Bank charges

ahai1

If the charges were low then people would repeatedly abuse it.

td_007

The problem is banks are making a profit from the charges than them a true representation of cost incurred. So rather simply clear a cheque and allow the account being overdrawn and then adding on one charge after another, it will more acceptable if the if the cheque is bounced and appropriate admin charge applied. Let person concerned answer and why his cheque bounced to whomsoever the cheques was given to.

ahai1

The banks should countinue as they are. I see nothing wrong with making profit from people who cannot manage their accounts. The current charges system is alright in my book.

natweststaffmember

opinions4u wrote: »

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.
I haven't actually said that, I have asked why banks if they cannot charge large amounts on default charges do they have to charge for having a bank account. For example, In April 2006 the OFT brought out a report on Credit Cards which reduced the amount that the OFT would not take regulatory action down to £12. Now do you get charged for having a credit card? Higher interest rates on overdrafts are fine. Plus banks make a loss on student accounts as well so banks do offer loss making accounts already.
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.
You are confusing one issue of the Fairness of bank charges to not charging at all default charges. I would be absolutely an idiot to suggest that banks should not charge for a default. The issue is fairness.
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.
Under the banking code the amount of notice they need to give is less.
See where that leaves the country.

I DO NOT believe a bank does not have to charge for default fees. Never ever suggested that. I have said that banks do not have to charge people en masse for the privilege(we can call it) of having a bank account. I have stated that if the charges were fair then I would have no problem with this. You listen to scaremongering and make it appear as though people who have been within the bank charges campaign have said banks should not make a charge for a default. I don't buy into that view.

natweststaffmember

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.
I know directors of banks have asked campaigners how to claim back their charges so are they worthy of working for the said bank? And dare I say this but those damned bankworkers have been sniffing about bank charges,......shall we sack them all now? Are they the poor? Are they really the poor?

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.
Again I ask the question, why?

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.
What point are they proving? That bank charges are unfair because of the amount that you are charged. If I have £5 in my account and £6 is due to go out, the bank will charge me £38 returned item which could take me over my limit and that;s £28. Now I may not have checked my account for a few days(seeing as I assumed I had sufficient funds to cover my outgoings) so that could mean and extra £28. So for £6.99 I have been charged £94. If the bank charged me £3 for an unpaid fee i wouldn't complain, I would slap myself for not checking but I would then put more money into the account, ask the bank for an overdraft or cancel the Direct Debit.
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.
How did they know 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.
When a bank tells everyone their profits it is about all areas. For example, RBS Group announced a loss yet there were areas of the bank which were very successful including retail banking. The reason I mention the one tenth of the amount taken in charges is simply to highly that 90% of profit was not made from charges.
I am sorry but the majority of those people deserve to pay all the charges. They can go without Sky and shopping trips.

I don't have sky or go out on shopping trips but I don't get charges either nor do a lot of the people who got charges.

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

If the charges were low then people would repeatedly abuse it.

that is utter nonsense.

ahai1

It is a fact. The people I know would not stop.

Lokolo

Orrrrr banks can stop unauthorised overdrafts altogether, but of course, customers would want this wouldn't they :rolleyes:

*card rejected* -> "rar rar rar I had 10p less in my bank for the transaction complain complain complain"

If people cannot look at their internet banking or put a card in a cashpoint and press 'View Balance' every few days and get charged thats their fault.

Nothing wrong with the charges.

Soon it'll be 'cut down on excessive prices on picking up my broken car because I didn't get car breakdown cover'. Its the same thing, people don't look after something then complain when getting charged loads.

ahai1

Yes I agree. We should have a new forum. "I can do anyting I want and get money back"

opinions4u

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.
I haven't actually said that

I'm just about to dig out the quote on this one!

Originally Posted by natweststaffmember
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

How could they expect to make money out of current accounts without charges?