Call To Boycott Alliance & Leicester

newsmonkey

maximus78 wrote:

I'm not a financial expert but do you think that with a French or Spanish company taking over Alliance&Leicester PLC there will be no changes?

If their French offering is anything to go by, Credit Agricole getting involved in British banking will be disastrous.

I struggled as one of their customers for three years while living in France, and I'm eternally grateful to be back here where banks are reasonably reliable.

jonesMUFCforever

pink_phantom wrote:

I a normally very good with my account but I did have a DD come out 3 days early and it bounced. I managed to talk my way out of it with the bank and as it was a first time for me I didn't get charged. I did phone up the company responsible and go mad at them and they said that they would have reimbursed my fees should I have been charged.

I don't think anyone means that they are getting a free overdraft etc, I think people are narked a: because the banks do not help people who are in financial difficulties through no fault of their own b: because people who do make mistakes then maybe be a bit more leiniant. Perhapse have a scale of charges for frequency and ammount or somthing like that.

To the person who said "why should I fund others", well my friend was made redundant from 2000k a month to nothing and one day this may happen to you. Bills coming in and no money to pay them and a family to feed. Lets just hope it doesn't happen to you.

Can I ask what happened to your friends redundancy money?
Had they not got a 'rainy day' pot to cover contingencies like this?
Did they not take out insurance to cover mortgage, loans credit cards etc? or were they of the mindset that it would never happen to them?

pink_phantom

ejones999 wrote:

Can I ask what happened to your friends redundancy money?
Had they not got a 'rainy day' pot to cover contingencies like this?
Did they not take out insurance to cover mortgage, loans credit cards etc? or were they of the mindset that it would never happen to them?

They got the bare minimum of 3 months pay which was not paid all at once because it was only a small company and they only had 3 weeks notice. This is irrelevant however, I was meerly trying to demonstrate that some people have unforseen circumstances and they get minimal help from the banks. In fact, the banks actually make it worse. I agree with edivestor in that their needs to be give and take on both sides. Banks should help us as consumers, after all, we pay them to do it. And in return we should help them by giving them our custom. At least, that is how it used to be before computers were invented (or so I am told being as I am only 27:rolleyes: )

regularsaver1

I saw someone once

they came in the bank and said they'd lost their job, and said you hold my mortgage what are you going to do for me, - i asked if they had insurance and they said i didnt need it, but you should help

why do people not cover themselfs incase, whether it be rainy day fund or insurance

ollyk

moonrakerz wrote:

This isn't an outrage, it's VICTORY for the consumer !

A & L have not shot themselves in the foot, they have blown both legs off below the knees !

They KNOW that they cannot win this argument in Court and by this action they have now admitted this to the whole world. The only thing that they can do LAWFULLY (albeit spitefully, petty, mean spiritedly, etc, etc) is to return your bank charges and then close your account.

After they closed my son's account, the whole family have moved all their accounts else where. Agree wholeheartedly with drsims on that one !

And still we have people who rabbit on about not playing by the "bank's rules" - these so called rules are UNLAWFUL !! Full stop !

People like you p!ss me off, this is not a victory in any way and if you honestly think we are not all going to pay for this ruling in other ways you really are as stupid as the argument you just made! - In fact at least one bank has lowered it's interest rate on a savings account already - more to follow suit?
The reason your son had an account closed was 1. He broke the banks T&C's, and then further challenged what in my opinion was fair deal, and 2. he was obviously not considered a very important customer!
BTW Since being charged once for a cheque bounce I have always spoke to my bank when I made a mistake or under estimated my account statement and have not been charged since!

EdInvestor

moonrakerz wrote:

I don't think that was quite correct - the OFT has put to the banks that a lower charge (£12) might be more appropriate. The banks have not accepted that (as a whole), although some have broken ranks recently !

THe main banks have accepted it.

Barclays Llloyds and HSBC will all drop CC charges to 12 pounds. HBoS,Nationwide and RBS/Natwest also agreed later.

They haven't agree that amount on overdraft charges yet though.

bookworm1363

regularsaver1 wrote:

I saw someone once

they came in the bank and said they'd lost their job, and said you hold my mortgage what are you going to do for me, - i asked if they had insurance and they said i didnt need it, but you should help

why do people not cover themselfs incase, whether it be rainy day fund or insurance

And what happens when they do, and the company (often the bank itself) doesn't pay?

When DH lost his job, he took his employer to Employment tribunal. In the 6 months or so it took between job loss and ET, the mortgage insurance, the PPI on cc and all other forms of credit that we had been paying faithfully for years, not one of them would pay up until the ET decision, not one of them would at least suspend interest or anything, just piled on charge after charge after charge. By the time we won, they then backdated it all. Well, not all. The charges remained, thousands of pounds worth. So, we WERE covered, we HAD behaved responsibly, and yet, we WERE shafted by the very institutions we had trusted.
THESE are the charges I have been reclaiming. Too bloody right.

MarkyMarkD

pink_phantom wrote:

Banks should help us as consumers, after all, we pay them to do it. And in return we should help them by giving them our custom. At least, that is how it used to be before computers were invented (or so I am told being as I am only 27:rolleyes: )

Yes, before there were computers people DID pay for normal banking services, and the charges for breaches of arrangements were (relatively) less significant.

But now, nobody pays for normal banking services and the banks earn their income through fees & charges from those who do not run their accounts properly.

That's why people suggest that a likely consequence of all this reclaiming "unfair" fees is that banks will recommence charging for all transactions.

superjames4

By all means make people who go overdrawn pay extra to cover the extra costs incurred - but loading additional charges onto people who, by definition, are poorer or less good with money in order to subsidise everyone else is immoral and just the sort of thing the government should intervene on.

I agree that banks don't have a duty of care particularly, but if stopping reckless behaviour is the aim, freezing the account immediately until back within its limit is surely more effective than plunging it ever deeper into the red?

MarkyMarkD

But, for most people, it's better for the bank to honour the transaction and charge them for doing so.

Freezing the account of those who breach their limits will benefit those who are really in trouble, but be a massive inconvenience for those who are not.