Bank charges

IvanOpinion

The whole discussion revolves around whether everybody should be expected to lose out because of an irresponsible few ... banks rely on these people to give them their profits and there appears to be one born every minute. I will repeat though that I do not want to pay a higher mortgage rate, a higher loan rate, get less interest on my savings or get a smaller pension for the sake of some people who can not understand the basics of money management. What are the choices .. taking into account the banks will not lose out .. they will just find more cunning ways of getting your money of you.

I have always said there is a need to replace some of the rubbish subjects we are currently taught in school with something worthwhile such as money management.

Ivan

icefall

The poorer section of society have been funding your 'lower rates' all this time, all this disagreement between individuals over who should pay charges/higher rates fails to take account of the fact that the 'irresponsible few' have been paying for your costs all this time and are in fact bank rolling YOU in your 'free' bank account and 'lower rates',

You could thank them for paying your costs, as the banks don't make enough money from people who do not incur charges. Instead of thinking small and blaming individuals for your money problems, perhaps you could think a bit bigger ergo 'fat cats payments etc'

Theoretically, you could ask the directors at the top of these large organizations about their 'fat cat' payments, but I realise from what I have seen you will probably continue to think that your money is going straight to the little people and not straight to the 'fat cats' who of course, have no responsiblilty whatever for your money troubles...

dchurch24

Ok, this needs to be put to bed.

The rubbish that the banks have spread (and is believed by some of the gullable public that IvanOpinion has mentioned, although frankly it's my belief that he has been taken in by the very media manipulation that he talks of) about them having to charge for accounts if they can no longer make these punitive charges (not that they have EVER been ALLOWED to do it legally), will not and cannot happen.

Why?

Because, in 1984, Thatchers Govt. changed the law regarding wage payments to individuals from companies. The individuals right to choose how they were paid was taken away. Thus, if the banks start charging for ALL accounts (I'm not saying they won't charge for some, just as they do now with things like Premier accounts and Advantage or whatever they want to call them) then I'm being forced into buying a third party product or service by legislation.

You don't even HAVE to buy water if you don't want it. Why should you be forced into having a bank account that you have to pay for? The answer is, you shouldn't. And that is why the EC Human Rights laws exist.

For one, we would no longer all have equal rights throughout Europe - the French, Dutch and Germans can still choose how they are paid, even though there are some accounts in those countries that do charge a monthly fee (I have a French Current account - there are NO charges AT ALL - so the question deflection by the BBA when pressed in the media is at best, a lie).

Secondly, of course, it's against your human right to be forced into buying anything through legislation - just because I am a working person (and soon this will include those on benefits), I should not be forced into paying for a sub-standard service. Read the ECHR and you will find.


People sometimes come here and argue against the abolishion of bank charges without doing any reading at all and claim authority on the subject.

This info is in the public domain - it's easy to find.

Read the Sale of Goods and Services Act (you will find that the bank would not be able to charge anything more than a reasonable markup - not 5000% as they do at the moment).

Also, read the Data Protection Act - it's not just about data protection - it's a very protective and consumer driven piece of legislation.

You might consider the Civil Procedure Rules too.

Maybe even the EC Human Rights laws.

You can't just come into a forum and start making assumptions without first reading enough about it to make an informed comment.

Your comments seem to stem from the fact that you think everyone is now going to be charged for just having a bank account.

Where have you gotten this information - the BBA? They certainly publicly said that it was an option they were considering.

They also said that, 0% balance transfers were not working too. So by their standards, it's ok to break the law if your business creates a service that doesn't make any money.

Fine, expect to see plenty of looted shops in the near future then.

Research is the key, my boy. Read and you will learn.

The time when people were ripped off simply because they didn't know their rights has started to decline.

Banks, big companies etc... have pushed too hard, and now it's time people knew their rights - when they do, they will no longer be pushed around and brainwashed into thinking that just because the bank (etc...) said so, then it must be right.

No offence, Ivanopinion, but I believe you are the gullible one.


Let's consider this:

I haven't seen any news reports that your bunnies have been overdrawn .. maybe they are more intelligent than the average person that incurs charges

So, people who incur charges are, by and large, less inteligent than those that don't?

Ok, so, when these people get their money back from the bank at say just the 8% APR as allowed by the County Courts Act, then they have effectively got 8% return on their money. Better than most savings rates and ISAs.

If schools, as you suggest, teach money management, do you think that they will also include a section in the curriculum about how to circumnavigate the misreporting of balances by banks too? If so, I'd like to sit in of a few lessons. In one day, with nothing coming out of my account, I had a bank teller tell me one amount for my balance, Internet banking another and a cash-point different amount altogether.

Budgeting? How, when faced with that? If I have to carry a pencil and a pad of paper around with me, then why am I lending the bank my money for nothing? I can keep it in a shoebox and use a pencil and paper and it would be more accurate.

bookworm1363

Fact: The "wronged" party (in this instance, the bank) is BY LAW not allowed to make a profit of your breach (going over your limit). They are BY LAW entitled to recover their genuine costs incurred by your breach of their T&Cs, and that's all.
It's really that simple.
The banks have been caught with their pants down making huge profits unlawfully, and now, a -sadly- very small minority is fighting back.

I don't care if Mr X got charged because he went overdrawn for going to his grandmother's funeral or because he just had to have the Dr Who cardboard cutout on e-bay. I really don't. What I do care about is that the very institutions we entrust to conduct themselves lawfully, do not.

I, for one, will keep on helping people reclaiming those charges, until the banks stop breaking the law of this land.

ali82

dchurch24 wrote:

Research is the key, my boy. Read and you will learn.

