/£3 and if it took me over my overdraft limit by 2p and I was charged 35% interest. That seems fair to me and it does not take £38 from my budget.

KimYeovil

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Do not get too dug in by the banks argument about the end of free banking. We have never had it and we never will have it.
Bank Charges can be made and they can be fair. There are charges that some banks make that is quite frankly ridiculous, for example, exceed your overdraft by 1p and we hit you with £30 charges. Why not have a high interest amount perhaps similar to a loan from the bank. When you get a loan are you charged £30 for it? The answer is no, you are charged interest. There could be a system of banking which may offer a fee for high/medium/low useage which is deemed fair. Or simply a reduction is charges. For example, and I can say this, I get £60.50 a week JSA. If I had a cheque/DD returned that could take £38 from my budget and the bill isn't paid even if the bill is £3. what if they charged me £2.50/£3 and if it took me over my overdraft limit by 2p and I was charged 35% interest. That seems fair to me and it does not take £38 from my budget.

Eh? Is that not how approved overdrafts work, now?

natweststaffmember

KimYeovil wrote: »

Eh? Is that not how approved overdrafts work, now?

I saw a different argument arriving. Coffee needs to be better these days(Approved overdrafts don't work that way, but not everyone can get an approved overdraft )

swstevewil

KimYeovil wrote: »

Paying £0 per year year after year strikes me as more advantageous to those on benefits and those who are poor than asking them to pay £180 bank charges each and every year.

Of course, that does not mean the way the charges are distributed is fair - but it does mean the op is a turkey voting for Christmas.

free banking is no argument.
if it costs you £180 a year to run your car should you pay that or somebody you dont know who is a day late getting his tax disc that year?
If it costs £180 a year for YOUR bank account then YOU pay it.

People on benefits have the option of a post office account (no fees)

willo65

swstevewil wrote: »

free banking is no argument.
if it costs you £180 a year to run your car should you pay that or somebody you dont know is a day late getting his tax disc that year?
If it costs £180 a year for YOUR bank account then YOU pay it.

People on benefits have the option of a post office account (no fees)

So you are now contradicting your previous argument that the OP didn't have a choice but to sign the contact as all the banks have similar fees. But now your saying he could have went to the post office. So thats a resolution for everyone just join the post office if you don't like the fees.

swstevewil

willo65 wrote: »

So you are now contradicting your previous argument that the OP didn't have a choice but to sign the contact as all the banks have similar fees. But now your saying he could have went to the post office. So thats a resolution for everyone just join the post office if you don't like the fees.

I made that point in post 13 along with the fact that i didnt know his financial circumstances when he OPENED the account
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19265327&postcount=13

I then considered postal office account at a later date in post 18
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19267961&postcount=18

So the answer to your question is NO I have not contradicted my argument.
I discovered post office option at a later date and incorporated it within my argument that is applied learning.

As everybody does have different financial circumstances then it would be impossible to offer a solution that fits all. A Post office account is just one.

Butterfliesarepretty

simon_templar wrote: »

Is it reasonable to spend more than you have, now there is a question?

It is not a case of spending. Eg I got charged £25 for each direct debit X 3 because the money I transerred did not arrive in time. I earn £208 a week currently and my monthly bills are £645, and they are necessary bills and the cheapest ever as I live alone. Sometimes you don't have a choice, bills you have to pay whatever the guy earns. (he is not overspending) Give him a breather.

willo65

swstevewil wrote: »

I made that point in post 13 along with the fact that i didnt know his financial circumstances when he OPENED the account
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19265327&postcount=13

I then considered postal office account at a later date in post 18
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19267961&postcount=18

So the answer to your question is NO I have not contradicted my argument.
I discovered post office option at a later date and incorporated it within my argument that is applied learning.

As everybody does have different financial circumstances then it would be impossible to offer a solution that fits all. A Post office account is just one.

So what you are saying is that now you have learnt of a new account at the post office port 13 is somewhat incorrect as OP did have a choice on where he chose to bank and could have went for the PO account if he didn't like it.

simon_templar_2

swstevewil likes to debate only if you have the same view as him. Like another person on here they resort to name calling and such like.

swstevewil

willo65 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that now you have learnt of a new account at the post office port 13 is somewhat incorrect as OP did have a choice on where he chose to bank and could have went for the PO account if he didn't like it.

I dont know if OP was on benefits when he opened account.

If he was working then a post office account is not an option as salaries can not be paid into this.

If he was then yes for me to say he had no choice was incorrect.

I have already stated that I learnt about Post office account after post 13
and therefore posted it in 18 so what exactly is your point.