Bank Charges - Banks Win!

cleopatra4485

Well I am deeply in crap now :mad: I was not trying to get money back, but a bank account wipped of accumulated bank charges from a bounced direct debit, hundreds :mad: of pounds I have to pay them now, money i havent got and money they haven't earned

jamespir

glider3560 wrote: »

What surprises me is the number of brand new users who are posting in that thread.

i agree shocking isnt it

never-in-doubt

dpassmore wrote: »

never-in-doubt

Me and the MR's both lost our jobs recently and let me tell you it is not a nice place to be.

Fortunately, we 'made hay while the sun shone' and arrranged our finances, had insurances in place, overpaid our mortgage and still managed to save while the money was coming in during our employment.

When we were made redundant, there was a minimal amount left on our mortgage which we paid off due to being prudent in the good years.

Insurances kicked in which paid off outstanding loans and there was a little income from interest on savings.

Due to decent financial management, we weathered the storm and we are now back on our feet and wages are now coming into the household.

By wishing someone to lose their job, struggle to pay their bills and lenders come down on them like a ton of bricks and then ask for help is a pretty drastic comment to make and by asking someone not to take these comments "The wrong way" , enlighten me, how is one expected to take such crass remarks?

No I am not soooooooo perfect and I don't do everything right, but I have managed to overcome a difficult period - aided by simple financial prudence.

The reality is that the Banks have won through the courts so get over it and move on. Being bitter and twisted and making offensive comments over the matter will eat you up inside and muddle the mind.

I was going to tear your post apart and answer accordingly but can't be arsed to be honest! The points though are as follows:

1. I am anti banks - simple. Nothing will change that.
2. Whoopee you had insurance! Unfortunately those that usually need loans and loads of credit cannot afford insurance as well so they do not have it. Each to their own! That does not mean that you are right and they are wrong - its just the way the cookie crumbles and some people (on the breadline) try to do anything to get by and borrowing a lot (omitting insurance) is somethimes the only way.
3. I am entitled to wish all I want thanks, so are you! It was a tongue in cheek comment supposed to put them back to reality - i.e. who the bloody hell do they think they are acting high and mighty, yea - !!!!!! happens and as a result peoples circumstances change - that is not a crime. No need for smart !!!!!! though is there?
4. The reality is that the banks think they have won, now more is coming to light after the initial con verdict....


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

DarkConvict

I don't have anything against banks charging fees, im against unfair fees. If you try to buy an item but it turns out their isn't enough money in your account why on earth do they charge you £38 + price of the item, + going into overdraft + other overdraft related fees.

And then the banks have the power to offset your debts with them (possibly why you didn't have money in your account for the above example), so they can take money out your abbey current account and pay off your Bradford & Bingley credit card, even thou the money in your current account was for council tax a priority debt. Offsetting just needs to be got rid of altogether, eveyone else has to go via a court so why shouldn't the banks.

I feel this will fuel there power mad ego further, im all for 'free' banking although i know they invest our money to make a profit anyway so its entirely free. They are not my accountant so i don't see why we should pay to use the system when they use our money anyway. Our money is just an electronic figure, the £100 you deposit isn't kept for you, you just get another random £100 when you withdraw it.

I'm disappointed at today's decision.

fabforty

thebrow2000 wrote: »

I JUST DONT GET IT!!!

IF the banks lost surely this would have been the end of FREE banking ???

whats all the fuss about, I like FREE banking!!!

I keep hearing this, but as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), free banking is not a right and there is absolutely nothing to stop banks charging for accounts anyway. They might be less likely to do it now that they have won this case, but that's not the same as saying that they can't/won't charge for banking, ever.

I can see both sides of the reclaiming arguement - I just think that claims that this verdict somehow ensures free banking will continue, are premature.

Voyager2002

Lokolo wrote: »

I suspect you would feel the complete opposite if you looked after your account, never had been charged, and had a free bank account for 10 years having never paid a penny to the bank.

Also, ending free banking would not lead to a better overall service. It would be exactly the same but for a cost for those that have never had to pay charges.

Welcome to the 'we save before we spend' part of the board

I am in the position you describe, and I am deeply disturbed at the result of the bank charges case.

For me the bottom line is that banks have an important job to do, and I want them to do it well. I do not think that a business model that is based on exploiting the stupidity or helplessness of a minority of customers is going to encourage them to be good at doing the things that we all need them to do well.

rb10

fabforty wrote: »

I keep hearing this, but as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), free banking is not a right and there is absolutely nothing to stop banks charging for accounts anyway. They might be less likely to do it now that they have won this case, but that's not the same as saying that they can't/won't charge for banking, ever.

I can see both sides of the reclaiming arguement - I just think that claims that this verdict somehow ensures free banking will continue, are premature.

No, but if this makes it more likely that free banking will continue for a longer period of time, then that surely has to be a good thing, right?

Lokolo

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I am in the position you describe, and I am deeply disturbed at the result of the bank charges case.

For me the bottom line is that banks have an important job to do, and I want them to do it well. I do not think that a business model that is based on exploiting the stupidity or helplessness of a minority of customers is going to encourage them to be good at doing the things that we all need them to do well.

So instead they should charge the good customers who do look after their money?

Car insurance, I become bad, I pay for it. If I am good, I get better reward with lower costs.

A new bank, I become bad, I pay a couple of quid because I had DDs bounce, went over my overdraft limit, I also pay my monthly banking fee. I become good, only use my card for purchases when I have money. Never go overdrawn. Save my money. I still have to pay my banking fee.

You do not have to pay the fees if you look after your money. If people can't do that, then why should they not be punished?! They will end up just abusing the system.

fabforty

rb10 wrote: »

No, but if this makes it more likely that free banking will continue for a longer period of time, then that surely has to be a good thing, right?

Or perversely, this may now give banks the green light to start charging for services that were previously free. After all, it must be easier to justify charging a fee to run a current account, than charging £35 for an unauthorised overdraft of a few pounds when the actual cost to the bank (and even the banks admit this) is far less.

As I said I am neutral on the subject. I incurred about £300 of bank charges 6 years ago (not my fault, well maybe a teeny bit) but it was a one off and I have not been overdrawn since. Hopefully free banking will remain. I was just concerned about the number of posters who seem to assume that free banking is no longer under threat.

Gareth56

Free banking has always been under threat but had the banks lost this case then that threat would probably have become a reality. Until/If the rules are changed giving the OFT the power to dictate to the banks how much they can charge for their unauthorised overdrafts fees I think the free banking threat has reverted back to Defcon 5