Bank charges

bookworm1363

Astaroth wrote:

Well for 1 - these claims are going through the small track of the courts and therefore solicitors fees cannot be claimed....

You may well be happy to represent yourself in court but a bank will use a barrister - how much a day do you think a barrister costs? More than the average £200 of fees people are claiming? (I dont know the average amount but I suspect it is less than the couple of thousand a day barristers charge)

It is very simple maths - the cost of defending the claim is greater than the cost of just paying it. The volume of cases proportionally is tiny and therefore not worth a significant investment to win a test case. Even if a test case was won then they would still have to pay the a barrister to go to court to simply say "as per Irresponsible -v- HBOS Plc the charges are legal" - but even this minor work is probably more than most cases are worth.

Whilst you may do things out of principle banks run on the basis of business risk and profitability.

In a very recent case, bank paid up without going to court: Value: 8K +. mmmhhh.....:D

bookworm1363

IvanOpinion wrote:

That is actually a very good question and I would love to see some sort of time and motion study done on it. If we equate this role similar to that of a mechanic doing a car service tho is often charged out at £60-80 an hour then we are talking here of about 30-40 minutes of work.

But that's for a business that is allowed to make a profit for the work they carry out. Once more, very loud: BANKS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM PENALTY CHARGES, BY LAW. Gawd, is that so hard to understand?

maybe the £39 includes a bit to balance out quick solves and those that take ages.

Nope, fully automated system. I have the letters from the banks admitting it.

Ali, if you are being charged that sort of fee then you need to look at the account you have.

Basic Halifax Current Account. Recognise it anywhere.

If you are not a persistent offender then you can phone the bank and they will probably refund at least half if not more.

Wrong. And there's no "probably" about it.

banks will reduce their charges to what someone has deemed to be acceptable (say £12)

.

Wrong. Again. "Someone" (the Office of Fair Trading) has deemed that £12 is the level at which they themselves would take action against the banks. They have also said that below £12 was not necessarily an acceptable amount either.

and no goodwill gestures

Nooooo! *sob* You mean if I get on my knees, cap in hand, and beg for a scrap of my money back, they won't? Oh, hang on, no, wait, that's right! THEY ALREADY DON'T! Phew, well, that's a relief, for one moment there, I really thought I'd shot myself in the foot by reclaiming my charges!

the banks really will have us by the short and curlies.

Well, now, you're talking service. For THAT, they're allowed to charge!

I tell you what, though. With people like you to defend them, I could nearly feel sorry for the banks. If that's the caliber they're going to throw at us, we really have nothing to fear!

Astaroth

bookworm1363 wrote:

In a very recent case, bank paid up without going to court: Value: 8K +. mmmhhh.....:D

Yes, and the insurance brand that I used to work for decided not to defend a case worth £50k as the economics said not to (though the advice from our baristers were that we would have won with no contest)

I guess if you dont get the concept that businesses look at time & effort to defend, reputational damage etc then it isnt worth explaining again.

For a Sun newspaper readers introduction I suggest watching Fightclub...
If average out of court settlement x estimated number of cars that will fail < cost of a recall = no recall

IvanOpinion

dchurch24 wrote:

Err...research? What? You more-or-less said that you work for a bank. And I only said "I presume" that you do, as you didn't come out and say it outright.

I think you are picking holes to deflect from the real issue.

What I said was that I work in IT, I do not work for a bank, I work for an independent IT company sub-contracted into various industries.

I notice you still are unwilling to answer some of the questions I pose

No-one TOLD me that. You decide why then. Who wins out of the customer being mis-informed about their balance. Not the customer. Banks don't do anything by accident.

I can't talk about every bank but from one I can get information ... originally only the 'cleared' balance was displayed .. customers complained ... then they displayed a balance including 'uncleared' .. customers complained .. now they display both and hope that the average customer has enough intelligence to work out what each means ... its not exactly difficult.

So, are you telling me that there IS a bank that doesn't make these charges? Now, don't be shy, spread the news.

