Just a thought

malc161

nearlyrich wrote: »

Are you saying that even if you have already spent some of your wages by signing up to a DD before you get paid, the bank should not take said DD unless you let them?

Whether you are rich or poor it's sensible to have an account for bills which has an amount going in before the bills are due.

I take your point but some people have no choice , they have only one meagre income and only one meagre account , if by circumstance rather than financial mismanagement they find theirselves attracting charges , its not long before a small problem becomes a bigger one , its simple mathematics and playing catch up cannot be much fun.

noh

malc161 wrote: »

Ok so you don't care what the charge is or how poor someone is or i presume their circumstances -i truly hope your life stays that cosy and you never have to face some of the financial problems less fortunate people do.

As far as bank charges are concerned there is the choice to arrange finances so as to avoid them it is entirely within the individuals control.

It's about personal responsibility not blaming others.

Hazzanet

malc161 wrote: »

Ok so you don't care what the charge is or how poor someone is or i presume their circumstances -i truly hope your life stays that cosy and you never have to face some of the financial problems less fortunate people do.

No, because I tailor my outgoings to suit my income. If I found that I could no longer afford the phone, Sky etc, they would be cancelled straight away. I would reduce electricity/gas consumption and be more economical with the way I use water. I'd switch to no-frills brands at the supermarket, buy cheaper cuts of meat, take the car off the road and go out less/not at all.

I've lived on <£100 a week, and still in that time never incurred a bank charge because I thought to plan ahead and manage the situation before it became a problem and still throughout I used Direct Debit for pretty much everything.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely think that a lot of problems are because of a lack of action at the outset rather than the banks. Like noh says, it's about personal responsibility because the banks tell you when you take out the account what the 'penalty' will be of you don't stick to the rules.

I must say, I do like some of the European banks' stance on this. Bounce a certain number of payments and you're out. I believe the Co-op bank is doing this on their cashminder account and people have been caught out when they get the letter saying they have 30 days to find a new bank.

malc161

Hazzanet wrote: »

No, because I tailor my outgoings to suit my income. If I found that I could no longer afford the phone, Sky etc, they would be cancelled straight away. I would reduce electricity/gas consumption and be more economical with the way I use water. I'd switch to no-frills brands at the supermarket, buy cheaper cuts of meat, take the car off the road and go out less/not at all.

I've lived on <£100 a week, and still in that time never incurred a bank charge because I thought to plan ahead and manage the situation before it became a problem and still throughout I used Direct Debit for pretty much everything.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely think that a lot of problems are because of a lack of action at the outset rather than the banks. Like noh says, it's about personal responsibility because the banks tell you when you take out the account what the 'penalty' will be of you don't stick to the rules.

I must say, I do like some of the European banks' stance on this. Bounce a certain number of payments and you're out. I believe the Co-op bank is doing this on their cashminder account and people have been caught out when they get the letter saying they have 30 days to find a new bank.

The place i am coming from is not really about blame , its about prevention ,we are- regardless of how its dressed up , reliant on banks and large bank charges are counter productive in some cases , as i said its no good wacking a great big charge or charges on someone who has very little income or leaway in their finances, wages should be sacred , it does not take away the individuals responsibilitys as they are ultimately responsible for their finances and all the other wrath you propose - will eventually catch up with them if they continue to mismanage , but penalising them by taking big amounts from a small income really does not help.

Hazzanet

malc161 wrote: »

The place i am coming from is not really about blame , its about prevention ,we are- regardless of how its dressed up , reliant on banks and large bank charges are counter productive in some cases , as i said its no good wacking a great big charge or charges on someone who has very little income or leaway in their finances, wages should be sacred , it does not take away the individuals responsibilitys as they are ultimately responsible for their finances and all the other wrath you propose - will eventually catch up with them if they continue to mismanage , but penalising them by taking big amounts from a small income really does not help.

I'll concede to some extend that taking funds from an already overdrawn account is counterintuitive, but if charges were not levied, what carrot is on the end of the stick to encourage people to manage their money properly? If charges aren't levied, then what are we going to use? If you bounced a couple of DDs would you be happy with being told to bank elsewhere?

I take the charges as an encouragament to manage my affairs within my means, and it's worked for me. I cannot say that it will work for everyone as there are many differenf variables that feed into a person's circumstances, however in most cases prompt action when circumstances change can save problems forming later on.

It's clear that you're anti-bank charges, and whilst I respect your point of view, I do disagree with it. There are the anti-bank charge lobbyists elsewhere on the boards who want to ban these charges, but banks will look to supplement income streams from other sources, such as paid for bank accounts if they succeed. We're in a priveleged position in the UK where banking is 'free' (note the use of inverted commas for those who are ready to jump on me saying it's not free) for those in credit and manage their affairs within the T's and C's of the account, and only those who don't follow those 'rules' get stung. I just wonder how long this will last though.

malc161

Hazzanet wrote: »

I'll concede to some extend that taking funds from an already overdrawn account is counterintuitive, but if charges were not levied, what carrot is on the end of the stick to encourage people to manage their money properly? If charges aren't levied, then what are we going to use? If you bounced a couple of DDs would you be happy with being told to bank elsewhere?

I take the charges as an encouragament to manage my affairs within my means, and it's worked for me. I cannot say that it will work for everyone as there are many differenf variables that feed into a person's circumstances, however in most cases prompt action when circumstances change can save problems forming later on.

It's clear that you're anti-bank charges, and whilst I respect your point of view, I do disagree with it. There are the anti-bank charge lobbyists elsewhere on the boards who want to ban these charges, but banks will look to supplement income streams from other sources, such as paid for bank accounts if they succeed. We're in a priveleged position in the UK where banking is 'free' (note the use of inverted commas for those who are ready to jump on me saying it's not free) for those in credit and manage their affairs within the T's and C's of the account, and only those who don't follow those 'rules' get stung. I just wonder how long this will last though.

