Miffed trying to open bank account

Tootsie_Roll

kevker wrote:

so damned if we do, damned if we dont. You originally said people should manage their accounts properly, now you're saying that people that don't manage their accounts properly are good, as they enable banks to give free banking, therefore benefiting you. So which argument is it then?

I haven't said either of those things.

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

WE ALL PAY FOR THINGS WE DONT WISH TO , AND WE ALL HAVE TO IN THE END PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES MISTAKES THATS LIFE , BUT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS WHAT WE PAY as an individual IS INSIGNIFICANT, SHOP PRICES INCREASE BECOUSE OF THEFT ETC WHATS THE POINT IN WHINGING (I HAVE TO Pay becouse of that persons mistake dont we all pay for peoples istakes )

Broken_hearted

THE_LONE_RANGER wrote:

yes to right i live in a remote area my councill tax does not reflect this, why should i pay for townie muppetts to have streat lights, pavements , busses,etc etc and i have never been in hospital i dont want to pay for that either, and oaps stuff the old gits winter fuel payments ,oh disabled why should my local shop give them special access he dont want to pay for that ,war in iraq i never told them to go ,fire engines ,police never needed them either :T smokers ,drinkers, fat people dont want to pay for them either GOD IM A SELFISH !!!!!!

Such a nice person. Thats why we love you. :beer:

Broken_hearted

Just a little off note people don't choose to be disabled and we are very grateful to all those who contribute to disabled access.

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

exactly these people who say i dont want to pay for this and that are normally the type who think they paY FOR EVERY ONE AND EVERY THING

freeclimber

Originally posted by Tootsie Roll
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeclimber
Why should I have to pay for your banking?



Because you have abused your account knowing full well what the penalties are - you have a choice.

I am happy to pay for the abuse of my own account provided the charges bear direct relation to the costs of the transgression. No bank has yet offered evidence that it costs £38 for an automated system to bounce a DD - if they had, then the OFT would not be investigating bank charges, and the banks themselves would have presented the evidence to the courts to halt the flood of claimants applying through the small claims track.

In view of this, one can only conclude that banks are turning a profit on the charges they levy, rather than simply covering their costs. Your argument suggests that your banking is free because the profit from the fees on my own account keeps it that way. Your point is therefore invalid, as it still doesn't answer the question of why you expect me to pay for your free banking, rather than just paying for my own banking.

Of course, if you have hard evidence that the true cost of transgression matches the exhorbitant fees imposed, then I, and probably every banking institution in the country, would like to see it.

Tootsie_Roll

THE_LONE_RANGER wrote:

exactly these people who say i dont want to pay for this and that are normally the type who think they paY FOR EVERY ONE AND EVERY THING

And you have the nerve to say I am confrontational !

Do not confuse the issue - we are talking about bank charges - not public services and to try and link the two is nonsense.

kevker

So going back to your argument about bank charges. Surely if everyone paid for banking it would be fairer. After all it must cost something to run your account. And yes I can understand that banks have your money, which they invest etc, but surely, unless you have a large balance every month, throughout the month, then they can't be doing that well out of not charging you for anything. Surely it would be better then if eveyone just paid for what they used. So everytime you write a cheque, you pay a fee to cover the administration charge. That way, when people sometimes have no choice but to go over their overdraft, they won't get unfairly penalised, and will just pay the true cost as they don't then have to subsidise people's free banking.

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

THE BANK IS PROFITEERING OUT OF BANK CHARGES ITS OBVIOUS, YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES MISTAKES I HAVE HAD NO BANK CHARGES FOR 5 YEARS I GET FREE BANKING , reason the banks can offer me this is they are paying for it via over the top bank charges it is only a matter of time before they stop free banking ,and it will not be becouse of people claiming bank charges back it will be becouse they want to make more money hand over fist

Tootsie_Roll

freeclimber wrote:

I am happy to pay for the abuse of my own account provided the charges bear direct relation to the costs of the transgression. No bank has yet offered evidence that it costs £38 for an automated system to bounce a DD - if they had, then the OFT would not be investigating bank charges, and the banks themselves would have presented the evidence to the courts to halt the flood of claimants applying through the small claims track.

In view of this, one can only conclude that banks are turning a profit on the charges they levy, rather than simply covering their costs. Your argument suggests that your banking is free because the profit from the fees on my own account keeps it that way. Your point is therefore invalid, as it still doesn't answer the question of why you expect me to pay for your free banking, rather than just paying for my own banking.

Of course, if you have hard evidence that the true cost of transgression matches the exhorbitant fees imposed, then I, and probably every banking institution in the country, would like to see it.

Blah, Blah, Blah - yes heard it all before.

When I first started working for a bank the £20 fee for bouncing a cheque in now way represented the cost involved when you added up the man hours BUT everyone paid bank charges for everything, chq's, s/o's etc etc etc - so you could say that everyone then subsidised the people who abused their account AND there was NO choice - fair ? I don't think so.

So essentially you are right, you are subsidising my banking by paying charges, so is everyone who takes out a loan and so on. Susidies are an everyday part of life in many different areas and not necessarily a bad thing. If banks lose fees from charges they will make it up elsewhere and it will most likely be the majority that suffer for the few selfish people that now don't want to honour an agreement that they signed up to.

The difference that everyone seems to miss is that we have a choice now - you don't need to incur charges, you don't need to take out a loan, if you do and have signed up for it then live with it - it's your choice. Banks are not prepared to challenge this just now when the number of claims are still small and when they are hoping to take more direct measures at goverment level.