A High Street Bank Employee's View

Honest_Banker

I am an adviser, on the frontline of a high street bank, who has been bombarded for weeks and weeks by some rude, insulting members of the public 'demanding' their charges back immediately.

I for one am glad that the banks have won the case. I can not believe that people who go over their overdraft limit do not expect to be charged. I completely agree with the ruling that the terms and conditions of accounts are clearly stated when customers sign for a bank account.

I appreciate that there are some customer who fall into genuine hardship at some point, but I see so many people who claim to be in financial difficulty and were 'demanding' their charges back. On further examination of their accounts during this so called hardship, so many customers still have their sky subscriptions, mobile phone contracts, evenings out at restaurants etc etc.

I am also fed up of people saying 'you were bailed out by OUR money' I defy anyone to pop down to HM Treasury and ask them for THEIR money, I'm sure they will be happy to give you whatever amount you want!!!!!

Only today I had a meeting with a customer who said quote: "I was gutted when I heard the ruling, I was planning a holiday with that money!!!" At that point I lost all sympathy for the customer who was in the branch looking at ways to get out of his overdraft. Just shows the mentality of some people.

At the end of the day, banks are not charities, they are a business like every other. Banks get bad press for for reckless lending, which in reality is what is occuring when people go over their agreed overdraft, but then also get bad press for not lending - so we cant win. If I came to anyone on this board and said - "Can I borrow £1,000 off you, dont know when I'll pay it back, if at all, cause I cant afford to pay it back. Oh, and then I might need a bit extra on top" Would you give me the money? Er NO.

Ok, Rant over, but in reality, banks are not the greedy ones, the customers trying to claim charges back because they cant manage THEIR finances are the real greedy ones!!!.

Viper_7

Not a Rant, quite correct.

simon_templar_2

HB, you will probably now be deluged with claims you are a fascist, nazi, greedy scumbag banker causing untold misery to a minority of the population who want march into London and hold poll tax style riots!

justjohn

Truth hurts

capehorn

Honest_Banker wrote: »

I am also fed up of people saying 'you were bailed out by OUR money' I defy anyone to pop down to HM Treasury and ask them for THEIR money, I'm sure they will be happy to give you whatever amount you want!!!!!

You make some reasonable points, but this isn't one of them. It IS our money, that is why you will have to pay it back, and it isn't right that you make the money to pay back our money from charging us exuberant fees.

simon_templar_2

Only a few banks 'took our money' though so does that mean the banks that didnt can be excluded?

natweststaffmember

!!!!!! honest banker I hate repeats

natweststaffmember

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honest Banker
I am an adviser, on the frontline of a high street bank, who has been bombarded for weeks and weeks by some rude, insulting members of the public 'demanding' their charges back immediately.
And your point is???
I for one am glad that the banks have won the case. I can not believe that people who go over their overdraft limit do not expect to be charged. I completely agree with the ruling that the terms and conditions of accounts are clearly stated when customers sign for a bank account.
Do you agree with ruling? Excellent news cos the Banks closed the door of ONE avenue and the Law Lords believed that there was a better avenue. The Banks' were told to sod off at an earlier hearing when they tried to shut that avenue. If you think it is GAME OVER, then you have been mislead.
I appreciate that there are some customer who fall into genuine hardship at some point, but I see so many people who claim to be in financial difficulty and were 'demanding' their charges back. On further examination of their accounts during this so called hardship, so many customers still have their sky subscriptions, mobile phone contracts, evenings out at restaurants etc etc.
Glad to see you are still empathising with people in financial hardship, Good for you.
I am also fed up of people saying 'you were bailed out by OUR money' I defy anyone to pop down to HM Treasury and ask them for THEIR money, I'm sure they will be happy to give you whatever amount you want!!!!!
I actually agree with you on that point, it annoyed me before and after dismissal from the bank on this point cos it is IRRELEVANT to reclaiming charges back.
Only today I had a meeting with a customer who said quote: "I was gutted when I heard the ruling, I was planning a holiday with that money!!!" At that point I lost all sympathy for the customer who was in the branch looking at ways to get out of his overdraft. Just shows the mentality of some people.
I can understand that and I do think that people were expecting too much from this judgement which would not have lead to immediate payouts anyway.
At the end of the day, banks are not charities, they are a business like every other.
That is correct they are not charities(but technically they have taken the charity of the taxpayers or at least some of them have ).
Banks get bad press for for reckless lending, which in reality is what is occuring when people go over their agreed overdraft, but then also get bad press for not lending - so we cant win. If I came to anyone on this board and said - "Can I borrow £1,000 off you, dont know when I'll pay it back, if at all, cause I cant afford to pay it back. Oh, and then I might need a bit extra on top" Would you give me the money? Er NO.
I wouldn't trust a banker who says this product will help you cos you are targetted for products and I CAN get it cheaper online and elsewhere(sorry, but you have to be careful what you write). Is there not something in your contract about posts on internet forums? When you read everything THEN you realise about what walking in someone's shoes is about.
Ok, Rant over, but in reality, banks are not the greedy ones, the customers trying to claim charges back because they cant manage THEIR finances are the real greedy ones!!!.

I love you really, but YOU tell me that sales through service is beneficial to YOU or the CUSTOMER. As an advisor it's all about the sales and that lead to bonuses(Don't tell me it isn't cos I KNOW that stuff). If the choice is about not selling to someone or selling them something that gets you nearer the prize, tell me you wouldn't do it cos I would have cos I had targets to hit.


I hope you like my repeat

wallbash

Thank you for the views from the other side of the counter .
I hope you know that there is a lot of people who value your work .

Thank you,

justjohn

capehorn wrote: »

You make some reasonable points, but this isn't one of them. It IS our money, that is why you will have to pay it back, and it isn't right that you make the money to pay back our money from charging us exuberant fees.

The bank will pay it back..many of the overdraft blaggers will not.

What would your defense be before the bank bail out.

Bank bailout is a different kettle of fish 2 wrongs do not make a rite just a bigger hole to be dug out of.

Honest_Banker

I wouldn't trust a banker who says this product will help you cos you are targetted for products and I CAN get it cheaper online and elsewhere(sorry, but you have to be careful what you write). Is there not something in your contract about posts on internet forums? When you read everything THEN you realise about what walking in someone's shoes is about.

Please could you expand on this point, not sure I understand?.

From my point of view I AM an honest person, who tries to help every customer I see each day by providing them with the information they need in order to make decisions about their finances.

I have been dissappointed by the attitudes of some people who tar all people in banking with the same brush of being greedy people who 'rip off' customers.

I think there has been a huge change in the public's culture over the past months, where many have thought- well, if we go over our limit then we'll just claim the charges back. This has had the knock on effect that people have perhaps not managed their finances as carefully as previously, because they have been led to believe that they WOULD get all their charges back.

On another point, if the judge threw the case out and stated that the point which the case was challenged on was 'too narrow', didnt Martin or any memebers of his team realise this and that it should have been challenged on the wider point?

Just my own personal view there, but whilst I do have a lot of time for Martin and the site, I do think that Martin should realise the 'power' he has over the public and they follow his every word. I do personally think that Martin should sit back and think, "have I encouraged people to spend beyond their means, because they were expecting any charges occured to be refunded back?"