Martin on Radio 5 this morning and the banks

mitchaa

I think the banking charges system is unfairer NOW than what it was back then before all this raised its head. Back on the ''old system'' if you went unauthorised overdrawn, all you were charged was a blanket £30 charge no matter how much you were overdrawn. Today the system, is 100 times worse than this and I fear people like Martin has escalated the problem which in turn has had a much harsher effect on all of us.

Current Lloyds tsb charges (about half way down the page)

http://www.lloydstsb.com/rates_and_charges/current_account_charges.asp

£15pm monthly charge for going overdrawn and dependent on how many days your account is overdrawn and the amount for depends on the additional charges you face...

Less than £25 overdrawn = £6pd x maximum of 10 days
£25-100 = £15pd x max of 10 days
£100+ = £20pd x max of 10 days

So back in the old days, you would have been charged a fixed £30 until it was cleared, now, it can be as much as £215.

If you are on holiday or the posties are on strike, then the days accrued builds up without you realising and then you face a hefty bill far greater than the 'old £30' charge.

Graham_Devon

cogito wrote: »

The problem I have with this is that the banks never used to allow customers to exceed their agreed overdraft limits and any one who tried would find that their cheque bounced. No problem.

Now, the banks are often willing to allow unauthorised overdrafts and happily pile on fees when this happens. If they ceased this practice, there would be a lot fewer problems but they won't because it's far too lucrative.

I think that reverts back to the DD guarentee. The customer has signed to this effect.

I can't spend more than I have available over my overdraft on my debit card, or get more than I have through the hole in the wall, or set up a payment online if the payment will take me over my limit.

DD is slightly different. Better for the companies.

lemonjelly

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But so what if they did profit?????

Simple concept..... You agreed to the charges when you signed up for the account.

If you don't want to pay them, then manage your money properly.

If you are too stupid to manage your money properly, then don't use direct debits and pay your bills manually.

Nobody put a gun to your head and made you sign up for a current account. Nobody forced you to use direct debits. You have a choice to accept the terms on offer, or make other arrangements.

So stop freaking whining about it when you screw up!!!!!:mad:

Fcuk you Hamish. Have you read any of my posts? Are you aware of where I'm coming from? No, obviously not.

I have zero debt. I manage my money. I don't boast about my so called wealth on message boards. I've never had a loan. I've never had a credit card. My DD's/SO's are to regular savings accounts, nothing else. Who do you think you are to make judgements about me?

I work in the advice sector, & my post was highlighting my concern at banks charging fees to those on & below the poverty line. It would have a massive impact by taking a significant % of their income.

Please provide evidence of me whining, screwing up, mismanaging my finances, or anything resembling these.

Many in the population felt they had no option other than to accept the charges, & the manner in which they have been applied is, in my view, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and unethical. I am pleased they have been reduced in recent months - highlights the banks were aware they were penalty charges, not administrative charges. Fair charges are no issue for me, as clearly the banks will incur costs as a result of being overcharged.

However, you clearly need to learn to think. Your post quoted was idiotic, misinformed, and highlights what an ignorant arrogant self centred person you are.

Idiot.

Graham_Devon

Go lemon, go lemon!

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Go lemon, go lemon!

Thank you Graham.
I'm usually quite mild mannered, but that post really got to me man!

How from my original post can Hamish make the assumptions he has? Look at my posting history !!!!!!!

Highlights ignorance, a lack of courtesy and disrespect in my eyes. & an inability to think.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

Thank you Graham.
I'm usually quite mild mannered, but that post really got to me man!

How from my original post can Hamish make the assumptions he has? Look at my posting history !!!!!!!

Highlights ignorance, a lack of courtesy and disrespect in my eyes. & an inability to think.

Ahhh. You got to remember. It's Hamish. Hamish is ALWAYS right.

Pobby

In lemons line of work I think he is far, far more qualified to comment on this issue than any thing that Hamish has to rant on about.

Cannon_Fodder

Strange how the banks were "right", and yet had already paid out something around a £billion VOLUNTARILY...

I'm with Lemon and co on this, split in two minds. Most people should learn from a couple of charges, and I don't relish the disappearance of free banking. However, those at the lower end of the spectrum have been adversely affected, proportionately, precisely because of their relatively small income.

The size of some charges was punative. Proven by the banks own actions in reducing and modifying them. The cumulative effect was not considered previously. It needs integrating into new charges.

It should not however, be an opportunity for the careless and foolish to recoup X years worth of charges, that they did not care enough about to stop incurring until they heard of the reclaim campaign.

tomterm8

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I am struggling with this whole debate.

Surely when people sign up for bank accounts,they receive documentation relating to T&Cs and charges levied on accounts?

I know i do/have.

anyway,if those charges are then levied in accordance with the T&Cs,then what is wrong with that? surely there is no claim?

Banks are intimating that if they loose this one,they will start charging everyone.

So effectively,those who incur charges win again whereas those who manage their accounts more effectively, will have to pay the price.

Its always the same...savers and the moneywise are the mugs...debt and profligacy is good.

We are all learning some valuable lessons and i for one,will get myself more debt.

I think it is much more simple than all this. The banks were very clearly acting as a cartel, charging far more than the cost of the service they provided. The bottom line is that before 2007, you couldn't chose any bank which didn't charge pretty much identical amounts of money for this service, which were roughly 1000% markups on the cost of providing the service.

I don't know anyone who says that people who go overdrawn shouldn't pay the cost of going overdrawn plus a decent profit for the banks.

But we have legislation to deal with cartels abusing a monopoly.

julieq

purch wrote: »

I always thought Theft was taking something without the owners consent.

Going overdrawn without first getting consent is Theft.

The Bank charging you in accordance with the Terms and Conditions that you consented to is not.

Yes the charges are onerous, discraceful, way out of context, and in excess of what is required, but there is only one party guilty of theft, and it is not the Banks (this time)

That's rubbish to be frank, and for a lot of reasons.

Firstly it would be quite easy for the banks to refuse any transaction taking a customer over an overdraft limit. Cost to them zero. Many have a question asking whether an overdraft is wanted anyway, if it isn't, stop the payments, end of.

In fact the overdrafts are authorised because the banks are allowing them. They set an arbitrary threshold after which punitive charges are applied, and the thrust of the original argument was that punitive charges are not allowed in civil contracts. So the banks rebranded them as "arrangement fees" which was what this case was about.

There is always a secondary threshold at which transactions are refused incidentally.

If the Banks hadn't been greedy and had a stepped level of interest for overdrafts in this fuzzy area between absolutely not allowed and agreed, people accidentally falling into the hole would pay for doing so, but could sort out the problem before they racked up hundreds of pounds in charges. I'm not altogether surprised that the "I'm alright Jack" crowd here mutter things sounding suspiciously like Scrooge's "are there no workhouses?" and ignore the fact that this disproportionately affects those in marginal difficulties whose difficulties then snowball. But hey, who cares about them, they're probably chavs on benefit anyway. Often one mistake costs hundreds of pounds, and it's difficult to fix because of the 4 day clearing cycle (nice one, banks, immediate charges on a transaction by transaction basis but delay any attempt to repay the money, oh, and why not apply credits after debits daily so you get an extra day on the gravy train?).

Of course if something wonderful happened and these people started paying just the costs of their borrowing via interest, and this lovely banking income stream dried up, then your lovely free banking subsidised by others would disappear just as quickly as if it was designated unlawful.