Bank Charges - Banks Win!

Lokolo

Eyeballs wrote: »

Fair enough, are you single, Live in a cheap area or with your parents, no kids etc,on that wage? Probably

Like i say, i don't care about free banking or paying for it. i don't think that's the issue here

i see your way out of it though, very clever, We all know the answer now. Lets all get a bank loan

Love it

I do not live in a cheap area. I do not have kids though.

Not everyone has kids at 18, straight into their working life, so I suspect the majority of people have had time to save before having kids.

Also I didn't say its the solution to everything but I am pretty sure majority does not think about these things. I am pretty sure when anyone does a SOA, be in debt or not, realises how much they could cut down on. It's just a matter of actually being pro active about it instead of leaving it too late.

noah271007

To those who say "don't go over your overdraft" I say this..

I had a larger than expected phone bill last month, paid as a direct debit out of my account which took it over my limit, (without my prior knowledge!) They then returned the DD and charged me for the privilege of NOT paying the bill.

This is legalised THEFT, pure and simple. All they had to do was not honor the DD in the first place and my account would have stayed in credit. You can pay by other methods, but it costs more to do so and is often extremely difficult, where every possible stick is used to make us use DD. The system is designed to create a charge where no charge need be applied, it is a bent system!

So get your facts right before you preach nonsense and stick up for these THIEVES!!!

never-in-doubt

jambosans wrote: »

I think Reclaims is going to implode.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2103589

That thread reads like Revelation.

Haha - maybe not! http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

Lokolo

noah271007 wrote: »

To those who say "don't go over your overdraft" I say this..

I had a larger than expected phone bill last month, paid as a direct debit out of my account which took it over my limit, (without my prior knowledge!) They then returned the DD and charged me for the privilege of NOT paying the bill.

This is legalised THEFT, pure and simple. All they had to do was not honor the DD in the first place and my account would have stayed in credit. You can pay by other methods, but it costs more to do so and is often extremely difficult, where every possible stick is used to make us use DD. The system is designed to create a charge where no charge need be applied, it is a bent system!

So get your facts right before you preach nonsense and stick up for these THIEVES!!!

Which obviously you couldn't have checked before hand.... :rolleyes:

I assume you were also living in your overdraft yes? If you lived in credit and had, say, a £100 overdraft for those just in case times, you would only have been charged the petty interest on being in your overdraft? It's a good idea isn't it?

fabforty

Lokolo wrote: »

I agree, in some cases, such as ill health, it can be, but this is why you should save money for these circumstances.

I did save. And when I was diagnosed with cancer, I had about 6 months wages saved up, plus critical illness insurance to fall back on. Unfortunately I was unable to work for two years, my saving dried up and the insurance only lasted one year. I muddled through (by the skin of my teeth), but 6 months after recovering and returning to work, the cancer returned and I was unable to work for another year. By which time, I had no savings and no chance of health insurance, so was basically struggled - although thankfully, I had credit cards ,and family so avoided going overdrawn.

Very few people start their working life in debt.
Students perhaps.

So people can easily start their working life, for the first couple of years, start a savings account whereby you can save a lot of your salary incase circumstances do change.

Not everyone is in the fortunate position of having a salary and outgoings, which allows them the luxury of saving a large proportion of their wage for a rainy day.

However, people do not do this, then when they end up being made redundant, sacked, lose their jobs for whatever reason, they then still use their cards and then complain when they are charged excessively!

And that's the important word in your post - ' excessively'.

Try not to generalise. Yes there are people who have been reckless, stupid, and greedy and have no-one to blame but themselves. But there are also some who have been unlucky. Who have suddenly found themselves on hard times through no fault of their own (e.g. my cousin whose husband walked out on her and her two kids, after emptying their joint bank account, savings accounts etc - he even emptied the kids money jar).

dickydonkin

noah271007 wrote: »

To those who say "don't go over your overdraft" I say this..

I had a larger than expected phone bill last month, paid as a direct debit out of my account which took it over my limit, (without my prior knowledge!) They then returned the DD and charged me for the privilege of NOT paying the bill.

