Bank charges

ahai1

Natweststaffmember I rest my case.

Extant

I've mentioned a similar thing before - when I was a Personal Banker for Barclays, charges were still £20.

As was standard process, I'd go through an account review, see if we could help with lending, do a brief budget, etc.

The number of people who got charged through their own self-indulgence was staggering - Sky TV, Cashbox ATM withdrawals (with £1.50 fee each time) that they couldn't explain, Unwins card purchases...

A pretty common line was they needed help to feed themselves. So, I'd offer them a pretty simple solution - cancel their Sky TV, so they didn't go overdrawn in the same way the next month, and they could have their charges back.

Apparently Sky One is much better than food.

simon_templar_2

Ive never seen a bank charge claimant not want all the charges back. Never do they suggest that they should only try to claim back some. It is always all.

natweststaffmember

opinions4u wrote: »

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



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

Opinions, the context is important and perhaps I should explain. I have stated or rather I have meant banks do not have to charge any individual just for having a current account, for example, a current account run in credit(we have the "free if in credit model"). That is the context of the comment that banks don't have to charge for having a current account.
Furthermore, you have asked how could they expect to make money out of a current account without charges. There is nothing stopping banks for making charges providing they are fair. For example, it has been used here, high rates for unauthorised borrowing....I do agree on this point.
Furthermore you have asked about why would banks make a loss on current accounts? No idea but I don't have a student account which is a loss making account offered. Simply stating the "status quo" is ok rather than stating and providing example of the future of banking if the OFT win the test case on unauthorised charges doesn't help move the debate on.

natweststaffmember

ahai1 wrote: »

Natweststaffmember I rest my case.

Have credit card providers introduced fees because their income stream was cut in half since 2006?
Have the fact that people have claimed the charges back including the £12 ones had an effect on the credit card market?
Why did banks not defend themselves in court prior to July 2007 on bank charges if they were right?
I worked in the branch network, I saw the fact that charges were made and I had someone scream in my face and walk out of the branch shouting I was the worst banker in Cambridge. Thankfully, someone else was there and said that they had been in that position where even the slightest error on their budget meant charges were taken off them and they didn't eat because of it.
Since 2006 when the issue of bank charges came up, it was about all charges because the legal certainty over them was in question.
There are two issues: 1) Is it right for a bank to charge a customer for a default on their account?
(2) Is the amount charged a fair amount?
With the first question is about the right of the bank to charge a fee. I don't think anyone in the bank charges campaign believes that the answer is no. If they do then they are kidding themselves.
This leads to the second question, and on this issue the bottom line is that if the charges fall under UTCCR 1999, and the term is assessed and litigated on that it is unfair then it is a void term under the contract and all charges are refundable. So Far 4 judges have said that they are assessable and 5 other judges are considering their judgement on this.

The arguments about whether the cost of the charges will act as to deter someone is not at issue in the High Court Test Case. Individual Responsibility is an argument I understand but whilst the issue of fairness of the charges has not been decided it is difficult to offer remedies. Perhaps the 3 strikes and your out approach, ie three breaches and account is closed/card removed etc.etc. is something that perhaps could happen. Higher interest rates for overdraft both authorised and unauthorised, maybe the double jeopardy removed ie one charge automatically triggering another one. They are just suggestions.

jambosans

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The arguments about whether the cost of the charges will act as to deter someone is not at issue in the High Court Test Case.

I just want to second this point. This arguments strays dangerously into charges being penalties territory, something which the courts have decided (in the banks favour) is not the case.

Although many people still have a strong opinions on this it is irrelevant as the test case has moved on as natweststaffmember has rightly pointed out.

dc110

So, I'd offer them a pretty simple solution - cancel their Sky TV, so they didn't go overdrawn in the same way the next month, and they could have their charges back.

this was exactly my approach. You help yourself and I'll help you.

How are you going to stop getting charges. Should we cancel sky? How about we set up some standing orders instead of direct debits (your control not originators)

Even offering to phone some people periodically to check how they were getting on.

Always the same answer.

"I dont need to cancel anything - you just need to stop charging me. "

There is no helping some people and assuming (for arguments sake) that one day we do see lower bank charges you will IMO have a lot of the same people still making complaints about charges.

jambosans

dc110 wrote: »

There is no helping some people and assuming (for arguments sake) that one day we do see lower bank charges you will IMO have a lot of the same people still making complaints about charges.

I completely agree. There is always going to be someone complaining regardless of the charge being £35 or £5. Reducing charges may be part of the remedy but ultimately educating people about good money management is the best medicine. I think someone already struggling to meet their financial commitments is perhaps put in a worse off position when they large amounts of charges to pay. However the poor money management has normally started before the charges are applied. This is obviously not the case for everyone who has incurred charges, there are always going to be the genuine cases, I'm referring more to the serial offenders.

Inactive

For a change, I agree fully with all of that jambosans..

I recall asking my Spanish Bank Manager at Santander in Spain, what would happen if I went overdrawn?...his reply was; " you don't want to go there ", he said that all DD's would be bounced and any utilities ie electricity/water would be cut off if not paid, and a charge applied to have them reinstated.

I decided that I would never go overdrawn in Spain.:eek:. perhaps the British Banks should follow their example.

ahai1

Inactive not many people in this country would have any utalities.