You are so much involved in 'the cause' you have lost vision of the bigger picture. All banks make charges however different banks offer different accounts .. some more suited to those with a credit balance and some more suited to those that seomtimes need a debit balance ... some banks do not incur charges (beyond interest) if you work within an authorised overdraft.

As already stated, Abbey's on-line 'service' does not update at weekends for one thing. I was given 3 different account balances on the same day by three different means. It's not about having what I can't afford right this minute. I never have been like that - I've ALWAYS saved, or sold something I no longer need to get the things I 'want'. I've since been forced down a road where I have to buy the nessecities (sp) of life on credit - not frivulous toys or spending on nights on the slash.

There are very valid operational reasons as to why some things can not be kept up to date at weekends. The banks use these periods to carry out large batch processes for various reasons including legislative. Handling umpteen million accounts takes significant amounts of time ... this may include the credit sweep processes that customers are demanding these days. Customers are more-and-more demanding 24/7 access, to provide this something has to give. Since there is a large churn of transactions going on during this period account balances may be being updated for various different reasons due to amounts finally clearing the first or second step of clearance, transfers from other banks, direct debits, interest calculations, cheques coming in etc. etc. All that a balance can show is a snapshot at any specific point of time .. an operator is only reading what they see on the screen. How would you like the balance to be shown?

There is a responsbility on the owner of the account to have some sort of knowledge about how much money is in their account .. it is their money so they should make some effort to manage it. Anybody who feels they have to contact their bank 3 times in one day needs to have a serious look at how they are managing their money.

As to where the illegalities come from - you are implying that the banks are in cahoots and talking to each other about where to gain the extra revenue from when the bank charges thing is won. That's illegal - they are NOT allowed to talk to each other about those kinds of issues.

There is a pun in there somewhere Take your blinkers off .. I didn't say or imply any of that .. however do you honestly think they do not discuss trends and possibilities .. they are ALLOWED to discuss them all they like (or do you think that the various committees that meet each month are also illegal e.g. the ones that determine the base rate etc.).

Each bank will determine its own set of products and as soon as one announces something the others will pay very close attention and probably mirror similar products. The merketing department will figure out ways of promoting them (which given this thread is going to be a lot easier than even I thought). If they lose money on one product then you can be 100% guaranteed they will introduce a product to get that money back .. and more.

However as has been seen on many other occasions they will heavily rely on customer laziness, customer incompetence and customer stupidity to retain market share. While you may consider this to be insulting it is a fact.

Ivan

IvanOpinion

Astaroth wrote:

Yes, and the insurance brand that I used to work for decided not to defend a case worth £50k as the economics said not to (though the advice from our baristers were that we would have won with no contest)

I guess if you dont get the concept that businesses look at time & effort to defend, reputational damage etc then it isnt worth explaining again.

For a Sun newspaper readers introduction I suggest watching Fightclub...
If average out of court settlement x estimated number of cars that will fail < cost of a recall = no recall

About 20 years ago I was installing 'idiot switches' in a factory and one of the things that they were talking about was the number of injury claims. The company had a policy NOT to question or defend any claim under £500 (simply fill in a form and the money would be included in the next pay packet). The number of people that tripped and fell, slashed themselves with stanley knives or (allegedly) dropped something heavy on their foot coming up to Christmas or summer holidays was incredible.

Guess who was at the top of the redundancy lists .. another example of short term gains for long term losses.

Ivan

IvanOpinion

bookworm1363 wrote:

But that's for a business that is allowed to make a profit for the work they carry out. Once more, very loud: BANKS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM PENALTY CHARGES, BY LAW. Gawd, is that so hard to understand?

Yet another person that has not taken time to read anything I have posted .. but feels they can comment. I am not quesitoning anything to do with the legality, the size of or anything to do with charges. What I am saying is that poeple signed up to a set of T&C and then become what is known in the trade as professional whingers when they break them? I don't care less how much people are currently being charged as far as I am concerned they broke the T&C .. the legalities or otherwise to me are irrelevant. Nor am I defending banks (I have had my own problems).

