Bank charges

ahai1

That would mean cutting back on the essentials of life like Sky.

simon_templar_2

Despite the bank statement giving them advance warning of about 3 weeks, why do they never come in before the charges go out? They only come in moaning after the charges have been taken out. In December they pull out the old xmas excuse and how the bank is depriving their kids of xmas presents!

ahai1

In the person I know they only go to try and get some money to tie them over as the bank has cancelled their overdraft due to them never been in credit.

girltuesday_2

ahai1 wrote: »

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.

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. The banks originally justified their charges NOT by saying they were a penalty, but by saying they were in order to recover the cost of dealing with people's transgressions.

If the latter is true, the real charge (i.e. the cost to the bank) is pence.

As I understand it, that's the whole reason we are having a court case.

dc110

Despite the bank statement giving them advance warning of about 3 weeks, why do they never come in before the charges go out? They only come in moaning after the charges have been taken out. In December they pull out the old xmas excuse and how the bank is depriving their kids of xmas presents!

Its almost like they didnt know christmas was coming. Isnt it the same time every year?

When I worked for the bank I used to get the

"are you going to come and tell my kids why they will be going hungry this week?"

"would you like me to teach them some money management as well"

That would mean cutting back on the essentials of life like Sky.

:rotfl:I worked for Sky briefly as well in my previous life and people would always phone after being cut off for non payment begging you to put it back on.

"I cant live without Sky - I'll pay double next month" :rotfl:

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, the people I know within the bank charges campaign haven't gone to a bank to abuse their account. They have opened their accounts, taken loans(as I have to be honest) and expected to be able to pay them back.

Unfortunately for YOU whether you give a damn about whether the charges are fair or not, under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, if the term of the contract is unfair then it is voided in its entirety and any charges under that term are refundable. If you don't want to pay for a bank account tell your bank, cos as I said they can make money in other ways. Higher fees for mortgages, higher rates on loans, higher rates for investments, and even higher rates on overdrafts or lower the minimum payment on credit cards or increase rates on credit cards. There are other ways and I don't think that banks shouldn't charge for a breach of contract so Mr Irresponsible as some of you have called people who receive charges can still receive charges, just not at the same level.

Unfortunately, being blinded by the fact that in one year 2006 the banks took £4 billion in charges and yet, they made in that year over 10 times that amount, how come banks have to charge for having a current account? I still don't understand that.

td_007

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Unfortunately, being blinded by the fact that in one year 2006 the banks took £4 billion in charges and yet, they made in that year over 10 times that amount, how come banks have to charge for having a current account? I still don't understand that.

The only reason banks want to charge for having current account is simply increase the number of revenue streams. That way they do not have make a large obvious increase (say overdraft interest) but split it across two items so that the increase is not so obvious.

opinions4u

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Unfortunately, being blinded by the fact that in one year 2006 the banks took £4 billion in charges and yet, they made in that year over 10 times that amount, how come banks have to charge for having a current account? I still don't understand that.

I don't see many businesses that offer products and services to make a loss.

Banks offer mortgages, loans, credit cards, savings accounts, insurances, business finance and a hell of a lot more to deliver their profits.

You are suggesting that they should offer a product (current account) with no intention of making any money out of it. That is a bizarre business philosophy.

As it stands, even with their charges income, the current account will be a marginal profit maker with some banks and a loss leader with others.

I don't see why banks should charge interest on mortgages. I don't understand why the make credit card users pay back what they've borrowed. I think it's shocking that savers don't earn at least 25% interest on the money they deposit. B&Q should give away lawn mowers and sheds. I don't see why M&S have to charge for clothes. These statements are as ridiculous as saying banks shouldn't be able to raise an income from current accounts.

Based on what you've just said, I think the banks should, en masse, pull out of the current account market giving all account holders 31 days notice - because you don't think they should be allowed to make money from it.

See where that leaves the country.

ahai1

I am sorry but from my understanding most of the people who got bank charges have abused the service that the bank has offered them and I am sure that the people in involved in the bank charges campaign would say that they never intended to just like saying that the poor are the victims. The real thing is that the poor will be the victimns if the charges are challenged for a good reason that the banks will start charging for their accounts. The reality is that people like Martin Lewis and others are out to prove a point and I doubt that they will give a damn about people. If you ask me those charges are fair and unless they were all stupid which maybe the case with some than they knew what they were getting into.

As for profits made from other areas that is a cop out by people who know they don't have a leg to understand.

I am sorry but the majority of those people deserve to pay all the charges. They can go without Sky and shopping trips.

Parki_2

ahai1 wrote: »

I am sorry but from my understanding most of the people who got bank charges have abused the service that the bank has offered them and I am sure that the people in involved in the bank charges campaign would say that they never intended to just like saying that the poor are the victims. The real thing is that the poor will be the victimns if the charges are challenged for a good reason that the banks will start charging for their accounts. The reality is that people like Martin Lewis and others are out to prove a point and I doubt that they will give a damn about people. If you ask me those charges are fair and unless they were all stupid which maybe the case with some than they knew what they were getting into.

As for profits made from other areas that is a cop out by people who know they don't have a leg to understand.

I am sorry but the majority of those people deserve to pay all the charges. They can go without Sky and shopping trips.

Thats like saying if the banks suddenly decided to charge £500 then we should all sit back and take it. The only reason this has become an issue is that the charges are so high. If they charged a reasonable amount I would be all for charges to stop people from doing it.