Ok i agree with most of your points and they are well well put too.
I have to correct you on one point though , i am not anti bank charges at all - i simply want them lowered and legislation brought in to stop UNFAIR bank charges, and now we are getting to the nitty gritty i will say why -

It was on this forum some time ago that i read of a disabled chap who had saved up from his meagre income, to go to France to do a month's charity work , ok so at this point i thought- yeah right , so i contacted him , he was just a normal bloke who had posted in despair and after the abuse he got on this forum decided never to post again , i am now in contact with him and he is still trying to get over one (mismanaged) period --
While he was abroad he went £3 overdrawn with the Rbs and recieved a £30 odd charge because his employer paid him late , this DD was reresented a few days later and he recieved another £30 odd charge , obviously being abroad he was unaware of this but did go to the hole in the wall to check his account on the day of the second charge , he then phoned the bank from his mobile ( very costly but he had no alternative ) and asked them to cover the DD as the money would be in the next day , this they did but then later added a £28 management fee to his account - his total bill for going £3 o/d was just over £90 .
When i read this i began to trawl through this forum and found this was standard practise - not unusual at all , and since reading of it i realise this chap got away lightly in comparison to a lot of other people posting on this sight ,crazy-
Anyway that is what is apparantly happening now , banks are lowering their charges and promising to be good boys and girls - its all going to be fine now - right ?.

Any

I have ever been charged by bank ONCE (completely my fault) and never paid them penny since... So I have no idea where they are abusing my wages?? I just make sure I only spend the money I earned.

As for charges - you constantly keep repeating £38 and that you want fair charges, but the banks already had their charges capped (well, recommended) at £12 so what is your problem????? Change the banks if you don't like it.

Any

malc161 wrote: »

Ok i agree with most of your points and they are well well put too.
I have to correct you on one point though , i am not anti bank charges at all - i simply want them lowered and legislation brought in to stop UNFAIR bank charges, and now we are getting to the nitty gritty i will say why -

It was on this forum some time ago that i read of a disabled chap who had saved up from his meagre income, to go to France to do a month's charity work , ok so at this point i thought- yeah right , so i contacted him , he was just a normal bloke who had posted in despair and after the abuse he got on this forum decided never to post again , i am now in contact with him and he is still trying to get over one (mismanaged) period --
While he was abroad he went £3 overdrawn with the Rbs and recieved a £30 odd charge because his employer paid him late , this DD was reresented a few days later and he recieved another £30 odd charge , obviously being abroad he was unaware of this but did go to the hole in the wall to check his account on the day of the second charge , he then phoned the bank from his mobile ( very costly but he had no alternative ) and asked them to cover the DD as the money would be in the next day , this they did but then later added a £28 management fee to his account - his total bill for going £3 o/d was just over £90 .
When i read this i began to trawl through this forum and found this was standard practise - not unusual at all , and since reading of it i realise this chap got away lightly in comparison to a lot of other people posting on this sight ,crazy-
Anyway that is what is apparantly happening now , banks are lowering their charges and promising to be good boys and girls - its all going to be fine now - right ?.

Malcolm, if his employer has paid him late and it was late even according to his contract of employment then the employer should have paid for the charges. You cannot blame the banks for misunderstanding betweeen employee and employer, sorry.

Also there are ways how to ensure that you will never run into this situation - I for example have agreed overdraft that I never need to use, but it's there for "just in case". Some banks have message service that sends you text when there is little money in your account, Internet banking etc...
Nowadays there is no excuse for not being aware of your financial situation.

I am not saying that banks didn't try to rip us off - but that is why they are at the courts and had to repay millions to customers.

jambosans

malc161 wrote: »

Anyway that is what is apparantly happening now , banks are lowering their charges and promising to be good boys and girls - its all going to be fine now - right ?.

I think you need to read up a little something commonly called the bank charges test case. Banks are not reducing charges because of a public uproar, they are lowering charges pre-emptive of a loss in the courts. At this point in time, the case is on appeal with the House of Lords. If they loose the appeal, the Office of Fair Trading will be able to assess charges for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (unless the banks find another route of appeal). If the OFT deem historical and/ or current charges to be unfair, this would make all of said charges void. However, no doubt any decision the OFT make will result in another round of court hearings.

Banks have every right to contest the accusations that charges are assessable for fairness under UTCCR in a court of law, and therefore we must allow the legal process to run its course.

MSE has a section dedicated to this subject, which I suggest your read:-
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges

Below is a link to the OFT's Website, detailing the test case:-
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/current/personal/personal-test-case/

You suggest legislating to combat large bank charges, we won't have to if they are in breach of UTCCR. Suggesting the banks will "do a deal with the OFT" is sensationalist nonsense. Governments that go interfering with private business is a no-no in my opinion, regulatory bodies are there to keep them in check, which the OFT is in the process of doing.

pelirocco

malc161 wrote: »

With all due respect ,This is all schoolboy stuff and elementary , the original thread was prompting people to think outside the box and reply accordingly - i did wonder when it would be bogged down in the quagmire of staid and simple accounting - regardless of simply run home ecconomics, some people do get into financial difficultys and are then furthered into a downward financial spiral by the very people who are supposed to safeguard their finances , namely - the bank , surely a properly legislated act would be the direction to steer our politicians, and not be bamboozled by googlies such as the replys posted.

Peoples money should be safe in a bank , however you are talking about the banks money , ie when someone is overdrawn , therefore the bank is safeguarding its own finances , it isnt rocket science