Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

natweststaffmember

Dave_The_Rave wrote: »

Errr, Hello.....

People sign the terms and conditions when they open their bank accounts.
Banks have a duty to make sure that customer are fully aware of the terms and conditions. Someone I know was simply told sign here and here
Yes, it doesn't cost the banks the amount they charge the customers when those customers break those terms.
Which they can still do even if the consumers win the OFT test case

But if people live within their means, then shock...horror... they won't be charged. If you can't live within your means, then that is your problem. Don't blame the banks for your lack of control.
No one is blaming them, per se, for that. It is the interplay of charges that is at issue and the fairness of them to begin with. If you have a DD for say £5 and you are unable to get an overdraft facility cos you haven't built one up, and the bank bounce the DD(yes stupidly you don't trust computers or ATMs cos of phishing and lebanese loops) then by the time the bank have written to you you may have £56 unauthorised borrowing(cos it went over two charging periods) £76 unpaids(cos it got bounced again before you got the letter) plus an additional charge from the provider.
Banks HAVE THE RIGHT to charge someone for an item being returned unpaid but you have the issue of fairness and the interplay of charges.

If you take money from banks that isn't yours, don't cry foul, when they charge you for the privilege .What privilege am I getting from the bank? They take money which means it may take me into money that the bank owns and it spirals.
As the banks are almost owned by the taxpayers, why should we pay for your overspending ?
Majority shareholding and owing a pair of shoes is slightly different.
People always wanting something for nothing, and Mr Lewis encouraging it...

Martin Lewis is encouraging people to claim for things that the banks have rarely defended. He hasn't said reclaim packaged account fees because the bank can fairly charge people for a bells and whistles account. Why is there a bank charges test case if the Government(OFT) did not believe that legally the banks are in the wrong?

mandij30

Dave_The_Rave wrote: »

Errr, Hello.....

People sign the terms and conditions when they open their bank accounts. Yes, it doesn't cost the banks the amount they charge the customers when those customers break those terms. But if people live within their means, then shock...horror... they won't be charged. If you can't live within your means, then that is your problem. Don't blame the banks for your lack of control.

If you take money from banks that isn't yours, don't cry foul, when they charge you for the privilege . As the banks are almost owned by the taxpayers, why should we pay for your overspending ?

People always wanting something for nothing, and Mr Lewis encouraging it...

This is rather insulting, no one would choose to abuse the banks services.

What if you are paid monthly, and your salary goes in every month on last working day of month.
What if the BACS system failed, and your salary didn't go into your bank account, and you was told it wouldn't be in your account for at least another few days ???? Then the DD started coming out of your account on the 1st of the month, there was insufficent funds to pay them ??

Is it my fault then ??? why should I be made to pay charges of £30 for every failed DD.... so then I get paid and my account is then deducted those charges, and the money that I had to pay bills and survive on for the month is already down by over £100... so already I'd be struggling.

This is not me being irresponsible, and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting...

agnes_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Martin Lewis is encouraging people to claim for things that the banks have rarely defended. He hasn't said reclaim packaged account fees because the bank can fairly charge people for a bells and whistles account. Why is there a bank charges test case if the Government(OFT) did not believe that legally the banks are in the wrong?

THANK YOU once again Nattie, you are spot on !! ( by the way where is the thanks icon? ) No one deliberatley invites this problem!!!

natweststaffmember

Bottom right

MSE_Martin

There's quite a simple answer to the "people signed up to the T&Cs arguement"

If I walked up to you in the street told you I was going to punch you, then punched you. It doesn't make it legal.

We have no choice but to sign up to t&cs of banks. ALl banks levied these charges. We are virtually enforced to have bank accounts if we work, therefore we have no way to avoid them

The banks levy these fees which are now almost officially seen as unlawful. Don't blame th eperson being punched, blame the person punching.

The banks have been foul of the law - remember not principle - the law of the land for years. Its time we overturned this.

Martin

Jama_2

Any room in that letter for signatures????

Ed_Addis

Great work, but I'd just like to point out one other organisation that takes money out of our accounts without permission - the Child Support Agency. If you're in dispute with them about payments, they have the legal right to approach your employers and to demand salary and bank account details. In effect you forfeit the right to fight your case in a court of law. If ever there was a glaring offence against morality and freedom, the workings of this organisation qualify. A prime case for consumer action?!?

vicstuff

It seems to me that we should be going one step further. Electricity and gas suppliers have to compensate customers if they fail to deliver. Why should banks not have the same treatment?

I have just wasted half an hour unsuccessfully trying to get access to the right department to get the bank to correct an error of their making - which will impact on me if not corrected. Eventually I decided to go in to the bank instead (half an hours walk and a queue.) Once at the service till I then found I had to make an appointment with the personal banker and make a further trip there in a week's time. If I costed MY TIME - to correct THEIR error, it would be rather more expensive than the admin charge they traditionally exert for sending out ONE letter in the event of an irregularity in a customer's account.

I appreciate that banks - or any other firm can make errors. What is unreasonable is that they make it so time consuming and inefficient to correct such errors. Same problem with many companies who answer sales calls with rapidity but whose complaints or service lines seems to be considerably more tardy - wasting customers time and often enforcing unreasonable phone charges taboot.

I'd like to see some kind of fixed penalty charge, which is incurred automatically in the event that complaints or problems are not addressed with reasonable alacrity.

natweststaffmember

vicstuff wrote: »

It seems to me that we should be going one step further. Electricity and gas suppliers have to compensate customers if they fail to deliver. Why should banks not have the same treatment?

I have just wasted half an hour unsuccessfully trying to get access to the right department to get the bank to correct an error of their making - which will impact on me if not corrected. Eventually I decided to go in to the bank instead (half an hours walk and a queue.) Once at the service till I then found I had to make an appointment with the personal banker and make a further trip there in a week's time. If I costed MY TIME - to correct THEIR error, it would be rather more expensive than the admin charge they traditionally exert for sending out ONE letter in the event of an irregularity in a customer's account.

I appreciate that banks - or any other firm can make errors. What is unreasonable is that they make it so time consuming and inefficient to correct such errors. Same problem with many companies who answer sales calls with rapidity but whose complaints or service lines seems to be considerably more tardy - wasting customers time and often enforcing unreasonable phone charges taboot.

I'd like to see some kind of fixed penalty charge, which is incurred automatically in the event that complaints or problems are not addressed with reasonable alacrity.

If the bank have made an error then you have every right to complain to the bank to put you back into the position had that error not occurred, that can involve a compensatory amount in the case you have mentioned.
The problem is that bank contracts can be varied within a given notice period, if you don't like it though then the only recourse you have is to leave the bank. If you try to vary the contract and the bank disagrees with you then your only recourse is to leave the bank so you can see who has the upper hand in this.

Tozer

This website has always been a-political. Until now clearly.