What I am concerned about is people giving BAD advice by telling others that the can operate their accounts in a totally cavalier manner because the charges are illegal. So rather than spending 5 minutes managing their own money or phoning the bank up and getting a quick refund they are being advised to spend several stressful hours going through the courts (for the profit of ambulance chasers whi definitely have a financial interest in all this). This is only feasible because the amounts are small enough for banks to realise that it is not worth defending.

People that have trouble managing money due to hard times or pure incompetency need to take more control .. not be told 'don't worry about it'. They need to make sure they have the correct account .. they need, in the first instance, to talk to a representative from their bank or an IFA and get proper sensible advice.

As I said there is a definitie 'cause' and the only thing guaranteed when there is a cause is that common sense has long departed.

Nope, fully automated system. I have the letters from the banks admitting it.

Most systems are automated as are the letters. ONe of my jobs is to get rid of deadwood customers that cost the company money .. force them to leave and go elsewhere. I have actually seen a letter I authored being presented on this very vent board and the person saying they were going to talk with their feet ... just proves I did my job .. I got rid of them .. and the biggest joke on them was it didn't even involve a real person .. the computer made all the decisions (in about a dozen lines of code).

However, as I showed in a previous posting sometimes things do get looked into, sometimes operators make phone calls they may be 5 minutes or they may be an hour ... often balances and other things have to be investigated which can take several man days. Maybe if this happens you would agree that the bank can charge actual fees .. how about receiving a bill for £2500 in the example I gave earlier .. that was the actual costs incurred. That is actual costs and is therefore fair ... as opposed to some ambulance chasers who sometimes manage to invoice 16 hours to customers after working a 9-5 job ?????

Wrong. And there's no "probably" about it.

Obviously I have a better bank manager than you. Every single time I have incurred charges I have phoned the bank and in the WORST scenario I was offered 50% of the charges back ... after holding a polite conversation. I do know from working with various call centres though that anybody who comes on the phone with an attitude will find it a lot harder to get what they want .. sometimes call centres even play 'pass the irate customer' to different people pretending they are getting the supervisor etc.

If however you have to phone up every month asking for a refund they will not allow it .. that person obviously has no idea about money management. In an ideal world the privilege of credit would be taken away from such people however that is not the world we live in.

Wrong. Again. "Someone" (the Office of Fair Trading) has deemed that £12 is the level at which they themselves would take action against the banks. They have also said that below £12 was not necessarily an acceptable amount either.

Try to at least read what I am saying ... the actual amount of the charge is irrelevant. The point I have is that the banks will not be losing money from this they will recover any losses from charges elsewhere ... I KNOW some of the 'ideas' being circulated and what we are seeing is that the incompetent will have short term gains while EVERYBODY will end up with long term losses. Now you see the problem with 'a cause' that gets so wrapped up in its own limited vision ... remember just about everybody in this country is a share holder with financial institutions.

Nooooo! *sob* You mean if I get on my knees, cap in hand, and beg for a scrap of my money back, they won't? Oh, hang on, no, wait, that's right! THEY ALREADY DON'T! Phew, well, that's a relief, for one moment there, I really thought I'd shot myself in the foot by reclaiming my charges!

Obviously you don't know how to handle call centres or your bank manager ... you need to rethink your strategy Whenever the changes come (which they will within a couple of years) everything will be enshrined in law .. you will have effectively given up the right to ask for refunds and contest it in court ... the banks will be under no obligation to even listen to your complaint. They have heard every single excuse under the sun, the majority of them probably being lies, telling them how it is not that customers fault .. their pet gerbil died and the coffin was more expensive etc. etc.

I tell you what, though. With people like you to defend them, I could nearly feel sorry for the banks. If that's the caliber they're going to throw at us, we really have nothing to fear!

