Answering bank charges skeptics: pls help....

MarkyMarkD

I typed a long response and then lost it ... and cannot be bothered to re-type it.

I'm not sure, Nathan, why who posts what, matters. I shall respond to what's said, not who said it.

I understand Nathan's "in exchange" argument, but I'm not sure I agree. Why should packaging up of services in exchange for an overall fee - which may only be triggered if you do certain things - be unlawful?

How is it different from a 0% credit card deal, where those who do things "properly" pay nothing, and those who do things "improperly" get charged a lot of money? Do you claim that is unlawful for the same reasons?

For that matter, take all credit card agreements - those who actually borrow pay over-the-top, to subsidise those who don't. Unfair? Invalid under UTCCR? I doubt it.

natweststaffmember

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I typed a long response and then lost it ... and cannot be bothered to re-type it.

I'm not sure, Nathan, why who posts what, matters. I shall respond to what's said, not who said it.

I understand Nathan's "in exchange" argument, but I'm not sure I agree. Why should packaging up of services in exchange for an overall fee - which may only be triggered if you do certain things - be unlawful?

How is it different from a 0% credit card deal, where those who do things "properly" pay nothing, and those who do things "improperly" get charged a lot of money? Do you claim that is unlawful for the same reasons?

For that matter, take all credit card agreements - those who actually borrow pay over-the-top, to subsidise those who don't. Unfair? Invalid under UTCCR? I doubt it.

Mark. you haven't understood the argument. You, the customer, gain something in exchange for services provided so you could argue you have negotiated a deal for you and you alone. However, the banks are arguing that some of your services are being used by others so that they gain services and benefits which you are paying for. For example, it's a bit like saying that cos you are not a good customer for the electric company(choose any one) that you pay more so that I can pay less. So you are in effect paying for electricity bill and I am merely covering the difference.
I hope that simple analogy makes sense?

Credit card agreements though are more than likely to be able to recoup monies through Interest on purchases, fees on the use of the card in the ATM and such like, Credit card charges may well come under UTCCR 1999 and when they are challenged, the companies will pay out.

esmerellda

Could argue this till cows come home you know guys, and am sure we have done before.

nice to see you too mmd Hows the new house going?

re Natties '' Credit card charges may well come under UTCCR 1999'' - the OFT certainly thinks they do ref their Feb 09 internal report.

MarkyMarkD

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Mark. you haven't understood the argument. You, the customer, gain something in exchange for services provided so you could argue you have negotiated a deal for you and you alone. However, the banks are arguing that some of your services are being used by others so that they gain services and benefits which you are paying for. For example, it's a bit like saying that cos you are not a good customer for the electric company(choose any one) that you pay more so that I can pay less. So you are in effect paying for electricity bill and I am merely covering the difference.
I hope that simple analogy makes sense?

Credit card agreements though are more than likely to be able to recoup monies through Interest on purchases, fees on the use of the card in the ATM and such like, Credit card charges may well come under UTCCR 1999 and when they are challenged, the companies will pay out.

No, I totally understand the point.

The banks' argument that the payments are intended, in aggregate (from all customers) to cover the package of services that all customers benefit from is, I agree, a rubbish one.

What matters is that each customer pays an agreed amount in exchange for the services which they individually receive. Which they self-evidently do.

The banks are IMHO arguing the wrong point, in respect to Nathan's completely valid "in exchange" point of law.

Esm - I don't have much respect for the OFT's views on these matters. The new house is going sort of OK but the kitchen fitters are in right now causing chaos and there is dust everywhere. At least I have got a wired internet connection going tonight so no more reliance on flaky wireless which doesn't work very well at all through the various walls involved!

flam147

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?

so if your employer/benefits make a mistake and pay you late and you cannot afford charges you pay charges on charges and end up £1000's in debt when it is not your fault ?

if you get a fine you are fined once not 50 times for 1 mistake?

if i am a good tesco customer should you pay for some of my shopping?

charges are a small % of banks profit so they will be able to provide "free" banking without unlawfull charges

flam147

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.

but if you are paid on monday and payout on monday you have not

flam147

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.

if your debit card costs the bank £3 why should i pay for it?

flam147

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

but sometimes someone else makes a mistake and before you notice it you have been charged £38 which if you have £10 spare in your budget they mount up to £100's responsability again (paying a fine on a fine!!!)

contract Law prohibits the amount the banks charge.
a DD could be cancelled 1/100000th sec after bank clerk pressed enter on bank terminal (if not gone out, but many banks insist on 3 days notice).
more charge generating. lots of people are on very tight budgets.

flam147

TG82 wrote: »

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.

:T could not agree more

flam147

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Martin

Some of your quotes are very old-hat and you haven't updated them to deal with most of the common objections. You might not like the objections, but some of them have substance.

The answer to this is naive and illogical. A £10bn (or whatever) "payout" will come straight from the banks' capital. They don't have enough capital - that is the reason for the government "bail-out". Taking £10bn away means that they are £10bn short - and will need recapitalising once again. So your £10bn boost to the economy will take £10bn out of the economy in some other way.

Your answer to this is a politician's answer which answers a question which was not asked. You appear to have no answer for the argument that those who have run their accounts properly will quite possibly end up in a worst-off position because of those who have not.

Of course it has. It has not done what you claimed - educated the elderly, and naive, who trusted their banks - because those are not the people who incurred charges, nor those who have "claimed". They read articles about "claiming" and don't think - "the banks are awful - I should never have trusted them". They think "look at those spendthrifts trying to make someone else pay their bills".

This is just semantics. Banking is free for 75%+ of customers who run their accounts properly, and most of those 75%+ understand perfectly well that it's free if in credit.

I'm really fed up with this "simile" mainly because it is not at all a valid comparison. Telling someone up front that you will charge them an amount of money, if they do something, is not the same as punching them on the nose. Charging them an amount of money is only claimed to be illegal. Punching them on the nose definitely is.

In a situation like this, or late payment from an employer, or whatever, then the responsible party should repay the charges immediately. I don't see why the bank should be seen as the guilty party here - it is the DWP, or the employer, or whoever.

This example is simply a smokescreen to cover the fact that most bank charges are caused by poor budgeting or over-spending, not by late benefits or late pay.

If the woman had reclaimed her charges from DWP, they wouldn't have got to £3,000.


Regarding your comments about people being unable to control payments by DD, that's rubbish. Most DD payments are fixed monthly amounts, which are due. Not paying them by DD - on time - generally means paying them late. Stealing from one creditor - by paying them late - because you have cashflow problems isn't a form of good money management, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

People should accept that their fixed outgoings are their fixed outgoings. They need to manage their variable income (if it is indeed variable) and variable outgoings, not constantly pay bills late if there is not enough money "in the pot".

if you are good at budgeting and get your newspapers and magazines delivered from your newsagent , should i pay for them because i am not as good at budgeting?.
banks make £40 BLN profit of which charges are only £3 BLN. if you want a debit card you should pay the bank for it? oops you do because you lose interest on what the banks make out of your money.

there is sometimes no money in the pot because you have been fined 50 times for one offence!!!