No offence, Ivanopinion, but I believe you are the gullible one.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :T :T :beer:


You tell him Dave

ali82

IvanOpinion wrote:

The whole discussion revolves around whether everybody should be expected to lose out because of an irresponsible few ... banks rely on these people to give them their profits and there appears to be one born every minute. I will repeat though that I do not want to pay a higher mortgage rate, a higher loan rate, get less interest on my savings or get a smaller pension for the sake of some people who can not understand the basics of money management. What are the choices .. taking into account the banks will not lose out .. they will just find more cunning ways of getting your money of you.

I have always said there is a need to replace some of the rubbish subjects we are currently taught in school with something worthwhile such as money management.

Ivan

Why should I care about your mortgage and pension, do you care about mine? Obviously not.
The banks would feel no remorse when taking you to court so I have no sympathy for them. Look at that man who killed himself over a 4,000 debt on his mortgage with Halifax, I bet there was a good amount of charges there, if only he knew.

So it's ok to turn a blind eye when someone is breaking the law so long as it doesn't affect you; who's the selfish one here then!

Despite your narrow-minded opinions, we are still going to continue to claim back our charges because the banks have broken the law not us!

Your right about the classes though

dchurch24

The only ones that are irresponsible are the banks.

Deep down, everyone knows that - get through the brainwashing.

As the previous poster noted, people are killing themselves because of debt.

Banks (and the Government) have made it virtually impossible to live without getting into debt. I earn a very good wage, yet I still had to use a credit card this morning to buy petrol to get to work.

Why? Because petrol is too expensive (and by far the most expensive in Europe), council tax is through the roof (and by far the most expensive in Europe), Electricity prices are going up (ok, not the most expensive in Europe), Water rates have gone up. Sadly, the only thing that hasn't gone up over the same period is my wages.

So, something has to give. Trust a company with a direct debit and you're on a road to disaster. THEY control how much they take and very rarely give any notice (as they should under the guarantee). So then, you haven't got enough left for your gas bill and wham! along comes the bank and stings you with a punishment for not being able to afford to live.

So the next month, you are that much down again,, so you get stung twice for the things that you could afford last month but can't this month because not only has a company taken more than the month before without giving you notice (and don't say make them pay the charge - I have tried that, and of course their argument is that they are not going to pay a charge that is unenforcable in court - imagine it. You take the company to court because the bank has given you a charge, now the onus is on YOU to prove that they charge wasn't a penalty, because penalties are unenforcable in court), but you also are the 35 quid down as well.

By the way, did you know that if you have more than one payment coming out of your account in any one day, that the largest will be paid first. This, of course purely a coincidence I'm sure ;-), has the knock-on effect of maximising the risk of being charged.

e.g.

balance: £100
DD: 75
SO:26
Cheque:25

So the 75 gets paid, then the 26 does but you get charged, then you get charged for the 25.

Now if it was 25 first, then 26, then 50, you only get one charge not 2.

Still think this is not a money making scheme, designed to make it as hard as possible for people?

And yet, this is ok by you, because you have a mistaken belief that banks will start to charge you for a service?

Personally, I pay my way. I have no problem with paying for a service that I have recieved. I don't understand why people think they should get something for nothing - particularly at the expense of those that can least afford it.

Irresponsibility has little to do with it and you know it - it's being skint that this is about, and the fact that the banks will punish you for it.

Theft is illegal - the reason? The government and the banks that bankroll them don't like competition.

Loop

Hear hear!:T

These people against us who claim charges, should start reading the appropriate literature from the above mentioned sources before spouting about things they clearly dont understand, I came here purely to save money on things, in the nature of the site, but seeing this, has annoyed me as it contradicts the very nature of this site!!!

Funny how Ivan has missed the point

THESE CHARGES ARE UNLAWFUL

Regardless of any other argument, they shouldn't have started charging diproportionatly in the 1st place! We wouldn't be claiming if they had acted within the LAW! Yes the LAW....:mad:

YorkshireBoy

I'd like to ask a question of the more vehement campaigners...

When all the dust has settled, and the Banks et al have responded to the OFT's calls for sub £12 'charges' for costs incurred, the bank writes to you saying that their fees that used to be £20/£25/£39 are now £10.83/£11.56/£11.99 respectively (and their method of application remains the same), will you...

1. Accept their new charging structure, or

2. Challenge the banks et al to provide worked examples/accurate costings of their business models to 'justify' their default charges - and threaten to take them to the small claims court if they refuse (or you disagree with their figures).

If the answer is 2., then how do you think the courts will respond? Will they/can they refuse to hear such cases, bearing in mind the OFT has said it will presume default charges above £12 would be 'unfair' (unless there are exceptional business cases) - the inference being that charges below £12 'would not be unfair'...

...or is there a danger that the case would be allowed to go to court, and vigourously defended by the banks, with the possibility of disastrous results for unsuccessful claimants?

IvanOpinion

Having read the responses on this page I can now see why the marketerring job is so easy and why I sometimes get large bonuses.

Icefall - banks make most of their money from investing other peoples money and then giving them a small proportion back as interest

Dchurch - your post started off so well promising so much by saying 'lets put this to bed' and then went to waffle. If you had have read some of my posts you would see that I do have some inside information about what is going on (as you say 'research is key'). We have it easy today .. 24 hour internet access, 24 hour telephone access, paper statements and most people (including some rabbits apparently) can do enough arithmentic to keep track of their balances .. but some people just don't care enough (is that a better adjective) until they get slapped round the head.


al82 - you shouldn't care about my mortgage in the same way as I don;t care about yours or what charges you are paying.

Ivan