Bank charges

scott_lithgows

ahai1 wrote: »

People are reclaiming because it is free money to them. The point is they should not have had that money in the first place. As for unfair or fair terms I don't give a damn those poeple broke the rules. It is plain and simple.

As for the poor it is an excause and a disgrace to lump all people with low income in this group. Those people would not give a damn if the banks started to charge people on a low income for using a current account.

There are plenty of ways of getting back the money which the banks to their credit have not done. I can go throw the list.

1. Charging people for replacing lost and stolen cards.
2. Higher merchant fees.
3. Fees for using bank transfer and cheques.

4.Charging a £1 when using a rival bank/bs,s cash machine.
Abbey tried this in the mid 90,s,all they got was a lot of closed accounts.

G_M

In France, going overdrawn without an overdraft agreement results in your bank account being closed! Basically they view it as using someone else's money without their agreement. Theft.
Over here we have a culture of living off credit, loans, 'other people's money'.That's the crux of many of our problems.
If the banks lose this legal battle and start charging for current accounts or otherwise hitting 'responsible' bank-users I'll be furious!

jambosans

Cross-subsidy of retail banking through charges is a very believable argument. Just look at the Reward Account HBOS recently launched. Deposit £1000 in a calendar month, get a £5 net payment, sounds great. Using an arranged overdraft up to £2500 will cost you £1 per day, and above £2500 costs £2 per day. In many cases, traditional debit interest couldn't come close to earning these kind of figures on the average lower overdrafts. As a result, the unauthorised overdraft charge is now £5 per day, with no unpaid item fees. I think this account illustrates how banks (if they lose the Appeal) may cross-subsidise through different means.

The Reward Account (I feel) is a precursor of what's to come, and would imagine it far more common place for future bank accounts to charge a monthly fee. There's always going to be competition in the retail market so I would imagine free accounts still existing along a similar structure as the Reward Account.

Just a prediction, perhaps I'm way off, who knows, we will have to wait and see what the Law Lords say.

ahai1

You are responible for the management of your account. As far as I am concerned you should pay the £40 or whatever it is. I am sick and tired of people who take money from the bank and don't want to pay for the consequences.

lauriepops wrote: »

Well I'm reclaiming bank charges, which were not racked up by being financially incompetent but by trusting someone who screwed me royally. And to be perfectly honest I would be happy to have the charges paid back to me minus the actual cost of processing the charges. (The £2.50 or whatever it is!) I'd still get a fair whack of cash and I think that's how charges should be reclaimed.

I'm not gonna say I was screwed over by the bank for being charged, but I was screwed over by the bank for the value of the charges themselves! Yes there should be charges but not 30-40 quid a pop!

ahai1

I have not been there. What is wrong with the people there?

Lokolo wrote: »

A lot of people on the savings boards don't go over to the DFW board for the views above

If I went over there I would get so angry!

lauriepops

ahai1 wrote: »

You are responible for the management of your account. As far as I am concerned you should pay the £40 or whatever it is. I am sick and tired of people who take money from the bank and don't want to pay for the consequences.

Well considering my choice was either pay the money or lose my flat I decided i'd pay the money. My flatmate did a runner and left me with 4 months of his unpaid rent to pay. Wasn't exactly the easiest time for me, considering I was still a student at the time. To be honest, you need to get off your high horse. Some people can't help but get into situations, no matter how excellent their money management. That left me in a lot of trouble financially and for the past 2.5 years I have accrued no charges, cleared off my credit cards and reduced my overdraft by half. Wouldn't say that is bad management.

Also, I have said that I don't mind being charged a penalty fee but the rates of fees are extortionate and generally start at about 65 quid as you get the unauthorised overdraft charge and the payment charge.

Lansdowne

There are clearly fair charges and unfair charges.
It is fair to charge someone for an action which led to an unauthorized overdraft.
It is unfair to load charges onto an account for something outside the control of the account holder.
There should be a limit of, perhaps, £30 charges for the consequences of one event. So not when they raise one cost for going overdrawn, another for writing to tell you, another for bouncing a cheque or DD, and so on.
The bank should then write to the customer and say: We have charged you £30 for (reason). You have 5 days to get into credit, or contact us, or if not we reserve the right to levy further charges.
That would be fair.

ahai1

Your case is exceptional and maybe the banks should look at genuine cases and come up with a deal but the vast majority of people are people who cannot manage their money.

Also the charges have to high as people are borrowing money which is not theirs.

If the fee is too low then the banks will charge the rest of us.

ahai1

The customer should be charged for the whole chaim of events as if it is £30 then they will do it again and again.

Lansdowne wrote: »

There are clearly fair charges and unfair charges.
It is fair to charge someone for an action which led to an unauthorized overdraft.
It is unfair to load charges onto an account for something outside the control of the account holder.
There should be a limit of, perhaps, £30 charges for the consequences of one event. So not when they raise one cost for going overdrawn, another for writing to tell you, another for bouncing a cheque or DD, and so on.
The bank should then write to the customer and say: We have charged you £30 for (reason). You have 5 days to get into credit, or contact us, or if not we reserve the right to levy further charges.
That would be fair.

natweststaffmember

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Those who advocate charges reclaiming are missing one key thing: a realistic alternative. It's all very well to suggest charging for banking facilities in general, but what about those who can't pay for their facilities? Or those who are on such a low income, that the amount they pay in fees is desperately needed - the very same poor people they're defending?

The bottom line message they espouse is that it's okay to be financially irresponsible, and the rest of the citizenry should be expected to carry the mistakes of others at their own expense.

BM, I gotta pick you up on this. You say no one advocates a different solution. No one who has charges is necessarily saying you cannot make a charge however the law states that contract terms should be fair. For example, if I have £1 in my account and a direct debit to £2 is due to go out and the bank bounces it, they don't charge me just £30+ for it but they charge me a futher £58. so I haven't paid the amount and lost £58. Is that fair?
I deserve to get a charge for a returned item and I deserve to be charged a high rate of interest on my account.Furthermore, there are cases on here where a couple have separated and that it has caused a shortage in funds a has directly lead to charges and a further reduction in income available leading to further charges and remember that the recipient may well charge as well so it takes that tight budget to even further out.
I hate scaremongering by people who have with those that have not. I do not believe people knowingly open a bank account to abuse the services involved within that.
The line I have taken is that the charging structure is the issue and that if the charges would be lower, I wouldn't be on the reclaims board telling people to reclaim their charges. Income can be made by more expenses loans or higher fees for investment products. At the moment the income stream from low interest rates on current accounts is not yielding a lot of cash so far but when rates goes up then it will.
Let's be realistic and remember the OFT Test case is based on Law and not the arguments of the poor pay for the rich.