Answering bank charges skeptics: pls help....

natweststaffmember

krisskross wrote: »

So it seems that the banks should not pay out anything if the funds are not there thus avoiding anyone being in the position of accruing bank charges.

So what happens when a mum is in Tescos buying food and her card is declined because of insufficient funds?
Surely that is a no brainer. If there are no funds in the account the bank should decline it rather than pay it and charge £30+ and a further £20+ for going over their overdraft which means it takes money out of their budget for the following month. Shocking scenario.
Are the banks the bad men because children are having to go without food?
If they pay then they take more.
What about declining the DD for the electric company who then insist on a prepayment meter so the electric costs significantly more.
That is only when there are huge arrears, and it is the ultimate sanction. Many companies will work with customers rather than simply taking immediate action(such as banks, for example). It's called Customer Service.
I do think the banks will have to pay money back that they have taken for charges but I can also see an awful lot of people who will be relying on post office type accounts with no DDs or debit cards available. Inconvenient for those people whose local post office closes.

If that helps them then it is a positive thing with regards to your last comment.

esmerellda

Re http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1915763

I think its pretty misguided tbh and agree with a lot of MarkyMarkD's points made. The article isnt needed but will create some amusing argumentative discussion.

Been more useful to do about the compensation and limitations clause in the waiver to stop peeps wasting time and money going to court with basic claims.

Did MSE respond to the PCA market study ?

natweststaffmember

Can you add the difference between unlawful and illegal. One is about bank charges and the other is a sick bird

esmerellda

pmsl, go on Nats, explain the difference

natweststaffmember

esmerellda wrote: »

pmsl, go on Nats, explain the difference

I just did. If I rob a bank it is a criminal act but if a financial institution takes money from my account on the basis of a contract that is unfair then it is unlawful since it is covered by civil not criminal law.

Personally, I would take the sick bird to a vet

Graham_Devon

natwest. When you signed that direct debit, were you not INSTRUCTING the bank to do what you are complaing of?

kelloggs36

krisskross wrote: »

So it seems that the banks should not pay out anything if the funds are not there thus avoiding anyone being in the position of accruing bank charges.

So what happens when a mum is in Tescos buying food and her card is declined because of insufficient funds?She would put things back to the value that she has insufficient funds - she should know how much is in her account. My sister has done this loads of times when she has paid by cash - put items back until she can pay for what she has. Are the banks the bad men because children are having to go without food? No because it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that they can feed their children, not the banks'. Social services have emergency facilities to help when there are situations where children aren't being fed due to lack of funds. What about declining the DD for the electric company who then insist on a prepayment meter so the electric costs significantly more. That is definately out of order to charge more for the same service although the pre-pay meter may cost something to put in and maintain but that could come from their profits. The point is that the fuel used is paid for that is all - I don't pay to maintain my meter!

I do think the banks will have to pay money back that they have taken for charges but I can also see an awful lot of people who will be relying on post office type accounts with no DDs or debit cards available. Inconvenient for those people whose local post office closes.

..........................

Nathan_Spleen

esmerellda wrote: »

Re http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1915763

The article isnt needed but will create some amusing argumentative discussion.

I agree but for different reasons. Nobody in the campaign needs to be responsible for addressing the concerns of the sceptics.

Only a court will decide on the unlawfullness of the charges and if so only the banks will decide whether to amend their charging structure.

All consequences arising from the test case will be entirely a matter for the courts and the banks.

JamieD_2

There's a few thing I'd take issue with here.

For example - "If I walked up to someone in the street, told them I was going to punch them, then punched them – the fact I’d prewarned doesn’t make my actions any more legal" - compares a legal act (charging a fee) with an illegal on (assault) and also ignores any wrongdoing on the consumer's part. People will use poor analogies to tear an argument to shreds and ignore any valid points being made.

"If anything sees off ‘free banking’, it’ll be SHAMBOLIC management decisions that cost hundreds of billions of pounds (much to the taxpayer) and caused record losses"

Juxtaposing bank charges and the government bail out is a bit of a cheap bait-and-switch, to try to raise ire with the banks as a whole. It was not the retail section of RBS that caused its share price to plummet and necessitate the rescue, it was the global markets division.

"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."

This story does come off as a blatant plea for sympathy for the single mother. Why not the deadbeat delinquent who NEVER overspent on her booze and fags, but the benefits office glitch meant that all her storecard direct debits bounced. Surely she too is entitled to "financial justice" but somehow, she's not quite the saintly heroine.

natweststaffmember

Graham_Devon wrote: »

natwest. When you signed that direct debit, were you not INSTRUCTING the bank to do what you are complaing of?

........Explain?