Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

joeg11

Good morning,
Could you let us all know what the content of your hardship test letter is?
As a councilor of course and not in your capacity as a "Debt Collector"!!! Also, would it be fair to say that all charges should be "BACK DATED" automatically??

Cllr_David_Jack_PPC wrote: »

Sorry, but the Tories are bandwaggon jumping again. They want to come across as the caring loveable Tory party but they are not.. For years as both a councillor and as a Parliamentary Candidate i have been fighting for and winning peoples claims for bank charges. Indeed only yesterday, in my employment as a debt councillor and claims manager i won yet another client £1006.86. I simply use the hardship test in most cases now and when the banks refuse i state that they are in contempt of the High Court ruling for hardship, amazing how so many then roll over.

Keep up the work Martin, not all politicians are as shallow as Camoron.

airheadgreg

CROWN wrote: »

Too late by 3 years!! If you hadn't noticed the Tories are not in power and cannot do F all about this. Stop whining at the Tories and take aim at this useless government in POWER NOW. While you are on your crusade to end free banking for those who stick to their banking agreements, stick your 'people needed your help' line up Gordon Brown's passage as he is the muppet who sat by and watched and did nothing apart from borrow and spend my tax money.

There has to be an election by May 2010, by getting Cameron to have this as Tory policy now, when they get in next year (The most likely outcome in my opinion and many opinion polls, I don't truth the one that says it will go to the Lib Dems and a few suggest hung). If that letter was sent to Brown, it wouldn't make a difference, he has enough on his plate, and he'd opt to wait for the next Queens speech to outline the agenda of parliament. Martin use his brain and did the right thing, I'd suggest a basic British politics knowledge on your behalf.

The only problem is, Cameron may just be saying this now to get backing, then if they win, take it to white paper. Which is where a lot of proposals end their short life, it will be forcing that white paper into full parliament discussion and vote.

Widelats

1 thing i don't understand, and i am not being obtuse, is why there are quite a few people posting on a charges and reclaiming forum with the intention of drilling us all into the ground - should you all be on another forum? You make no contribution here and all have very few posts under your belt.

Paddy_O'Moron

WickedWend wrote: »

Whilst I know the banks can be a bit heavy handed, everyone was aware that there were bank charges. If people spend money that they don't have then what do they expect, people need to take a bit of responsibility for what they do. If the banks have to repay this money we will all end up paying for it in one way or another whether it is reduced saving rates or increased borrowing rates. Why should I pay when I was responsible, didn't spend money I didn't have any hence did not incur charges?

There is a culture in this country that people think they are owed a living - you can only spend what you have or what you earn.

The problem with what you say, Wend, is that the banks are committing an illegal act. If I were to say to you "if you do this, or don't do that, I'll punch you in the face", the punching in the face is illegal (assault), regardless of the warning. The banks claiming they advised us of the charges up front does not make the charging activity any less illegal.

Where all of us have the problem is the excessive amount of charges. These charges have had (in most cases) the effect of impoverishing the account holders. Not too many of us can afford to shell out £50 - £100 from our bank accounts, and then remain in credit. The charges are simply too high, and do not reflect the cost to the banks of dealing with the irregular accounts. How on earth can a bank say that they incur costs of £60, when a customer goes overdrawn by £11? (This is the case with my Abbey Account). And it's this point that makes the charges illegal - you cannot impose a penalty on somebody which is greater than the actual cost to yourself. The banks know too well that to disclose their true costs in dealing with irregular accounts would expose the massive rip-off they have been involved in for years. So they are hoping that the Lords/OFT rule on a 'sensible' level of charge.

Most of us go into the red from time to time (payments due INTO an account can be delayed due to a Bank holiday weekend - curiously there is no such delay in payments FROM an account), and once this happens, charges accrue. And for people on tight budgets (most of us), the imposition of these charges puts more and more pressure on our funds - the compounding effect of these charges has put so many people in trouble - way beyond the scale of the original 'offence'.

I'd be happy to accept a small 'rap on the knuckles' if I overstepped my limit (small = £5 - £7). I can live with that. I cannot afford to pay £60 for an £11 overdraft, and now I'm facing the prospect of having £60 less in order to pay my bills. And this is not me spending my money indulgently. The account I have with Abbey pays my bills only - I don't have a huge disposable income, and I do not waste money. All I want to do is meet my obligations to the Utility companies - pay my gas, electric, water, and Council Tax, without the stress and strain of wondering how I can juggle funds to meet the fine from Abbey based on what is (for a reasonable person) a minor infringement.

The banks have an unfair position in relation to access to peoples' money. And they use this to their full advantage.

Another point to consider - if these charges were not illegal or unfair, why have so many banks refunded so much money to customers?

Nathan_Spleen

WickedWend wrote: »

. Why should I pay when I was responsible, didn't spend money I didn't have any hence did not incur charges?

So do you expect not to be charged for your gas & electricity services, due to your 'responsibility'?

As a general principle there cannot be anything fundamentally wrong with everyone paying for their own banking services.

Iain_Hannah

What about the latest bank wheeze for parting you from your hard earned cash, which costs you £88 plus per month. If you didn't have an overdraft agreement the banks offered you an availability of £250, for which they charge you £88 every month plus £8 per transaction. They also charge you the following month.
Great isn't it to be poor and to have to fund your manager's huge bonus.

thomcomms

Can someone clarify for me: are we talking all charges including the sort of monthly standing charges that banks like LloydsTSB charge for the privilege of having one of their accounts-with-bells-on or just occasional charges for overdrafts etc?

Widelats

thomcomms wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me: are we talking all charges including the sort of monthly standing charges that banks like LloydsTSB charge for the privilege of having one of their accounts-with-bells-on or just occasional charges for overdrafts etc?

All charges.

Nathan_Spleen

thomcomms wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me: are we talking all charges including the sort of monthly standing charges that banks like LloydsTSB charge for the privilege of having one of their accounts-with-bells-on or just occasional charges for overdrafts etc?

The charges the open letter referrs to don't incude packaged account fees of the type you describe. Just insufficient funds charges.

rodcartner

Nice one - but I doubt whether it will have any effect!!!:beer: