Bank charges

Astaroth

ltlmiles5 wrote:

There's no easy answer, is there? I wasn't aware that a bounced cheque means the person who banks it gets charged. I always thought that the person who has failed to pay up gets charged.

Well they get a charge for the bounce and they are out of pocket for the goods they have sold you so they get a double wammy.

Prehaps the best one is to remove the cheque guarntee card for those that cant handle their finances properly. Same would go for switch and its equiv (solo and electron cant allow you to go overdrawn so where if there is a problem with switch it will authorise for a relatively small amount for solo/electron it doesnt)

People like the convenience of cards/ cheques but prehaps they should be limited to those that can manage their money and the embarisment of having to leave the supermarket empty handed would be another way of ensuring people do consider their finances more seriously.

moonrakerz

IvanOpinion wrote:

.. as I said before the majority of the public are gullible fools, so the marketing bit is easy.


Personally I want MORE high interest paying high penalty fee accounts and MORE low interesting paying low charge accounts ... not less .. I want 'elitist' products that mean good management is rewarded.

Ivan

I have commented (disagreed !) on some of Ivan's earlier posts but I must agree with a couple of his comments shown above.

The banks play on peoples gullibility to draw them into debt, once you are in debt your are screwed !

Sorry - I must disagree with your second point - but having said that I know where you are coming from and to some extent would go with you.
However ! "high penalty fee accounts" are not allowed under present contract law. If the law was changed and Bloggs Bank plc was offering me 10% on my current account, with a LAWFUL penalty of £100 if I bounced a Direct Debit, I would be there like a shot.

Remember the old saying "If you owe the bank £5000, they have you by the b***s, if you owe them £50M you have them by the b***s !!

IvanOpinion

moonrakerz wrote:

Remember the old saying "If you owe the bank £5000, they have you by the b***s, if you owe them £50M you have them by the b***s !!

:rotfl: :rotfl: Thats what a friend of mine says who runs his own business and is doing very well. He keeps telling me how well off I am by only having to worry about my mortgage whereas he owes the banks a few million

Ivan

krisskross

I do wonder what the reclaimed bank charges are being used for? I trust to pay off debt or overdrafts caused by the charges.

Also has everyone who has claimed back "unfair" charges now changed the way they manage their finances so it does not happen again? If they don't then exactly the same WILL happen again. The banks will not stop charging for unauthorised borrowing from them such as going over overdraft limits, or for late payments. It will just be less.

andydixon

Astaroth, many thanks for your insight, however as you do have not met me or know me you are not in a position to make any judgement on my character let alone post it on a public website.

I am amazed still that there are so many of you out ther who are still prepared to allow banks to ignore the laws set up to protect consomers. I have said several times and will repeat it once more. I accept the right of banks to make charges. I will willingly pay a fair amount if i err,and I have told the bank this.Having accepted the terms and conditions I now find that they are unlawful both in the amounts charged i.e. they are unlawfully excessive and the manner in which they present the T&Cs is unfair under the same regulations.THe banks cannot enforce a contract that is ultra vires. When I stand up to the bank and tell them 'You cant do that' and get a 'no contest' and a refund I am accused of being of low moral fibre by someone who hides under a pseudonym and who doesn't know me from Adam. The one thing that is becoming clear is I know now why the banks feel they can get away with it. But then we have had this Goverment in for succesive terms so the apathy is endemic

krisskross

I do wonder what will happen when the banks close the accounts of those who claim back charges, which I fully accept clients are entitled to do. What if no other bank is prepared to let them open an account?

moonrakerz

krisskross wrote:

I do wonder what will happen when the banks close the accounts of those who claim back charges, which I fully accept clients are entitled to do. What if no other bank is prepared to let them open an account?

It will be interesting to see what happens when the first Court summons for costs for closing someones account arrives at the bank. Remember, they didn't start coughing up on unlawful charges until they got a summons !

On what grounds would you be unable to open an account with any other bank ? Because you pointed out to another bank that they were acting unlawfully ! THAT would look really good in court !

moonrakerz

I don't know if any one has posted this before, but...

There are various threads running about bank charges, etc, etc. I have to say that at times I am (almost !) lost for words at some of the pathetic arguments put forward by posters who support the banks.
Then I realised where I had seen these arguments before - on letters from the banks !!
I wonder how many of these posts are actually being put there by employees of the banks on the instructions of their employers !! I really can't see the average reasonably intelligent person talking such rubbish.

"The truth is out there !"

figgy1978

moonrakerz wrote:

On what grounds would you be unable to open an account with any other bank ? Because you pointed out to another bank that they were acting unlawfully ! THAT would look really good in court !

They don't have to take u.. It is up to them if they want you or not.

IvanOpinion

andydixon wrote:

I am amazed still that there are so many of you out ther who are still prepared to allow banks to ignore the laws set up to protect consomers.

What amazes me even more is that people are stupid enough to select a product that obviously does not meet their needs, they are stupid enough (or dishonest?) to agree in writing to pay a level of charges, they then take a cavalier approach to money management and breach their contract and start gurning when the bank tells them that they are about to do what they told them they would do in the first place. They even then have the cheek to demand compensation despite they never openly put their fees into the contract (seems like an unfair contract on both sides).

What annoys me most is that I am the one having to pay for (so called) adults that can not run their accounts properly by carrying out simple first year maths. We only have to look at how easy it is getting to declare bankruptcy ... who do you think pays for the millions that get written off each year .. it sure as heck is not the banks. Unfortunately while such people are allowed to mismanage their accounts EVERYBODY is a loser.

Maybe it is time that people who obviously can not be trusted to run a simple account had that privilege taken away from them. Let them go back to keeping cash under their mattresses until they prove they can run an account in a sensible manner.

Ivan