Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

laalaa41

There are no arrears anywhere. I guess if I wasnt so "presbyterian" I might have money in my purse but I pay everything usually on time and that's what leaves me skint ) When the FSA (an imperious man) told me "if there was a balance on the account" which there is, some. Not "if there are arrears on the account". He said it was "normal practice" for the FSA to ask Egg to credit the account with the amount. He also said I could challenge that but it would take another few months to challenge it and still probably fail. So I guess this man or maybe the FSA are working for Egg?

L

natweststaffmember

laalaa41 wrote: »

There are no arrears anywhere. I guess if I wasnt so "presbyterian" I might have money in my purse but I pay everything usually on time and that's what leaves me skint ) When the FSA (an imperious man) told me "if there was a balance on the account" which there is, some. Not "if there are arrears on the account". He said it was "normal practice" for the FSA to ask Egg to credit the account with the amount. He also said I could challenge that but it would take another few months to challenge it and still probably fail. So I guess this man or maybe the FSA are working for Egg?

L

What about the Financial Ombudsman Service(FOS)?

laalaa41

Sorry it IS the FOS Ive opened the case with. FSO/FSA - they all look the same to me. You know since this whole thing started in Jan 2008. No-one has said sorry for the mess they made. Not the council, not specsavers, not RBS not HBOS and I know why too. Saying sorry admits they're guilty of screwing up. No one likes to admit that. Make no mistake, Im not stupid or like Cleopatra (in denial) - I even had £150 left in my account to cover eventualities but with them all at it - well it was just that enormous sum of £13.99 that broke the bank.

fruugal

As David Cameron has made the first step in the right direction with regard to the banks he should also look at two others which are unfair on customers/clients.

1. That banks should not be entitiled to deduct anything without agreement of the account holders. At the moment the bank will move money from another account of its own volition and completely without discussing it with the customer first. Customers need time to change the way they run their finances and banks need to give people and businesses time to plan and adjust.
2. Solicitors charges. These are subject to an unfair piece of legislation in that any client, unhappy or not has to pay the solicitors because of the Solicitors Remuneration Act. We should get that wiped from the law. There is no reason why solicitors should have a law that protects them and their payments whether or not they have don a good job. Repeal the Solicitors' Remuneration Act as it is an unfair contract.

As to politicians, we shall see. We hope that they will behave in a more responsible manner than we have seen of late.

Flora_McDonald

When taking out a bank account it is made clear that abuse of that account will result in bank charges. Some of us manage our money carefully and do without rather than get into debt. Why should the banks have to take all the risks? This constant "bailing out" of people who are just not taking responsibility for their finances is unacceptable.

I agree that on some occasions, charges are due to other reasons than account abuse. But, having worked as a Bank Manager, I know we used to refund charges of this kind. I agree banks are in a mess due to greed and bad management, but I do not think demanding all these charges back is helpful and the ones that generally end up suffering are those who abided by the rules in the first place!!

jos004

Peter Mandleson toyed with the idea of giving the Post Office full banking rights, a while ago. Good idea methinks. If the PO were given full banking rights, they could:

1. win over customers from the retail banks by lowering/making fair their bank charges/perhaps even scrap bank charges, as the PO is partly funded by taxpayer. the PO will have to take customers to court first, instead of just taking money from their a/c.
2. scrap VISA electron cards - if funds are not available in a customers' a/c the debit card they're given, simply would not work: computer software CAN cope with this. If they try to use it in a store/shop/garage etc - they'll incur a modest charge. but the PO will have to take customers to court first, like the util firms, have to.
3. PO can work together with Credit Unions - may offer better deals.

KindredSpirit

I would rather pay a monthly £10 banking fee than being hit with £60+ charges each month. Once you slide behind it is very hard to regain a grip on finances especially when on benefits. I don't mind being charged for my own banking faults but fees are excessive and being advised that by ensuring I have enough money in my account, I won't incur charges....isn't that stating the obvious. I know that, you know that, we all know that but when life messes up with your finance, where do we stand then

laalaa41

jos004 wrote: »

Peter Mandleson toyed with the idea of giving the Post Office full banking rights, a while ago. Good idea methinks. If the PO were given full banking rights, they could:SNIP.........QUOTE]

I like this idea too. I do think this crunch will result in a new kind of bank. I wish it would result in a new of thinking but we'd have to evolve as a species first - can you hold your breath for a million years?

Maybe we heard him wrong.... did he say "False PROFIT?"

No Im not religious.

L

rikgear

I opened a bank account about 3 years ago under the belief i had a £500 overdraft facility. 2 months ago a mate was in financial trouble and as i had funds i thought i'd help him out. though i forgot my RAC and another payment was due, and i also made 2 withdrawrals. I then recieved a letter saying i had incurred an 'overdraught review fee' of £25 and would also incure £5 a day for going over my arranged overdraught limit. then followed another 3 letters for the other payments. When i could finally get into the bank an put some money in i found i was only £95 overdrawn. and was told i had no arranged limit and if i wanted my money back i should re-claim once the court case has been settled.

so £135 for going £95 overdrawn and the first time overdrawn since opening the account. could this be seen as miss-selling rather than unfair charges?

murzlee

I am waiting for a £1300 refund of unfair bank charges.
I'm more than happy to promise David Cameron that I will spend it in British shops , on British goods and provide the receipts if he thinks that this will help to boost the Brish economy