MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

euronorris

mackers8923 wrote: »

I did really say nothing but when you compare £2.50 to £38 a time then it is literally nothing...

Only because the cost is divided by millions.

To be fair to the bank they would at least have to charge enough to cover their costs. It is unreasonable to expect them to swallow the entire cost of that system.

simon_templar_2

There should be enough in the account to pay the DD in the first place. By not having enough the customer is making an informal request to borrow the amount to pay the DD. They then get charged for that service.

simon_templar_2

Does it really cost Armani £100 to make a t-shirt?

mackers8923

simon_templar wrote: »

Exactly, everything costs something along the line.

Yes you are of course correct but their are fair charges for a service and there are charges which are excessive and not justified.

and

It is not only banks that are doing this now, try using one of the main stream mobile firms and or tv service suppliers, Virgin will wack on an extra £5 even if you pay via online and for what reason, probably because they can.....

mramra

nickro59 wrote: »

Nobody "helped themself" to any money.Surely it's the banks choice whether or not to pay the DD, they could decline the payment, but unfortunately most of them pay it then "help themself" to £35 of the account holders money for doing so. So who really is "helping themselves" to the money?

Nonsense. By setting up direct debits with your service suppliers you are agreeing to pay them. Thus you should ensure the funds are in your account to match the direct debit when it arises. If a mistake happens, then fine you go into your authorised overdraft for a day of two (assuming this is set up). But when people are living beyond their means at the end of their authorised overdraft they shouldn't be surpirised if, when that unusual situation arises, they go over (or bank refuses payment) and take unauthorised funds and then have to pay the standard charges.

euronorris

simon_templar wrote: »

There should be enough in the account to pay the DD in the first place. By not having enough the customer is making an informal request to borrow the amount to pay the DD. They then get charged for that service.

Again, I'm not questioning that right now.

I want to understand if a 'consideration' really is applied and on what criteria. After all, this is how they jutify calling it a service rather than a penalty, which changes the regulations applied to it.

mackers8923

simon_templar wrote: »

There should be enough in the account to pay the DD in the first place. By not having enough the customer is making an informal request to borrow the amount to pay the DD. They then get charged for that service.

Only when the bank agrees to pay the item for you Simon. When they refuse to pay your direct debit and charge you for the pleasure that is sending 1000's of people into the red. Of course charge what it costs but don't rip the !!! out of it and put people into debt....

I agree fully again that should a DD be presented on my account and I don't have enough money then charge me. But only what it costs you to process! Referral fees are of course a different matter again because a bank would pay the item then charge you for doing so, then charge you a different interest rate again all this is justified.

What nails people is when a bank does not pay a DD, the bank then charges the person, so does the company that does not get the DD then people end up in the red and unable to live, they borrow from easy loan companies who charge extensive rates and it starts to get a big dark whole. I have been there and done that, lucky for me I see my bad ways and just about managed to get by with everything but I really feel for the people who are going through what I have been through.

Banks should be the ones sending out the warning signals when people start to dig that big hole, nail it and help us to get back on track but no and in general they allow you to get into trouble and do very little to help you. All we have to do is look at the court case, 2 years plus for a simple point in law!

Biskit

mramra wrote: »

Nonsense. By setting up direct debits with your service suppliers you are agreeing to pay them. Thus you should ensure the funds are in your account to match the direct debit when it arises. If a mistake happens, then fine you go into your authorised overdraft for a day of two (assuming this is set up). But when people are living beyond their means at the end of their authorised overdraft they shouldn't be surpirised if, when that unusual situation arises, they go over and take unauthorised funds and then have to pay the standard charges.

I couldn't agree more. The fact is that why you opened your account or when any terms were changed people are told how much they will have to pay for going overdrawn - It's you're own responsibility too make sure you can afford what you spend. Too much passing the buck and "it's not my fault".

mackers8923

mramra wrote: »

Nonsense. By setting up direct debits with your service suppliers you are agreeing to pay them. Thus you should ensure the funds are in your account to match the direct debit when it arises. If a mistake happens, then fine you go into your authorised overdraft for a day of two (assuming this is set up). But when people are living beyond their means at the end of their authorised overdraft they shouldn't be surpirised if, when that unusual situation arises, they go over (or bank refuses payment) and take unauthorised funds and then have to pay the standard charges.

So you are justifying the bank sending people further into the red, making their money last even shorter periods of time during a month.

B**llocks - The banks should be doing quite the opposite..

In this computer age most banks will have all the data they need to decide if someone is living beyond their means, in fact it should really be part of the credit scoring system if is not already.

What they should not be doing is making the situation worse by charging extensive fees for what they do. Say taking a mobile phone contract, companies could or maybe should have access to your finance data from your bank not from some 3rd party company like Exp or Equ. They could then refuse the DD facility or perhaps set a limit on how many and their amounts or any number of things to stop getting people into trouble with their finance.

Banks at the moment are making the situation worse, individuals are of course not clear of blame but the banks should be sending the warning signs for people and refusing services when the funds simply are not there...

Biskit

mackers8923 wrote: »

Banks at the moment are making the situation worse, individuals are of course not clear of blame but the banks should be sending the warning signs for people and refusing services when the funds simply are not there...

Why ? Why should it be the banks responsibility to decide if I can get a new TV on credit ? It's my responsibility to make sure I can afford it, not the banks. Again your quote is just another example of people who simply don't want to take responsibility for their actions.