Bank charges

natweststaffmember

BarclaysManager wrote: »

That's not the message that is being put across, though - the advocates state that bank charges are wrong, full stop - the only reason the word "fair" even enters in to their argument is the Unfair Terms etc.

People aren't reclaiming as they think the amount is unfair, they straight off think they should not be charged at all.

That is nonsense for the majority of reclaimers however, if bank charges are assessable for fairness then the terms proven to be unfair are voided and all sums charged under that term are reclaimable. The consequences are vast on that point alone.

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

People are reclaiming because it is free money to them.
Some people are reclaiming because it is a no brainer that bank charges will be assessable under UTCCR 1999. Furthermore, some people are in severe financial hardship because of the way the bank charges severely restricted their budget.

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.
If they had been charged fairly for their breach I wouldn't give a damn either.

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.
The model of free if in credit and charges subsidising those who do not get charges was made by the Banks' QC Sumpton so bank charges campaigners have stated it for a long time confirmed by Sumpton last week.
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.

I would throw in lower bank charges and higher interest rates on Personal Loans, or charging for a bank account at low/medium or high useage. Free banking being given without the use of cheques/overdrafts/direct debits/standing orders and no switch/visa/maestro card just a cash machine card.

natweststaffmember

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!

Unfortunately that is not how UTCCR 1999 works. If the term within the contract is assessable for fairness and proven unfair(I might have made a faux pas on an earlier post) then the term is voided and all monies taken under it will have to be repaid.

natweststaffmember

BarclaysManager wrote: »

I believe in bank charges and respect the principle of living within the constraints of my budget. I have never had a bank charge. If I had one, I would be essentially a different person.

When I first got my mortgage, I spent about a year eating baked beans, tinned hotdogs, and instant noodles. I did that rather than go over my budget and in to excess. It sucked, but it wasn't that hard really - it saved getting bank charges.



Banks don't rely on it to survive, they use it to subsidize the cost of running a retail network so customers who are responsible don't have to pay.

Banks are businesses, so if the revenue stream disappears, they will seek an alternative.

This has unfortunately be the bane of financial institutions, higher income streams by forgetting that they need to comply with the law

natweststaffmember

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.

At it worst the consequences is losing their home or fear of losing their home and taking their own lives. Social pressures and old fashioned values going into the mix can really add to this cocktail.
I agree with the issue of responsibility but it goes both ways. One of my friends recently opened a bank account with the big 5. They went in with their ID, they weren't told to read the terms and conditions of the account or given their fees brochure, it was a simple "sign here and here". Not exactly great financial advice or is it to be an assumed advice?
If you transgress you should pay a fee that is fair or be charged for exceeding an overdraft a high rate of interest.

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

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.

How do you know this? Do you realise that if a DD is bounced then the recipient company may well charge a fee as well? Do you realise the know on effect of a fee can have a major impact on someone's ability to repay priority creditors?

The charges don't have to be high, the interest charged on them can be substantially higher.

I am going to go back to card transactions, a recent poster here said that they had the POS terminal set so that it would only ask for authorisation on every 50 transactions so some people do unfortunately trust that if their card stops then it must mean that they are at their limit. Don't ask me why, cos I have never done it that way myself.

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

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

The large majority of decisions are made automatically and very few are made manually which means that to charge what it costs the bank would be lower.

esmerellda

You guys should read http://www.bba.org.uk/grabexit/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bba.org.uk%2Fbba%2Fjsp%2Fpolopoly.jsp%3Fd%3D155%26a%3D16149

ahai1

People do open accounts to abuse the account and get things they don't have. I know some of those people.

The status quo is acceptable and there should be some changes for exceptional cases but no changes on the charges. I don't frankly give a damn whether they are fair or not. I just want a bank account with no charges.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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.

td_007

If one know that they do not have money to pay one should make sure that the direct debit or standing order has been canceled before it get rejected or account goes overdrawn and hence attracts charges. What is wrong with that?