Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

esmerellda

Far too much Nattie, we can but try eh ?

natweststaffmember

brianandmag wrote: »

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, you are missing one point. Whilst I have sympathy for people accidently going into unauthorised overdraft, ( this had happened twice to me and dealt with very well by Lloydstsb) I have no sympathy for those people who dont control the spending, know the rules of the bank they have agreed to, and then moan when they screw up. If people have to have an overdraft why dont they get an authorised one which costs much much less and stop moaning. Better still stop spending what you haven't got or switch bamks to get a better deal. It is too easy to blame everybody but themselves.

I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. It is the interplay of charges that causes the most anger amongst people who get charges. One charge may directly lead to another charge and the spiral continues as the DD provider adds their charges as well. Before you know it, that £20 bill is then £100 incl all the bank charegs and charges levied by the provider.

natweststaffmember

thejack1953 wrote: »

I am probably at odds with most of the posts here but I think it needs to be more balanced. Yes there are many cases of both unreasonable bank charges and selling of PPI. However there will also be many, many cases where individuals have knowingly miss used their bank accounts in full knowledge of the consequences. Also this may be the death knell of free banking which I for one have enjoyed for over 40 years. There may be a case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water” here? Have I paid bank charges over this period? Yes on occasions but I was aware of what I was doing and the consequences, surely there is an element of personal responsibility here? Also you paint a very black picture of PPI. What about recognising the many thousands of cases where this has genuinely helped? As I said not against the issue in principal, perhaps just a little more objectivity rather than jumping on the consumer bandwagon? And no I have no axe to grind, I am retired.

How many one trick ponies are coming on this thread???
Not one single person opens a bank account with the aforethought to misuse their account. I have seen one single case in which a student deliberately abused their account(there was a BBC3 program on it). PPI can be useful if the bank pays out, however when the consumer has been told they have to have with a loan or is "fully protected" and yes I did work for the bank when that was the patter we went with. You asked how much they wanted to pay and quoted a fully protected loan figure to them. You didn't say it was optional whatsoever. There was no, these are the exclusions, it was sign here and here.
Martin Lewis had an article in March 2006 on Bank Charges so to say he is jumping on the bandwagon is slightly difficult to explain(unless you meant David Cameron is )

natweststaffmember

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.

I think people believe they are owed a fair system and as previously mentioned the interplay of charges, floor limits which means that banks are accepting knowingly that customers will exceed their overdraft. In 2006 the banks made £40 billion pounds and bank charges were £4 billion which is one tenth of the total. Furthermore, RBS Group insured a reputed £250 billion debt in January this year.
Why would the bank HAVE to charge for having an account?
They make money from packaged accounts, they make money from interest on overdrafts, they make money on lending and mortgage products. Bank charges won't disappear and it might be just the level of charges that would change.

natweststaffmember

u01kpd wrote: »

I can't help but find your "letter" naive. Let's make the banks pay out more money and all that will happen is the cost of their services (mortgages, loans etc) will go up. I have no sympathy with those irresponsible enough to incur these charges in the first place - and do not want to subsidise the cost of their foolishness.

Please can everyone stop claiming cos while you are being stamped on, I don't pay charges, boo hoo hoo!! Another one post wonder.

showergirl

I am sick of hearing MP's and so saying they are going to give the bank's tough regulations and yet today we are told that the waiver is to be extended.
Like Nattie has stated we do not open bank accounts with the intent to abuse them, which is why we are fighting the charges imposed on us.
The banks have stretched this case to the limit and it is about time someone came in and put it to an end.
So instead of spouting off why don't the MP's actually do something and sort this mess out. Gives us the money back and let us get ourselves and the economy back on it's feet

meggsy

Widelats wrote: »

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.

I think they are responding to Martins newsletter - I received mine today and this is the first item and well done Martin, keep up the good work.

natweststaffmember

showergirl wrote: »

I am sick of hearing MP's and so saying they are going to give the bank's tough regulations and yet today we are told that the waiver is to be extended.
Like Nattie has stated we do not open bank accounts with the intent to abuse them, which is why we are fighting the charges imposed on us.
The banks have stretched this case to the limit and it is about time someone came in and put it to an end.
So instead of spouting off why don't the MP's actually do something and sort this mess out. Gives us the money back and let us get ourselves and the economy back on it's feet

Thank you for your kind words but with regards to what MP's can and cannot do, the Government(OFT) are suing the banks over the issue so it is a legal case still to be completed.

showergirl

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Thank you for your kind words but with regards to what MP's can and cannot do, the Government(OFT) are suing the banks over the issue so it is a legal case still to be completed.

So it's a case of we sit and wait. But if the waiver is extended till 2010 does that mean we will not have a decision until then.
I feel that the end is never going to be in sight. Sorry to be so downhearted but I (as well as others) could really do with the money right now

natweststaffmember

showergirl wrote: »

So it's a case of we sit and wait. But if the waiver is extended till 2010 does that mean we will not have a decision until then.
I feel that the end is never going to be in sight. Sorry to be so downhearted but I (as well as others) could really do with the money right now

6 months ago we hadn't even gone to the House of Lords. I think sometimes people's expectations are risen to such an extent that they assume that a legal process can be dealt with at the click of one's fingers. It isn't that easy. In the first OFT test case, I think Martin and MSE Wendy can attest that there were reams and reams of evidence. Even if you read through the transcripts it takes time to sit down and analyse and come to a conclusion. We are near to the 50% mark but reaching the end will be shorter rather than longer. Furthermore there has been a lot of misinformation which doesn't help. We are getting there though.