Bank charges

opinions4u

I asked:

"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?"

You answered:

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Yes.

I am sure I'm not alone in finding that extraordinary.

You went on to say:

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.

So why should the bank?

You added to this with:

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?

Personally I'd make sure that what was in the trolley didn't exceed my ability to pay for it. I'd budget as I went round the supermarket. If I couldn't afford it, then I wouldn't put it in the trolley in the first place. If I couldn't afford Sky, gym membership etc I wouldn't buy it and set up a direct debit to pay for it.

bookworm1363

opinions4u wrote: »

You went on to say:
So why should the bank?

Thank you, my point precisely, or didn't you bother reading my post properly? :rolleyes:

If the bank put a stop to every transaction that would take an account over the limit, then people couldn't go over. It is really that simple. If you have it, you can spend it, if you don't you can't. The automated system means the bank is not losing out by bouncing the payment, thus they don't need to levy charges, and the costumer doesn't get further in debt. If the customer's not happy about that, tough, learn to live without credit, you'll be better off in the long run.

Zero tolerance on credit. There can be no irresponsible borrowing without irresponsible lending. That's a fact.

JoeCrystal

I really love the idea of no Overdraft whatsoever in this country. I asked my banks, (Barclay and Halifax) concerning my current accounts that can they remove Overdraft facility, (I got very bad experience of a fraud which literally clean out my money and all the overdraft in by someone in USA!). I was refused point blank. :eek: They will only reduce it to ten pounds in Barclays and fifty pounds in Halifax. I never went overdraft in my entire banking history apart from that fraud case.

opinions4u

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Zero tolerance on credit. There can be no irresponsible borrowing without irresponsible lending. That's a fact.

That's nonsense. You can lend responsibly to people who then behave irresponsibly. So cut out the "fact" when it patently isn't.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Thank you, my point precisely, or didn't you bother reading my post properly? :rolleyes:

I read your point in its entirity. Basically you said that supermarkets should be allowed to make profits, for example on the first £10 of produce in your post, and not do something for nothing, as in the 99p excess in your post, whereas banks should do stuff for nothing because, well, they're banks and big nasty creatures at that.

JoeCrystal wrote: »

I really love the idea of no Overdraft whatsoever in this country. I asked my banks, (Barclay and Halifax) concerning my current accounts that can they remove Overdraft facility, (I got very bad experience of a fraud which literally clean out my money and all the overdraft in by someone in USA!). I was refused point blank. :eek: They will only reduce it to ten pounds in Barclays and fifty pounds in Halifax. I never went overdraft in my entire banking history apart from that fraud case.

Halifax can and will take your overdraft to zero on request. It takes about 5 seconds for them to do it. It is common for a staff member to suggest that you retain a nominal amount of the facility to help you to avoid bank charges if you accidentally slip a couple of quid overdrawn (although some posters on this thread would see such a suggestion as banks trying to force credit on poor unsuspecting souls who don't understand the concept of "don't spend more than you've got").

Lokolo

bookworm1363 wrote: »

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

So if DDs bounce etc.etc. the customer shouldn't have charges?

natweststaffmember

Lokolo wrote: »

So if DDs bounce etc.etc. the customer shouldn't have charges?

The answer is yes a charge should be levied but one that is fair. At the moment banks can levy a charge and the amount can lead to an unauthorised overdraft being created which is charged both a price for exceeding it plus interest. I can't see why there is not a charge for the returning of the DD plus interest for the unauthorised overdraft(even if the the interest rate is substantially higher than the authorised one).

Lokolo

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The answer is yes a charge should be levied but one that is fair. At the moment banks can levy a charge and the amount can lead to an unauthorised overdraft being created which is charged both a price for exceeding it plus interest. I can't see why there is not a charge for the returning of the DD plus interest for the unauthorised overdraft(even if the the interest rate is substantially higher than the authorised one).

Ok so charges are fine thats good....

My question was aimed at the other gal who says charges are clearly wrong and that its not down to peoples budgeting skills. When it clearly is...

People who spend more than they earn are likely to recieve charges. I don't need a researcher to know that.

natweststaffmember

Lokolo wrote: »

Ok so charges are fine thats good....

My question was aimed at the other guy who says charges are clearly wrong and that its not down to peoples budgeting skills. When it clearly is...

People who spend more than they earn are likely to recieve charges. I don't need a researcher to know that.

I agree with your last paragraph, but take that sentence further and say for an error that has happened, look at the consequences of that. Bank charge, takes the account into unauthorised overdraft(even by 2p as some have argued) and thats bank charge number two, then recipient where the funds are going to(that's charge number 3). Now if I have significant other/family emergency and assume(you could say that I was irresponsible in my assumption but family issues are the cause of this and I am not thinking straight) there is money to cover them. If I fail to check my account because perhaps other things are more important I could be stung with over £100 in charges the next month. I still haven't paid my bill yet either so that leads to a deficit the following month which could spiral.

And btw, the other poster is female(know them from another forum)

Lokolo

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I agree with your last paragraph, but take that sentence further and say for an error that has happened, look at the consequences of that. Bank charge, takes the account into unauthorised overdraft(even by 2p as some have argued) and thats bank charge number two, then recipient where the funds are going to(that's charge number 3). Now if I have significant other/family emergency and assume(you could say that I was irresponsible in my assumption but family issues are the cause of this and I am not thinking straight) there is money to cover them. If I fail to check my account because perhaps other things are more important I could be stung with over £100 in charges the next month. I still haven't paid my bill yet either so that leads to a deficit the following month which could spiral.

And btw, the other poster is female(know them from another forum)

So whats wrong with people thinking of having a £100 authorised overdraft 'buffer'?

And thanks! edited now

bookworm1363

opinions4u wrote: »

That's nonsense. You can lend responsibly to people who then behave irresponsibly. So cut out the "fact" when it patently isn't.

But is IS a fact, you can deny it as much as you like, makes no difference: A customer can NOT run up an overdraft without the bank's authorisation, complicity, tacit approval, call it what you like. Trying to deny this is just absurd.

I read your point in its entirity. Basically you said that supermarkets should be allowed to make profits, for example on the first £10 of produce in your post, and not do something for nothing, as in the 99p excess in your post, whereas banks should do stuff for nothing because, well, they're banks and big nasty creatures at that.

Absolutely NOT what I said. And you didn't say whether you thought my s/market scenario was a reasonable or even viable one. I wonder why? I am all in favour of the banks making money, why wouldn't I? What a weird thought! Am I however in favour of the banks creating the debt situation? Damn right, I'm not!

It is common for a staff member to suggest that you retain a nominal amount of the facility to help you to avoid bank charges if you accidentally slip a couple of quid overdrawn (although some posters on this thread would see such a suggestion as banks trying to force credit on poor unsuspecting souls who don't understand the concept of "don't spend more than you've got").

:rotfl:Who said anything about "credit"? Halifax once took their interest charges out of my account, which I knew was close to the limit and so I wasn't touching it. Their interest took my account over by 12 pence (and yes, I know you will refuse to believe it, but they had not sent me an advice of the interest and when it was due to be collected, "computer error" I was told). They charged me £39 for those 12 pence THEY had caused. Then they added another £28 monthly charge to that. At the time being on a very low income, there was no way I could cover that double whammy. So they charged me again. And again. By the time I made them cough up, they had levied over £150 in charges with more in the pipeline, which I made them cancel. For the 12 pence they had taken in the first place. I had been looking after my account, they hadn't.

Anyway, your lovely speeches don't touch on the point I am making, and I have yet to see anyone coming up with a counter-argument to my zero tolerance argument. So let's have it: what is wrong with not letting anything that would take you over your limit and not charging for that? It's much closer to a cash economy than anything else, and I have yet to see any argument against it, simply blaming the customer for their recklesness doesn't even come close to a valid argument.