Bank charges

dc110

Reducing charges may be part of the remedy but ultimately educating people about good money management is the best medicine

Spot on. Should be taught in school.

Inactive

dc110 wrote: »

Spot on. Should be taught in school.

A new career for Sir Fred perhaps??:D

jambosans

Inactive wrote: »

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

I only talk mince half of the time.

dc110

Inactive wrote: »

A new career for Sir Fred perhaps??:D

just a wee part time job to time him over:rotfl:

bookworm1363

G_M wrote: »

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.

Completely false.

In France, going overdrawn or over your limit results in your bank manager calling you in to have a talk or two about your account and how to resolve the situation.

They have of course the power to close your account, as indeed they do here, but only do it as a last resort. Furthermore, unlike here, banks have to respond to the Banque de France, and unlike here, if you get turned down over and over by all banks because you're not a good prospect, you can actually go to the Banque de France for assistance and they will force a bank to open an account for you.

Finally, France recognises that there is no such thing as irresponsible borrowing without irresponsible lending, in other words, you can't borrow money you don't have without the bank's active complicity in letting it happen, and for this reason, if you try to borrow above a certain level of your income (exact % escapes me right now, 30%, I think, I'd have to check), the bank is taking a massive risk as if you then default on that, the bank can not pursue you for it, as the Banque de France will say: "well, you knew he didn't have the money to service the debt, you took the chance, tough titty".

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The solution is actually VERY simple: zero tolerance. If you have the money in your account, the payment goes through, if you don't, it doesn't. Same as having cash in your wallet. Either you can buy the goods or you can't. If you're short by a few pence and your groceries don't go through and you're embarrassed about it? Not the bank's problem. Put back a non essential and try again.

Yes, we have become accustomed to living on credit, but only because the banks have actively encouraged it, pushed us to borrow more and more until the boundaries got blurred.

But the fact remains: the banks DON'T want to do that, because then the cash cow which is debit interest and charges would dry up.

They have the power to stop it all tomorrow if they wanted. Cheques are fast becoming obsolete, so the cheque guarantee card argument doesn't wash (besides, guarantee or not, just try and pay a cheque which has gone beyond the invisible authorised unauthorised o/draft limit and I assure you it will bounce anyway).

Bear this in mind: All they have to do is set the limit to £0 on your limit. And then ask yourselves: Gosh, yeah, why don't they simply do that?

opinions4u

Bear this in mind: All they have to do is set the limit to £0 on your limit. And then ask yourselves: Gosh, yeah, why don't they simply do that?

Most bank charges I saw were for people where a direct debit payment had bounced because had it been paid it would have taken the balance below zero.

Is the bank being irresponsible in those circumstances?

Failure to budget is the most common reason for bank charges. Totally within the control of the account holder.

DaisyFlower

ahai1 wrote: »

It is good to know that the banks are defending the charges. I am just listening to money box on radio 4 and I cannot believe some people. The man from the bank charges action grooup thinks it is ok for people to have their money back so that the rest of us who can manage our accounts may have to pay for running a bank account. He and Martin Lewis have the same view we don't have free banking. They are wrong as we have it because we pay no charges for managing our accounts. It seems to me that the customers who don't abuse their account will end up suffering.

The man want to go on to say that is the poor who are paying for the rich to have bank accounts by paying bank charges. What a load of rubbish. I know of lots of people on low income never had an unauthorised overdraft.

I agree OP, I truly hope the bank win the case and dont have to refund the charges.

If you are responsible for your finances, then you dont get charged. If the banks lose, all those that have been responsible will have to start paying to recompense all those that weren't. I dont even want to think about the effect it will have on the economy.

I really cannot see why people moan about the charges, they are happy to be irresponsible with their finances and borrow the banks money by going overdrawn, cashing DD's that funds will not cover etc then they bleat its unfair and demand their money back. Everything crossed that the banks win and all the claims fail.

natweststaffmember

opinions4u wrote: »

Most bank charges I saw were for people where a direct debit payment had bounced because had it been paid it would have taken the balance below zero.

Is the bank being irresponsible in those circumstances?

Failure to budget is the most common reason for bank charges. Totally within the control of the account holder.

But usually one charge will trigger a second one because of the price of that failure. That is one element where fairness has to come into it since the loss to the bank is calculable by interest alone. At the moment that charge may cause another charge and that means that the budget for the next month is already severely dented. And the cycle continues especially if the cause itself was a lifestyle change, ie change of hours, no overtime(which does happens these days) loss of job(since finding another one is not overnight) etc,etc,

natweststaffmember

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I agree OP, I truly hope the bank win the case and dont have to refund the charges.

If you are responsible for your finances, then you dont get charged. If the banks lose, all those that have been responsible will have to start paying to recompense all those that weren't. I dont even want to think about the effect it will have on the economy.
Why would you pay for simply having a current account? This isn't the end of banks being able to charge but the beginning of the time where banks charge you fairly.
I really cannot see why people moan about the charges, they are happy to be irresponsible with their finances and borrow the banks money by going overdrawn, cashing DD's that funds will not cover etc then they bleat its unfair and demand their money back. The price of the charges and the way they are applied is the reason. A direct debit for £2 can cost someone potentially £94 because they may not check their balance for a couple of days, perhaps because of family issues or hospitalisation or maybe they are working and genuinely believe they have funds to cover their outgoings. One charge or even more can have a massive effect on their finances. Some people even have the issue of a Direct Debit being attempted to be taken in error and returned unpaid. It's not covered by the DD Guanrantee Scheme as it was unpaid, and the individual can be bounced back between the bank and the company who in the end might refuse to repay funds for their mistake without proof. The refund is a cheque sent ouit in the post and in the intermitting time other Direct Debits are bounced and the spiral continues.

Everything crossed that the banks win and all the claims fail.

You haven't read the OFT test case stuff have you or even looked at many of the threads on the reclaims boards have you? There are many people who start asking for one charge back and are told "tough you should have read the terms and conditions" those very t&c's are subject to the OFT test case.


Would you like an example of a term and an example that is still in bank contracts and not subject to the OFT test case which makes no sense?

bookworm1363

opinions4u wrote: »

Most bank charges I saw were for people where a direct debit payment had bounced because had it been paid it would have taken the balance below zero.

Is the bank being irresponsible in those circumstances?

Yes.
If you go to the supermarket with £10 and your shopping came to £10.99, would you ask the s/market to let you off? No.

But imagine that you did, and the supermarket said: "No, we're not going to let you have it, don't be ridiculous, put it back. Oh, and I'll be having that tenner off you now, and by the way, next time you come here, you won't be allowed to shop until you have given us another £20 first." Ridiculous, isn't it?

Failure to budget is the most common reason for bank charges. Totally within the control of the account holder.

Wrong. The most common reason for bank charges is..... bank charges. Totally within the control of... the bank.