Bank Charges

nomoneytoday

With all this publicity about banks refunding charges, I wonder how long it will be until everyone gets charged for everything again??

At the moment if you keep your account in credit there are no fees.
If you go overdrawn and ask first the fees are not too bad.
If you go over your limit you should be charged loads.

Banks are a business, and all the people overdrawn are keeping the majority of us in "free" banking. Why should that stop for a few overspenders??

Rant over for the day...

The_Boss

What I think will happen is that lenders will start a "3 strikes and you're out" - i.e. 3 infractions and they will recall the total debt. Then the happy late payers will have the smiles wiped off their faces when they cannot afford this and face being credit black listed, though no doubt they will then demand a reduction in their debt and end up having to pay less than they spent :mad:

inmypocketnottheirs

The_Boss wrote:

What I think will happen is that lenders will start a "3 strikes and you're out" - i.e. 3 infractions and they will recall the total debt. Then the happy late payers will have the smiles wiped off their faces when they cannot afford this and face being credit black listed, though no doubt they will then demand a reduction in their debt and end up having to pay less than they spent :mad:

I think you will find that is in contravention of the banking code. Both of you seem to forget, or overlook, the fact that the banks are acting unlawfully here. These charges are not recoverable in law,that is why none of them will turn up to court to defend their actions. There have been many cases filed, and each time the bank either pays up before the court date, or does not show up at court. Why do you think that is? The answer is obvious.

Banking never used to be free till around the early eighties, you got charged for everything, cheque books, statements, cheques paid in or out, cash in or out. The only thing you got for free was a plastic cheque book holder, credit card holder and statement folder.

But then in those days the banks were not making billions.

Today 1 in 5 people are affected by these punitive fees, that is not an inconsiderable percentage of the popilation. I could not be certaqin, but that probably equates to the number of people that put Tony Blair in number 10.

I think a return to a fair and equitable banking system is due.

The_Boss

So you dont think there should be any incentives to pay on time? Or to stay within your credit limit? You think its ok for people to regularly pay late? The fines are there to help enforce the rules regarding managing your account, in the same way there are laws to stop people from stealing from shops.

grumbler

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

I think you will find that is in contravention of the banking code.

Could you, please, quote the part of the banking code you mean?

inmypocketnottheirs

The_Boss wrote:

So you dont think there should be any incentives to pay on time? Or to stay within your credit limit? You think its ok for people to regularly pay late? The fines are there to help enforce the rules regarding managing your account, in the same way there are laws to stop people from stealing from shops.

There are incentives, and there should be, to pay on time. A guilt edged credit rating is not a God given right, has to be earned and needs to be protected. But just sometimes, life changing events come along, and for whatever reason then fulfilling ones obligations can just become impossible.

The fines are not there in the same way as there are laws to stop people stealing. Theft laws (to quote your example) are upheld in court, where as punitive fines are not. Furthermore, the terms and conditions (i.e. the 'rules' you refer to) are in direct contravention of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

nomoneytoday

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

Dec 05 Barclaycard £24 excess limit charge
Jan 06 Co-Op Bank £1331.50 for 6 years bank charges
Jan 06 GE Money £117.50 excessive charge for processing standard document.

Not wishing to aim this at you personally, but if everyone got almost £1500 off their banks then the banks would have to increase their charges to everyone else to make them back. Banks are a business not charity, and are entitled to make profits through lending and investments.

inmypocketnottheirs

nomoneytoday wrote:

Not wishing to aim this at you personally, but if everyone got almost £1500 off their banks then the banks would have to increase their charges to everyone else to make them back. Banks are a business not charity, and are entitled to make profits through lending and investments.

Don't you think that the banks should ensure that their charges are fair, accurately reflect their liquidated damages (i.e. their true costs) and most importantly are enforceable in court. If they adhered to these principles then I would not have had a snow ball in hell's chance of getting these charges refunded. I only did so because the charges were excessive and unenforceable. The fact the banks were obliged to repay these amounts are simply down to their greed in the first place.

They are of course entitled to make profits through lending and investments, and I would totally suport their endeavours in that effort. They are not entitled, however, the spin lucrative money making schemes that are on the fringe of 'legality'.

Nothing wrong with standing up to a bully, is there? :beer:

xycom1

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

Don't you think that the banks should ensure that their charges are fair, accurately reflect their liquidated damages (i.e. their true costs) and most importantly are enforceable in court.

No. The same for any business - they decide at what level to set their charges, and then people should decide whether or not to do business with that company. I agree that the banks should be honest about their charges, but if these charges are indeed illegal then perhaps that just says that we need to change the law in order to legitimise them.

If you're not happy with the charges, then go elsewhere. Or don't use banks at all if they're all the same. If they started charging for anything and everything as someone else in the thread suggested, then I wouldn't use a bank - I'd make a decision to avoid them to avoid the charges.

grumbler

xycom1 wrote:

...if these charges are indeed illegal then perhaps that just says that we need to change the law in order to legitimise them...

This is exactly what I think. There are a lot of bad (I'd even say stupid) laws around that are very difficult to change. For examle the one about adverse posession that has been changed a few years ago at last.

I can be fined by my employer (University) for incorrect parking. This is fair and nobody asks questions about 'true cost'.
I can be fined for littering. This is fair.
I can be fined by my water supply company. This is fair.
I can be fined for .... This is fair...
.....

All these charges are punitive and don't reflect any 'true costs'. God knows why punitive charges are prohibited in business by Unfair Contract Terms Act....