Answering bank charges skeptics: pls help....

chris_spackman

chopperharris wrote: »

I find your post weighted martin , your stuck in your idea and simply wont budge.

It is normal elsewhere in the world to charge for accounts , and this will happen.Those that use the likes of mse to save every penny , rather than spend more than they have results in these bank charges ,the rest ofus will have to pay more.

Everything will have a tarrif from now on , and has already started with the likes of abbey wanting a fiver for a statement in branch.Next is charging everyone to take money out of an atm , or for every direct debit.

Your defeating the idea of your site of "money saving" , if the people had enough cash in their accounts then there would have been no charges whatsoever.However if the charge was the banks fault then a simple call would have commuted it , if they didnt then these are the only people that have a legitimate claim.

If the banks never paid out an account holders direct debits , which resulted in charges , then a third party would have suffered financially through no fault of their own.This may have impacted on the credit limit of the account holder , and importantly led to even more expenses accrued for debt retreival or in removal of a service.

Perhaps I am one of those that grew up in a very small minority where your money was your own , you spent no more than you had , and actually managed your finances.In these days of internet banking it couldnt be any simpler.

There is many posts on the forum regarding accepting responsibility of ones own life , this includes finances.If this was a regular occurrence to the account holder does that not tell you something?

I have had one charge in 30 years of banking , with the same bank , and the same credit card with them from the age of 18 ....but maybe I was in the wrong?

If you had no money in your account and you went to an ATM would you be able to take any money? No so if there is no money in your account then why should the bank let a DD go? Its just a way for them to make money as is the local council who puts parking meters up. W ehave money and everyone wants their bite of the pie.

Its all about money money money. Go overdrawn by 0.01p and you are charged £35!

For those of you who say 'if you keep enough money in your account you'll be ok', well the reason the rich have free banking is because those that have little and struggle, more so at this time, pay for it.

michaels

I think the bank should never have been allowed to deduct charges from customer accounts - if instead they had to submit a monthly 'bill' for charges which consumers then chose how to pay I suspect the charges would have been much lower and more transparent and of course charges would not have impacted on account balances thus triggering further charges.

After all all other companies we pay them as we decide, they can't just take money from us and their charges for things like late payment are much less punitive.

chris_spackman

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Glad you said it. I started typing "why not just change the DD's to a Tuesday!?", but thought it was rather rude!

This is the kind of thing though where I do get annoyed with the whole reclaiming thing. A bit of responsibilty at the customers end and there would be nothing to reclaim. It's now likely I will end up paying because they didn't simply sort it out very simply.

This website has never, as far as I have seen, in any of the main articles, mentioned anything like this. Just a simple line saying "the easiest way is to not get charged in the first place".

In the above case, I cannot see why the charges are unlawful in any way. It's like me spending my wages before I have got them. Hardly the banks fault. It's purely mine.

Some firms only give you a certain date on which to make payment. if you don't pay by direct debit some will charge you for not paying by direct debit. If something goes wrong in the 3 day window of the direct debit being called for then there is nothing anyone can do. This is not in defence of people who just let the charge apply as they can't be arsed. Some do get in a pickle at no fault of their own.

Graham_Devon

chris_spackman wrote: »

If you had no money in your account and you went to an ATM would you be able to take any money? No so if there is no money in your account then why should the bank let a DD go? Its just a way for them to make money as is the local council who puts parking meters up. W ehave money and everyone wants their bite of the pie.

Because, when you signed up to pay DD, you agreed to have the funds in place. You signed to that effect.

Responsibility again....

There are other ways to pay, and you normally get 28 days to do so with the other ways.

Graham_Devon

chris_spackman wrote: »

Some firms only give you a certain date on which to make payment.

It takes one phone call to change it, I have done it in the past, as I like all my bills to come out on the 1st of the month

geoffky

The charges should be set at a level that reflects the work involved....Then any fool who goes overdrawn ect deserves what they get....unauthorized withdrawal of a banks money should be punished and punished hard like they do in France..
Do it twice in France and your account is closed..

TG82

I think people are being incredibly judgemental here.

First of all, if a child does something wrong, they can be legally told off by their teacher, NOT have the sh*t beaten out of them. If a police officer finds somebody carrying a knife, they can confiscate the knife, but not pinch their wallet while they're at it.

If people have mismanaged their finances (and as Martin explained, it's not always that clear cut), then smacking them with huge fines which are entirely disproportionate is indefensible.

Secondly, some people will be good at managing their finances, other people will not be so good. That is the tapestry of society. I manage my life better than most in some areas, and I'm considerably worse than average in others. Some have learning disabilities, are poorly educated, have manic depressive illnesses: we can all go into denial of our situations.

If these people with such harsh judgements are so sure that they manage their own finances well, then I ask them to look at their lives in the broader picture, and maybe there are other equally or more important aspects of their lives which are disorganised, crumbling, messed up, or that they're in denial of. Would any of them like to get charged disproportionately for their shortcomings?

I take the argument that some people have managed their finances successfully to avoid these charges, but then pat yourselves on the back because you've saved yourselves this agro.

And just because you've marched to the beat of the drum, and managed yourselves well within the system, that does NOT mean the system is equitable. So rather than target people who are reclaiming, start to think more about whether these rules you adhere to are fair anyway.

oakhouse13

'I got involved in the campaign to reclaim bank charges after meeting a single mum, a carer for her autistic son. She NEVER overspent, but a benefits office glitch meant it paid out late, so five direct debits bounced, meaning nearly £200 of charges.

Of course she couldn’t pay. I met her a year later when charges on the charges meant she owed £3,000.'

If someone asks, what is her situation now?

'Jon Snow, as part of a Channel 4 news interview on bank charges, way in 2007/8 said he bet banks would start introducing charges for cash machine withdrawals – we still haven’t seen it.'

Is that accurate and fair? There was abuse directed at Jon Snow on your forums after he interviewed you on Channel 4 News on the collapse of Icelandic banks. Some posts discussed routes he regularly cycled and putting a stick in the wheels of his bicycle so he would fall off. I know you would not support this but if you are referring to him in your guide, you need to be absolutely accurate given the animosity towards him on your website.

European Courts?

Nathan_Spleen

Fifer wrote: »

If a charge is found to be unreasonable, should all the charge be refunded, or only the unreasonable element (the charge less the bank's overheaded costs for administering the unauthorised facility and the charge)?

If a court finds the charges to be unfair under UTCCR, the contractual terms responsible for the charges become nul & void, taking the entire charge with them. This is the only way of dealing with an unfair term in UTCCR:

Effect of unfair term
8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.=

Some observers believe that the FSA will step in with a part-refund scheme but the fact is there is no legal mechanism for the bank's to deduct their administrative costs.

natweststaffmember

I have to be entirely honest here Martin, and say I haven't read much of the thread which I am about to do in detail. My personal opinion here is that I do not see why a guide is required for the moralists since there is an OFT test case ongoing plus the government white paper is fairly clear on what is happening in the case and the possible consequences plus if people are scared by the how much the bank have to refund then a note of caution should be made. Whilst the unfairness of a term makes it unenforceable, it is up to the national court to decide how far back that a court case can go on reclaims.

In fact on post one, I think the skeptics can keep coming because when you read the transcripts on the OFT test case it covers almost every aspect of their skepticism. With respect Martin, I don't think you have to justify anything on bank charges to the skeptics since there is a test case ongoing.
Now I'll look in detail at it and make some comments.