Oh dear, some people are so wrapped up in their own little cause (having checked the URL in your signature) that they have totally lost site of the bigger picture. I do not defend banks nor do I defend their incompetent customers. The choice is short term victories for the few or long term losses for the many

Bookmark this thread ... in a couple of years you will be thinking ... now I see what he meant .. he was right. You sort of remind of the 'stud detector' I got from Argos a few weeks back .. it couldn't have detected a stud if one of the Chippendales had been jumping up and down naked in front of it.

Ivan


PS: Seeing as others are a bit shy maybe you can answer my question ... Who is offering the best money saving advice? The person saying handle your finance whatever way you like (even totally irresponsibly and in a cavalier fashion because there are ways to get your money back) or the person saying to choose the best product to suit your circumstances and needs ensuring you do not have to pay fines that you agreed to meaining that you might actually have something left over at the end of the month.

chipmunk

IvanOpinion wrote:

Yet another person that has not taken time to read anything I have posted .. .

I did start off reading "anything you posted" but somewhere towards the end my eyes glazed over and I fell asleep.:D

I think you have made your point and you are entitled to it (even though you are missing the point entirely - EXCESSIVE BANK CHARGES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE BANK). I don't think anyone has suggested that the bank should not be allowed to make a nominal charge to cover their ACTUAL costs.

To resort to rudeness and name calling ("dumb public", "deadwood customers" and all those other delightful phrases you use) substantially diminishes your credibility. I have the (mis)fortune to work with "IT" people and I must say, the majority of them appear to have the same over-inflated opinion of themselves and think that everyone who is not as "clued-up" as they are must be an imbicile.:rolleyes:

chipmunk

ali82

Totally agree with you chipmunk, I can be bothered with those 2 anymore my time is better spent writing my letter to Halifax and checking on my claim with Lloyds TSB.

IvanOpinion

chipmunk wrote:

I think you have made your point and you are entitled to it (even though you are missing the point entirely - EXCESSIVE BANK CHARGES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE BANK). I don't think anyone has suggested that the bank should not be allowed to make a nominal charge to cover their ACTUAL costs.

.. and you have totally missed the point I am making .. to sum it up in a short phrase of small mono-syllable words (just for you) ... short term gain, long term loss

Also, in the ACTUAL example I gave you would be happy to get a charge of £2500 because you complained your statement looked strange? That was the ACTUAL charge involved.

To resort to rudeness and name calling ("dumb public", "deadwood customers" and all those other delightful phrases you use) substantially diminishes your credibility. I have the (mis)fortune to work with "IT" people and I must say, the majority of them appear to have the same over-inflated opinion of themselves and think that everyone who is not as "clued-up" as they are must be an imbicile.:rolleyes:

Your IT people sound like a good solid intelligent lot

The public is 'dumb' ... it is well known .. many industries make a fortune out of their stupidity including advertisers, marketeers, salesmen, ambulance chasers, journalists ... therefore I prefer to call it a fact not name calling ... and before you ask I will hold my hands up and say I have been taken in by the claptrap as well and in that context fall into the category of 'dumb public'.

This is a money saving site ... I have been involved in developing systems designed to save people money ... if I can chop out the 'deadwood customers' then the remaining customers WILL/ARE get/getting a better price. In many industries it is a small proportion of customers that control the majority of the debt and have the highest overheads due to continual debt chasing, always contacting call centres, never happy, alway looking for a quick buck etc. ... get rid of them and you have reduced your costs and can become more competitive. It is that majority of customers that have no management overhead, pay their bills on time (DD), rarely contact the call centres etc. that need to be treated well. Do you want more competitive prices or do you want to 'carry' the uncaring few?

Ivan

PS: Do you want to have a go about answering my question about who is offering the best money saving advice?

IvanOpinion

ali82 wrote:

Totally agree with you chipmunk, I can be bothered with those 2 anymore my time is better spent writing my letter to Halifax and checking on my claim with Lloyds TSB.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You know you will be back .. you just love it ... and after me being the only one to offer you sound money saving advice

Ivan