Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

natweststaffmember

rikgear wrote: »

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?

Like the idea but no you can't

lustydog

People with plenty of money seldom incur bank charges, and consequently aren't interested in the plight of those that do. In Mr. Camerons case it was politically expedient to kick the banks whilst they were down and gain public approval. This was just another piece of spin on the journey to the next General election.
He may find that this comment comes back to bite him on the bum if and when his party is elected, the Banks may be down at the moment but their certainly not out.
Rich they may be, but they will have no political affiliations when it's " expedient " to get their own back, or when it's inconvenient to follow the governments wishes.
Whatever is said and done by whoever, only one group of people will suffer. Guess who? I used to be a tory and a Socialist
lustydog

James_B_Hamilton

Their is little point in taking issue with the Labour party over this as it is clear they have been complicit with the banks over this, they have had 12 years in power and have done nothing to sort out this mess - I agree with you that the Conservative party should be pressed into agreeing that all monies taken fron all accounts should be returned and with interest!
Additionally the money returned will act as a better stimulus than giving the banks our money only for them to give themselves more bonus's!!
Jim Hamilton

natweststaffmember

James_B_Hamilton wrote: »

Their is little point in taking issue with the Labour party over this as it is clear they have been complicit with the banks over this, they have had 12 years in power and have done nothing to sort out this mess - I agree with you that the Conservative party should be pressed into agreeing that all monies taken fron all accounts should be returned and with interest!
Additionally the money returned will act as a better stimulus than giving the banks our money only for them to give themselves more bonus's!!
Jim Hamilton

The Government(OFT) have taken action.

laalaa41

You know when we hear about banks making losses? What part of those losses are actually "expected" profits - I mean, If they expected to make a certain amount in interest they charge you but they dont get that for some reason.... it just occurred to me that it should be true that if you reduce prices you might sell more, if you reduce interest rates, the populace can spend more/not go into bankruptcy. If they could just get past this hurdle of charging excessive interest rates and in the case of shops - £60 for a blouse that eventually will sell for a tenner in the sale starts at £20 and gets sold faster - they COULD stay in business if they just changed their way of thinking! Or is this just too blinking obvious?

Message to banks and financial institutions - "voluntarily reduce all interest rates so people can actually pay back what they owe" - you'll lose less profit!

Back again to the fact that its all down to "mindset" I guess. The crash itself was all to do with banks confidence in eachother. That's psychology devastating the economy.

Any government with balls (not Ed) would be doing what it says on the tin - working for the people who vote them in. Stopping people from losing their homes is a place to start - just put a moritorium on it. It achieves nothing after all and if a family are continuing to earn money and have just hit a glitch..... Means testing seems more necessary now than ever. Force the layabouts to work somehow?

Oh and another thing. When all this blows over with only 40% of the people having a decent credit rating - just who are they going to lend money to? The rich who dont need to borrow? Conversation like this "Yeah I was out of a job, lost my home and made bankrupt because of the credit crunch, now Im on £75K a year and I cant get anyone to give me a mortgage? What's THAT all about?"

Cheshireite

Things have moved on since Martin started this campaign. Since many of the banks are in hock to the taxpayer, if they have to pay out billions in compensation it will now come from the taxpayer. So all those people who did not go overdrawn and managed their accounts properly (abiding by the terms and conditions they signed up for) will have to fork out for those who are making claims. Managing one's account properly is not synonymous with being rich as some people have inferred. Without wishing to sound self righteous, it's about old fashioned budgeting and living within one's means. These days it's always someone else's fault. However I accept it's easy to make a mistake and where banks can be shown to have acted unreasonably they should pay up. That's different from saying they should compensate everyone.

