The future of banking on the back of reclaiming Discussion Area

schiff

If banks, building societies and credit card companies were to re-write their terms & conditions (perhaps reducing in the process their swingeing level of penalty charges to something more acceptable eg. £5/£10 instead of £25) and issue them to customers, who would be required to study the conditions and sign up to them, then could we really complain if we were hit again in the future?

I am not siding with the 'common enemy' here, just putting up a possibility for discussion. I have suffered just two penalties (£25 and £30) on my current account with A&L. I sent a gentle letter first and they immediately credited me with £25 as a gesture. I've now sent a second letter, similarly gentle but much longer and making the case that my 'offences' were certainly not wilful -and in fact were put right the following day immediately they came to light. I would hesitate to threaten court action as it's not me and I don't want their banking facilities withdrawn from me.

But I have a strong feeling that charges are being refunded to people who couldn't have cared less about how they conducted their banking affairs, who were disorganised and sloppy and, in many instances, just chancing their arm and hoping to get away with it. (I'm not going to be popular for saying this but there will be plenty who agree.) Those people who have been naive or are totally mystified by financial matters or who have got into a real mess with their finances, are perhaps exempt from these comments. What has been thoroughly wrong though - on the part of the banks etc - is the ridiculously high level of the charges they impose and the fact that they don't seem to negotiate with those customers who they can surely see are just getting deeper into trouble.

Final comment - it would be very wrong to assume that these financial organisations are going to sit back, take it on the chin (at some cost) and not take some retaliatory action. On the other hand an enterprising company might be around to mop up the discarded customers and build up their clientele. I've read that Banco Santander is very imaginative and go-ahead. Maybe them?

Chrysalis

well I asked this elsewhere I think.

wouldnt a better fix for this problem for a legislator to tell the banks to fix their fees for the future or get a 7 figure fine for each month they fail to change it. Previous fines cannot be contended but at least the future is better for "everyone"

Because right now the banks are able to keep the charges in place and we just have a few taking the banks on an individual basis.

jonesMUFCforever

Chrysalis wrote:

well I asked this elsewhere I think.

wouldnt a better fix for this problem for a legislator to tell the banks to fix their fees for the future or get a 7 figure fine for each month they fail to change it. Previous fines cannot be contended but at least the future is better for "everyone"

Because right now the banks are able to keep the charges in place and we just have a few taking the banks on an individual basis.

Why should a 'regulator' tell a company how much it should charge for its services. There is much competition out there and you are free to change your banks at will if you don't agree with their particular T&C.

Chrysalis

Their is competition but they all charge excessive penalty fees so by saying their is competition is a very moot point.

and yes many markets have regulation.

Am I right you are asking why should they be forced to have lawful charges?

krisskross

Chrysalis wrote:

Their is competition but they all charge excessive penalty fees so by saying their is competition is a very moot point.

and yes many markets have regulation.

Am I right you are asking why should they be forced to have lawful charges?

So what is really needed is a bank that allows people to spend as much cash as they like, possession of the cash not being an issue or a barrier. No charges for spending money that you haven't got. I fear after reading loads of posts on the subject of claiming back excessive bank charges that most people do not have a clue about the legalities of their situation, are relying on others to provide templates etc. The banks will fight back, i think that is the one certain fact in all this.

Chrysalis

why is it that people who are defending these charges only see things in black and white.

krisskross listen, I never said remvoe all charges and allow people to spend what they like, so why are you saying that would be the only alternative?

Is someone pointing a gun to the banks head saying either you let people run riot or you charge them excessively for blocking payments.

Lets not forget people arent actually going overdrawn because the payments are blocked so the banks arent charging for lending money they are charging for sending out automated letters, a few banks seem to allow small unauthorised payments to go through but mine doesnt.

The solution is you charge a fee but its nominal ie. something like £5. Charge bit extra if the payment is cleared maybe since the banks in that case is clearing unauthorised funds but usually higher interest rate covers that.

Of course we have the problem that the greedy banks suddenly have lost loads of income perhaps this is what you dont like the look off, maybe you are a sharehodler who knows.

jonesMUFCforever

Chrysalis wrote:

why is it that people who are defending these charges only see things in black and white.

krisskross listen, I never said remvoe all charges and allow people to spend what they like, so why are you saying that would be the only alternative?

Is someone pointing a gun to the banks head saying either you let people run riot or you charge them excessively for blocking payments.

Lets not forget people arent actually going overdrawn because the payments are blocked so the banks arent charging for lending money they are charging for sending out automated letters, a few banks seem to allow small unauthorised payments to go through but mine doesnt.

The solution is you charge a fee but its nominal ie. something like £5. Charge bit extra if the payment is cleared maybe since the banks in that case is clearing unauthorised funds but usually higher interest rate covers that.

Of course we have the problem that the greedy banks suddenly have lost loads of income perhaps this is what you dont like the look off, maybe you are a sharehodler who knows.

Why should the charges just be nominal?
They should be there for covering the banks costs and should be there as a penalty so you don't do it again.
There are two ways this will go - banks will charge higher costs on everybody or the baddies will be given a month to close their acounts.

krisskross

I do not understand why people who obviously have internet access allow their accounts to go into the red. I check my account everyday, know exactly how much my direct debits and standing order payments are and when they are coming out of my account. If you cannot manage finances then do not set up any payments to go out of the account. Just draw out your cash whether it be benefit payments or salary and then pay bills using cash over the bank counter. This way you will never be liable for bank charges.

Chrysalis

ejones999 wrote:

Why should the charges just be nominal?
They should be there for covering the banks costs and should be there as a penalty so you don't do it again.
There are two ways this will go - banks will charge higher costs on everybody or the baddies will be given a month to close their acounts.

nominal = the banks costs + small profit.

or are you suggesting it costs the bank £35 in some cases higher to automatically block a payment and send out a letter?

Chrysalis

krisskross wrote:

I do not understand why people who obviously have internet access allow their accounts to go into the red. I check my account everyday, know exactly how much my direct debits and standing order payments are and when they are coming out of my account. If you cannot manage finances then do not set up any payments to go out of the account. Just draw out your cash whether it be benefit payments or salary and then pay bills using cash over the bank counter. This way you will never be liable for bank charges.

what happens if someone tells you to pay by standing order ie. rent to landlord they dont accept cash in hand, then the bank takes a long time to process a cheque and thus you have insufficent funds.

second example you get benefits and their is a problem (very common) and again you short.

another example a company tries to take their money early or too much via direct debit when normally you would be fine.

another example you have loan with bank, their policy states you pay them by direct debit and if you cancel the direct debit you void the agreement but you lose your job and your income stops, you have to leave direct debit in place so charges rack up. (this happened to me and is 80% of my charges over last 6 years)

your points are good but it still doesnt make their charges fair. Do you agree its hard to get your finances in order if the bank charges half your weekly earnings for one blocked payment?