MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

oldwiring

Well in the far back days of my time, the damage to a customer's standing was taken in to account. Some considered it worse to bounce a small item, because that could be taken as a sign of "last legs", rahter than mistiming.

euronorris

oldwiring wrote: »

Well in the far back days of my time, the damage to a customer's standing was taken in to account. Some considered it worse to bounce a small item, because that could be taken as a sign of "last legs", rahter than mistiming.

Yeah, but how exactly is it calculated? Does the system look at all the standard, recurring transactions on an account and determine whether or not this is an essential one? And how would it know what's essential and what isn't?

Or is it based on how long they've been in their overdraft for? What if they didn't have an overdraft?

Or is it based on how many past charges the customer has received? Although, I think that would just create a loop. But, if it was based on that, would it then be safe to assume that had you never received a charge before, they would pay the DD?

Just wondered what the exact criteria is that is applied.

I understand that this information may not be available, I'm just thinking aloud.

But, if it's not available, why not? Seeing as the bank's argued that it was the reason for it being a service, I assume they must've been required to prove exactly how? Or is that too much to ask?

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

Sorry, was it the banks fault your friends employer paid him incorrectly then? :rolleyes:

Yeah try that if you wish, of course it was not the banks fault however, where is the bank to say Mr X you have y direct debits coming out today but you only have £z available in your account can you advise us what to do!

but no they choose the

Sorry Mr X we cannot cancel your direct debits at this late stage, they will go through be rejected and you will be charged £38 for the pleasure.

Greed, money and bonuses = Todays average high street bank

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

and at which point did you mention anything about the cost v charge?
the post you responded to with "spot on" specifically said 'I'll refrain from commenting on the amount at the moment' and it was that I responded to.

:wall:

See your little icon there with the head banging, I like it because thats the average day for someone trying to get by. The amount was not important, what was important was the bank refused to help my friend, he then ended up almost £150 short this month.

This is were the banks need to be held to account how they can put someone so easily into such big trouble has to be wrong. Oh the bankers all had fun on Wednesday and they were smiling all the way to the bar (I was in London on Wed)

a side from your point another thing winging about is this so called "End to free banking"

Is there such a thing? I'm quite lucky in my 12 years of employment my salary has always been between £12,000 and £34,000 in that time I have never experienced this so called free banking so they may as well cut that crap out. Unless that is there is some secret banking services for those earning more than say £34k a year....!

We all pay for banking one way or another already!

mackers8923

euronorris wrote: »

I was under the impression that all DD's were bounced if there were insufficient funds to pay them.

If not, what exactly is the consideration criteria?

What makes it OK to pay one DD and not another?

Genuine question, am interested to know.

This is part of the problem, if banks were clear about what they will pay and what they won't then life would be much better for all.

I would hazard a guess that most banks have a general scoring system, the better your score (money in the bank, account running) etc the better your score gets and the less charges you get. Then your score drops and you start to get less and less paid for you.......COMPUTER SAYS NO.....

and for those who work in banks

Please yes do charge me if I go over my overdraft or submit a cheque which takes me over but charge me what it actually costs you not the money grabbing sum of £38 a time or £15 a time if you decide to pay something for me to which I have no control.

mramra

mackers8923 wrote: »

Please yes do charge me if I go over my overdraft or submit a cheque which takes me over but charge me what it actually costs you not the money grabbing sum of £38 a time or £15 a time if you decide to pay something for me to which I have no control.

Why? You helped yourself to money that isn't yours. Why shouldn't the bank charge you whatever it feels is fair?

If you came around to my house and took £10 out of my wallet I would be livid. I wouldn't just want the £10 back, I would expect further consequences for your actions.

euronorris

mackers8923 wrote: »

This is part of the problem, if banks were clear about what they will pay and what they won't then life would be much better for all.

I would hazard a guess that most banks have a general scoring system, the better your score (money in the bank, account running) etc the better your score gets and the less charges you get. Then your score drops and you start to get less and less paid for you.......COMPUTER SAYS NO.....

and for those who work in banks

Please yes do charge me if I go over my overdraft or submit a cheque which takes me over but charge me what it actually costs you not the money grabbing sum of £38 a time or £15 a time if you decide to pay something for me to which I have no control.

I'd really like to know the exact calculation applied and I believe we have a right to know.

What constitutes 'good running of an account'. Is it just staying in the black, or do they decide that those who pay more in each month should have their DD's paid? If so, what is the minimum figure required to ensure that. And why are they basing their decision on that. People earn what they earn. Some more than others, but you know, someone has to do the lower paid jobs. They shouldn't be treated disproportionately for it. After all, a lot of us rely on the services they provide.

Or is it based on how much you usually still have left in the account at the end of the month. Again, if so, what is the minimum required there. And again, this would show bias to higher wage earners, as some people just have no spare room in their budget!

I think we deserve some transparency here.

simon_templar_2

You dont deserve to know anything!! Do you not understand the difference between cost price and retail price??

Biskit

I'm only gonna give my experiences on this cause obviously everyones had totally different 'run-ins' with the banks. In 20 odd years of doing my banking with the same bank I've gone over my overdraft limit twice, both times being charged silly amounts for going over a few pounds. On both occasions I've had to write directly to the banks branch manager after having no joy via the call-center or actually in-branch. Both times I've had the charges refunded. Why ? I'm not sure !

My point is though that I get 'free' banking, with interest on my money, because I am, relatively, careful with my finances. If someone continues to go over their agreed overdraft limit time & time again spending money that simply isn't theirs to spend why should I be penalised for it by losing my 'free' banking. I'm glad that the banks eventually won out (for now). Now, having said that I do agree when imposed the charges are too high and are not in keeping with any costs the bank incur !

As I say my experiences with my bank have on both occasions been favourable & as I say I know not everyone gets the same treatment even if they have only had one or two minor problems like myself. But in general terms if you're gonna spend money that isn't yours then you're gonna have to pay for it - I would much rather it be that than everyone (including myself) having to pay charges on, say, every transaction that I made through the bank. Looking after number 1 ? Perhaps but why should I pay for folks who CONSISTENTLY live beyond their means.

Before you all start hounding me please note that I said 'consistently' - If it's a genuine mistake on the very odd occasion then the banks have to be more lenient, as they have been in my case.

euronorris

mramra wrote: »

Why? You helped yourself to money that isn't yours. Why shouldn't the bank charge you whatever it feels is fair?

If you came around to my house and took £10 out of my wallet I would be livid. I wouldn't just want the £10 back, I would expect further consequences for your actions.

I don't know why you chose to pick on that part. We know your feelings on this mramra. You do not need to repeat them.

We were currently discussing where the 'consideration' is taking place here and the lack of transparency about it.

Do you have anything you wish to add to this particular area of discussion?

I would like to know if you are a) interested in knowing the process involved here and if not, why not and b) if you agree that more transparency should be applied here.