That said, it's hard to see how giving some people money at others' expense is going to stimulate the economy. Just as well Martin isn't Chancellor although he couldn't do much worse than the last two. The letter to Cameron smacks of being a smart alec.

natweststaffmember

If the terms and conditions are not lawful then whether you abide by them or not is irrelevant. If they are unfair under UTCCR 1999 then charges paid out under them are repayable. Since an unlawful term has deprived you of the money then you are entitled to be compensated for it. It's not about being someone else's fault, there are reasons why people incur charges, for example, as we see today, people losing their jobs and not being able to meet their commitments going out yet being stung for charges. Marriages ending and therefore a drop in income occurs. The death of a loved one leading to addtional costs of the upkeep of a house. Mental health issues leading to payments being missed and then charges. Unexpected pregnancy(it does happen even in this day and age of contraception) and the father deciding not to be responsible and that leads to additional expense and can lead to bank charges.
There is no one who starts out with the deliberate intention of incurring bank charges. Bank charges are still going to be around even if the OFT win their case but they may not be as high or they may not interplay with each other, ie one charge triggering another.
If that means that we have to pay for our banking then so be it.

Former_MSE_Wendy

Hi all

Thought you'd like to know, we haven't received a reply from the Conservatives, but Lib Dems leader Nick Clegg did reply to our open letter to say:

"Dear Martin, as a subscriber to your weekly email, I saw your recent comments on unfair banking charges. I couldn't agree more with you about the scandalous nature of these charges.

The Liberal Democrats have taken a strong stance on this for a long time - in particular, in our manifesto for complete reform of Britain's banking and financial institutions "A New Deal for the City", launched in May 2008 where we stated:

"The treatment of charges by the banks borders on the scandalous. It is a continuation of the practice described above: a protected industry seeking to maximise profits by exploiting the weakness of individual consumers who lack information and sophisticated knowledge of products or legal advice. The principle should be established that bank charges must be transparent and cost based."

In your email, you made a further suggestion that banks should have to pay back all unfair charges automatically if the courts do rule against them. This struck me as an extremely good idea that we should do all we can to put in place. Vince Cable, my shadow Chancellor, and I would be delighted to support your campaign.

We will put a motion before Parliament setting out our support for your idea as soon as the recess is over, which will hopefully put pressure on the government and the banks to act to return the money they so unfairly took from customers.

Finally, I'm really looking forward to receiving the manifesto you've been compiling on your site regarding other consumer issues. And I'm pleased to be able to let you know we will be having a debate on consumer protection at our conference in the autumn, where we hope to adopt some strong new policies for our manifesto.

All the best,

jos004

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

Hi all

Thought you'd like to know, we haven't received a reply from the Conservatives, but Lib Dems leader Nick Clegg did reply to our open letter to say:

"Dear Martin, as a subscriber to your weekly email, I saw your recent comments on unfair banking charges. I couldn't agree more with you about the scandalous nature of these charges.

The Liberal Democrats have taken a strong stance on this for a long time - in particular, in our manifesto for complete reform of Britain's banking and financial institutions "A New Deal for the City", launched in May 2008 where we stated:

"The treatment of charges by the banks borders on the scandalous. It is a continuation of the practice described above: a protected industry seeking to maximise profits by exploiting the weakness of individual consumers who lack information and sophisticated knowledge of products or legal advice. The principle should be established that bank charges must be transparent and cost based."

In your email, you made a further suggestion that banks should have to pay back all unfair charges automatically if the courts do rule against them. This struck me as an extremely good idea that we should do all we can to put in place. Vince Cable, my shadow Chancellor, and I would be delighted to support your campaign.

We will put a motion before Parliament setting out our support for your idea as soon as the recess is over, which will hopefully put pressure on the government and the banks to act to return the money they so unfairly took from customers.

Finally, I'm really looking forward to receiving the manifesto you've been compiling on your site regarding other consumer issues. And I'm pleased to be able to let you know we will be having a debate on consumer protection at our conference in the autumn, where we hope to adopt some strong new policies for our manifesto.

All the best,

Well said Nick Clegg. Its such a pity David Cameron couldn't reply - but then he is on holiday.

natweststaffmember

It's a real pity Nick Clegg is going to table a motion with regards to that suggestion since it is already in place in RBS Group. See BBC article, December 2nd 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7759054.stm
The above for reference.
It cost me my job so I kinda know that it is already in place.