Martin on Radio 5 this morning and the banks

carolt

Goodness, I agree with you julie!

How astonishing.

Well said.

kennyboy66_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

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.

Hits the nail on the head.

We have framed our system so that the effective interest rate on loan sharking is actually less than some of the worst examples where these charges have snow-balled.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

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.

There is a difference with Direct Debits.

You authorise the amount to be taken when you sign. You state that funds will be available when you sign.

It's not the bank authorising the payment. Your instruction was for the banks to do so.

The banks will not authorise you to take more cash out of the hole in the wall, or spend more than available on your debit card etc.

It's mainly the direct debit pre authorisation from the owner of the account which has caused these problems. Hence them being mainly new problems.

mardatha

Every time I open my face in here I get slagged off .
I don't have debt, I don't have DDs, I don't have cards, I don't have worry keeping me awake at night.
I live on a very small income and manage it fine.
But apparently I know nothing at all about money.
Ok well I now understand why some of the poor people in here are in the state they're in . Because they think they know it all, and anybody who doesnt parrot the same line they do, is wrong ! ok, Carry On People . Without me !

julieq

Sorry Graham, they will allow you to take money out with your debit card, or make debit card payments, in exactly the same way.

And in any case what's wrong with the principle of charging interest covering the cost of the money plus insurance against default because unauthorised? Why should it cost a lump sum per transaction on the basis it's an arrangement fee? You get tosh about the cost of the infrastructure needed to deal with the unauthorised overdraft, but this only exists to facilitate the charging.

lemonjelly

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
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 wrote: »

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

Well, can see Hamish was around again at 3pm-ish. No response or acknowledgement.

Think I'll add spineless to the list then...

StevieJ

kabayiri wrote: »

Hmm, and their customers, many of them who are taxpayers, have generously donated a massive unplanned overdraft to the banks last October, thereby undermining the Banks approach to moral hazard themselves.

It's a funny ole world innit.

I think you will find it was an agreed overdraft

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lemonjelly wrote: »

Well, can see Hamish was around again at 3pm-ish. No response or aknowledgement.

Think I'll add spineless to the list then...

:rolleyes:

If it makes you feel better, replace the word "you" with the words "idiotic irresponsible waste of space boneheads".

What the h3ll is wrong with people these days?

An entire "advice" industry has been spawned enabling the f.eckless to be even more f.eckless by trying to wriggle out of contracts they agreed to, and avoid paying debts that they owe.

It's about time people stood on their own two feet. Treating the population like weak, feebleminded, children, results in a population that acts like weak, feebleminded children.

If you (oops, sorry, idiotic waste of space boneheads) bounce a payment once, you (oops, there I go again, sorry, the idiotic waste of space boneheads) should learn not to do it again.

If it's going to spiral, then shut down the direct debits or account til it's fixed.

Then learn to keep track of money and don't make the same mistake again.

It's a contract!!!!!! It was signed up to and agreed. It's the price that is paid for misusing the account.

Again, nobody put a gun to anyone elses head and forced them to open an account, or to misuse that account and then have to pay the fees they were warned would occur if the did misuse the account, and agreed to in the first place.

Enabling and encouraging people to scam the banks or the credit card companies out of paying what they owe is shameful. And will only result in the rest of us paying more.

Now before the pc police around here get up in arms, I am sure there are a tiny, tiny, number of people who end up in that situation through no fault of their own. And the banks should reverse those charges if it is their fault. But the majority of people who end up in that situation are there because they didn't manage their money properly, and they should pay the price.

Cannon_Fodder

Why have they reduced their charges, if they were legal/justifiable...?

Why have they repaid £1Bn approx...?



I actually agree with the compensation culture element of your argument. Suspect the banks will be suing us for 'irresponsibly mis-selling' them £60Bn, next...

abaxas

I always say this, but as normal no-one will care.

Why dont we charge them back?

A payment takes > allotted time, sorry but that's a £29 unauthorized fee.

You get some marketing crap in the post, sorry but that is a £35pm marketing contract that runs for 12 months etc.

Best way to sort things out is to do what they do to us, but to them!