This is legalised THEFT, pure and simple. All they had to do was not honor the DD in the first place and my account would have stayed in credit. You can pay by other methods, but it costs more to do so and is often extremely difficult, where every possible stick is used to make us use DD. The system is designed to create a charge where no charge need be applied, it is a bent system!

So get your facts right before you preach nonsense and stick up for these THIEVES!!!

I hate Direct Debits for precisely the reason given here, but they are a necessary evil at times because a lot of companies will only accept this method of payment.

I keep my current account balance to a minimum and I have been caught out by direct debits being taken out early making my account overdrawn - albeit authorised, but I can sympathise when even authorised overdrafts are exceeded.


Many organisations extol the virtues of Direct Debits - one being the convenience. Convenient for who I ask? I think we all know the answer to that, although I accept some people will find them time saving.

I prefer online payments when companies get their money when I decide, however, I appreciate this is not an option to some people or companies.

never-in-doubt

Lokolo wrote: »

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

Sorry, thought i'd remind you that a good customer is a customer that generates charges etc - not someone that is in credit by a grand or two! I am a good customer to my bank, I have a £200k something mortgage, £100k savings and also use my overdraft now (i.e. get charged £1.10 per month).... THAT is a good customer!

Lokolo

fabforty wrote: »

Try not to generalise. Yes there are people who have been reckless, stupid, and greedy and have no-one to blame but themselves. But there are also some who have been unlucky. Who have suddenly found themselves on hard times through no fault of their own (e.g. my cousin whose husband walked out on her and her two kids, after emptying their joint bank account, savings accounts etc - he even emptied the kids money jar).

I am only generalising because most of the people on these boards who come on for help because they are in huge debt or are being charged loads are because they spend more than they earn, rather than due to circumstances such as yours.

noah271007

Lokolo wrote: »

Which obviously you couldn't have checked before hand.... :rolleyes:

I assume you were also living in your overdraft yes? If you lived in credit and had, say, a £100 overdraft for those just in case times, you would only have been charged the petty interest on being in your overdraft? It's a good idea isn't it?

I have tried to apply for an overdraft of £100 but it was declined. The reason for the decline is due to not meeting the criteria, EVEN though i have no adverse data on my credit files and i work full time with a good salary. I only got 2 credit cards, both which are paid most of time in full balance. My account always are in credit and never overdrawn!

Milarky

Eyeballs wrote: »

As to these people telling others that this is a good thing because they have been fortunate in life to save some money up should take a long hard look at themselves and have some compassion for others, it's not always caused by them and its not always caused by spending their money on shoes etc

Be honest, what would be a good compromise. I would imagine that could be discussed forever too

If you think about it, the 'reality' of the present situation is that there is MASSIVE cross-subsidy used in banking to attract and retain customers (so-called 'competition'). 'Bank charges' are another arm of that reality.Yet banking has become even more concetrated of late with these crisis mergers.

In an ideal world there would be no cross-subsidy and bank charges would have no profit element - merely reflect the true cost of a bounced cheque here, or returned direct debt there, or covering an small unauthorised withrawal by a customer. Payments if not a 'right' are at least akin to other utility functions like water, electricity and gas - so why should they be so much less regulated in the public interest than those others? Profit has its place (in directing investment rationally) but profit much also 'know' its place in key areas like payments services.

Take savings accounts. How much does the interest (of 0.1%) paid on 'liquid-gold' type accounts get justified other than in terms of cross-subsidising internet accounts and other sources of 'hot money'? This is is one area where action against bankers is justified; pay depositors something much closer to the average rate on all accounts even if dedicated savings-nuts don't like it.

Back to bank charges; if the OFT had been 'victorious' in today's court case they would surely have made rules that forced banks to effectively eliminate cross-subsidy practices and only allow for a margin of profit much smaller than now. As it is, 'competition' will have to sort out the somewhat chaotic 'free-for-all' their Lordships have bequeathed us (This decision may have been right but no one really believes it was 'helpful')

So my point is to press for proper bank regulation in law - changing the law if necessary to

1) largely eliminate cross-subsidies in banking, saving and mortgages

2) have much more similarly priced products than now

3) find some way to stimulate competition (possibly revisit Cruickshank - which GB ignored in respect of state control of payments system) and removing barriers to entry