MSE News: Bank charges update: the phoenix from the flames + full Q&A

MrGumby

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?

If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.

I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.

natweststaffmember

MrGumby wrote: »

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?
It is not that obvious since your free if in credit is partially funded by those who don't.
If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.
I don't follow your argument at all since the end of free banking spin that has come up since the case began has not stopped banks reducing overdraft charges.
I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.

I don't agree with you and the Supreme Court haven't said that those people who were charged had a fair contract.
Furthermore, in the USA they have had a similar kinda campaign and that has lead to a regulation meaning that you have to opt in to overdraft services or all your payments are declined without a fee being taken for doing so. Personally, I think that is a sensible and rational approach.

stevenfayers

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?
It is not that obvious since your free if in credit is partially funded by those who don't.
Free if in credit is funded by the bank paying me 0.1% interest and loaning it and charging 6%, taking my money for 3 days for every payment I make and so on.
If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.
I don't follow your argument at all since the end of free banking spin that has come up since the case began has not stopped banks reducing overdraft charges.
The banks have only reduced charges to try and take the wind out of the court case that's been going on. If no one had complained and this case hadn't been going on, the banks would have done nothing.
I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.
I agree. When people signed up for the bank account they knew the charges. I was caught out once and learnt my lesson. Now I shouldn't have to pay because other people can't learn the lesson.

natweststaffmember

stevenfayers wrote: »

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?
It is not that obvious since your free if in credit is partially funded by those who don't.
Free if in credit is funded by the bank paying me 0.1% interest and loaning it and charging 6%, taking my money for 3 days for every payment I make and so on.
If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.
I don't follow your argument at all since the end of free banking spin that has come up since the case began has not stopped banks reducing overdraft charges.
The banks have only reduced charges to try and take the wind out of the court case that's been going on. If no one had complained and this case hadn't been going on, the banks would have done nothing.
I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.
I agree. When people signed up for the bank account they knew the charges. I was caught out once and learnt my lesson. Now I shouldn't have to pay because other people can't learn the lesson.

I was with you up to the last bit of the post. Everyone is paying for their banking in one way or another. When people signed up to their bank account the terms may well have been different to the ones that are now in force. Furthermore, those terms may be vastly different from before.

Sol00

MrGumby wrote: »

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?

If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.

I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.

Heaven forbid you should have to pay for a service you use!

pingchris

thainstone wrote: »

I was shocked at the Courts decision about charges.
I find it funny how the week before the court case Halifax dropped their charges right down from £35.00 to £15.00 each item.
If the banks thought the charges were fair why did they do this(obviously they think they are unfair also).
And why is it that if the banks had lost the case they would have been allowed to appeal to the European Court even after 2 rejections and an appeal to the Supreme Court,yet reclaimers have been stopped in their tracks and told they can't appeal the decision.
I feel that this is all because they are scared to drop the banks in it when they are struggling at the moment and still being bailed out(by us.......the tax payer).
Maybe the banks should have to bail the taxpayers out ( role reversal).
I think we should be allowed to go back to the old system of getting wages in a brown envelope every week then we can decide if we want to use the bank or not (wonder what they would do then).
An all of a sudden the MP's have gone very quiet on the subject..........typical.:rotfl:

i pretty much agree with you,i dont use a bank account much now,i pay my bills at the post office,ahhhh light just went on......... now i know why they are so intent on closing post offices

ontheway_2

I'm incensed with Halifax. when do the new reduced charges apply? I've just been whacked with £35 for each of 3 items.
I was watching cashflow carefully - well I saw that some direct debits were due to come out because the balance was showing around £250 but available funds £0. (More credits due on the next day) I moved some more money over and then phoned customer service to see whether any other pending payments were lurking in the background.

At no point did she say that I was already technically overdrawn and the money was moved at that time. Today - only 24 hours later - I get a letter saying that 3 direct debits that were already accounted for when I did the online check had taken my account overdrawn and that I would be charged £35 for each of them - £105! This is underhand behaviour.
I gort this preachy letter advising me to use online banking regularly in order to avoid charges - much good that did me!
I'm switching to Co-op asap. I know they charge too, but I just don't like Halifax's behaviour.
Is there any defence do this, or must I grin and bear it?

euronorris

ontheway wrote: »

I'm incensed with Halifax. when do the new reduced charges apply? I've just been whacked with £35 for each of 3 items.
I was watching cashflow carefully - well I saw that some direct debits were due to come out because the balance was showing around £250 but available funds £0. (More credits due on the next day) I moved some more money over and then phoned customer service to see whether any other pending payments were lurking in the background.

At no point did she say that I was already technically overdrawn and the money was moved at that time. Today - only 24 hours later - I get a letter saying that 3 direct debits that were already accounted for when I did the online check had taken my account overdrawn and that I would be charged £35 for each of them - £105! This is underhand behaviour.
I gort this preachy letter advising me to use online banking regularly in order to avoid charges - much good that did me!
I'm switching to Co-op asap. I know they charge too, but I just don't like Halifax's behaviour.
Is there any defence do this, or must I grin and bear it?

This is a good question for Halifax, as I was also under the impression that the new fee charging structure for authorised overdrafts (1 GBP per day) would be in effect from 1 Nov 2009. Not that I ever received any notification about this, I just heard through word of mouth.

However, they have still charged me interest for November, not the 1 GBP per day as expected. - Ahh, just checked and this charge is with effect from 6 December 2009. Not sure about the unauthorised overdraft charges though.

I suspect that I have got the dates wrong. But, this is off topic, so I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss it.

Mark_GT

Eric_Jones wrote: »

On the contrary.
The arguments made over the years have generally been that the fee is higher than it costs the bank to send out a letter.
My point is that THAT completely misses the point.
From that limited viewpoint - the charges are high.
From the viewpoint that someone has effectively stolen from the bank (repeatedly and often with apparent complete disregard for the consequences according to many on these threads) then the charge is really very , very small. In most countries you would have bigger problems as spending money that is not yours is (correctly IMHO) regarded as theft."

I have in past years not been in overdraft but have been penalised (£30) for returned direct debits. In such cases I expect that the bank would reasonably charge me a fee but it HAS to be a proportionate fee. This IS the point. In cases of returned direct debits I am NOT stealing from the banks. In fact the bank is essentially ripping me off by charging me £30 for a service that only costs it £5.

natweststaffmember

Mark_GT wrote: »

I have in past years not been in overdraft but have been penalised (£30) for returned direct debits. In such cases I expect that the bank would reasonably charge me a fee but it HAS to be a proportionate fee. This IS the point. In cases of returned direct debits I am NOT stealing from the banks. In fact the bank is essentially ripping me off by charging me £30 for a service that only costs it £5.

.....but because of the SC ruling, unfortunately, the price is out of the argument.