A High Street Bank Employee's View

Pammy

Honest_Banker wrote: »

First let me say that I am genuinely sorry to hear the story of your illness. Did you have any critical illness cover or accident, sickness & unemployment cover. From your story I assume not. This would probably be because at some point you had ignored an advisers advice to be fully protected should anything happen. This sort of highlights my point that customers believe that banks should 'bail them out' of any financial difficulties, and its not the customers responsibility.

For the record, I do believe that there should be a cap on the amount of charges that can stack up, and I do not mean any offence, and if any point is incorrect I stand corrected. I have been a mortgage adviser in a bank for over 3 years and I saw so many customers who believed that critical illnesses would not happen to them, or they would never be made redundant. I have twice been the person who has had to tell a customer that they were NOT covered because they declined my advice to protect themselves. I hope it never happens again!

What are you talking about? I didnt have any advice to get cover. I didnt want bailing out thank you. I wanted some help due to my circumstances, like every other organisation gave me during this time. If for example I can't pay my phone bill next month vodaphone will work out a plan to pay it off, they may switch me to incoming calls while I pay it off but they do something to assist. I believe legally they are also obliged to do so.

The banks on the other hand don't have to do that, they thrive on my debt, they have more or less stated that. They want me to go overdrawn, it pays for other services.

So while I lay there thinking I was dying, or the man in the other post sleeps on a park bench the bank rubs its hands in glee because its yet another £35.00 charge.

Thats why they won't help out, because its set up not to help. I didnt care about the amount of the charge, I cared about the fact I was given no choice on how this was paid back and the dire consequences it left me in.

If it was so awful why didnt they close my account down? Why didnt they stop the account do it can't go overdrawn? why didnt they stop all my cards? Because if they did that then they would not have made a single penny out of my situation.

stelly

I know you are just putting your point of view across Honest Banker but i think for each person the situation is different.

I only put in a claim for my charges back as my bank charged me for doing nothing.

I had 5 direct debits that had tried to be taken off my account but due to a mess up of when my wages were paid in there was no money there.

So my bank charged me £30 for each direct debit they didnt pay.

Do you honesty think £150 charge is ok for doing nothing?

If they had paid them and id been overdrawn then fair enough charge me, thats my fault but to charge people that much just to refuse a direct debit is a joke.

Honest_Banker

Pammy wrote: »

What are you talking about? I didnt have any advice to get cover. I didnt want bailing out thank you. I wanted some help due to my circumstances, like every other organisation gave me during this time. If for example I can't pay my phone bill next month vodaphone will work out a plan to pay it off, they may switch me to incoming calls while I pay it off but they do something to assist. I believe legally they are also obliged to do so.

The banks on the other hand don't have to do that, they thrive on my debt, they have more or less stated that. They want me to go overdrawn, it pays for other services.

So while I lay there thinking I was dying, or the man in the other post sleeps on a park bench the bank rubs its hands in glee because its yet another £35.00 charge.

Thats why they won't help out, because its set up not to help. I didnt care about the amount of the charge, I cared about the fact I was given no choice on how this was paid back and the dire consequences it left me in.

If it was so awful why didnt they close my account down? Why didnt they stop the account do it can't go overdrawn? why didnt they stop all my cards? Because if they did that then they would not have made a single penny out of my situation.

Can I ask 1 question: Are/were you a homeowner when you were diagnosed?

If you were then you would have been offered advice regarding protecting your home and income in order to provide you with a solution to avoid the circumstances you describe should it happen.

This protection helps so many people avoid having their homes repossessed should they come into difficulty. I ahve been personally thanked so many times by customers who have suffered an unfortunate event in life, but they took my advice and had adequate protection in place to avoid getting into any financial difficulty.

stclair

Honest_Banker wrote: »

Can I ask 1 question: Are/were you a homeowner when you were diagnosed?

If you were then you would have been offered advice regarding protecting your home and income in order to provide you with a solution to avoid the circumstances you describe should it happen.

This protection helps so many people avoid having their homes repossessed should they come into difficulty. I ahve been personally thanked so many times by customers who have suffered an unfortunate event in life, but they took my advice and had adequate protection in place to avoid getting into any financial difficulty.

Your bank seems friendly can you open me an account?

chambta

Natweststaffmember. What did you get sacked from the bank for?

BankReclaimRebel

Most people I have spoken to in work are of the same opinion, that is, they don't mind getting charged for bounced DD, unauthorised overdraft charges etc so long as they are a fair charge i.e £5.00 quid charges instead of £30-£40 quid a time.

Most people would be happy to say to their banks, ok you charged me x amount for going over my overdraft and bouncing a couple of DD at a total cost of say £15.00 quid instead of; what are you playing at charging me £90+ for the same thing. I also know people should look after their finances properly, but I do agree with a lot of posters when people do fall into hard times and things start spiralling, banks should be more flexible.

In my personal opinion and I do hope the OFT are also thinking of this, banks should not be allowed to charge what they like for bounced DD's etc there should be a blanket charge for everything that would be agreed by the OFT and the banks, exactly as they did with the Credit Card companies. At least this way everyone knows where they stand.

Konamb212

From Honest Banker : First let me say that I am genuinely sorry to hear the story of your illness. Did you have any critical illness cover or accident, sickness & unemployment cover. From your story I assume not. This would probably be because at some point you had ignored an advisers advice to be fully protected should anything happen.
You smug condescending b@st@rd, how dare you say you are sorry to hear of an illness but yet then go on to spout your sales patter. Insurance is based on risks and probability, this person took a risk and decided as most of us do "it'll not happen to me" and unfortunately, financially things didnt work out.

This sort of highlights my point that customers believe that banks should 'bail them out' of any financial difficulties, and its not the customers responsibility.
At no point did I see the poster shirking responsibility, merely asking for consideration be given to the circumstances which she now finds herself in

For the record, I do believe that there should be a cap on the amount of charges that can stack up, and I do not mean any offence, and if any point is incorrect I stand corrected. I have been a mortgage adviser in a bank for over 3 years and I saw so many customers who believed that critical illnesses would not happen to them, or they would never be made redundant. I have twice been the person who has had to tell a customer that they were NOT covered because they declined my advice to protect themselves. I hope it never happens again!
It is well known that when people are getting financially stretched the first things to get cut are insurance premiums, however, maybe people have rejected your advice because in the past there has been so much publicity given to the mis-selling of endowments, Paymernt Protection Insurance etc that the customers thought that this was just another one of your pressure selling points.
Up to the above posting I did agree with some of your points of view, I can understand how you must feel at being the target of customer abuse, but after reading the above, I wish you the day from hell on Monday

Newkid

Honest_Banker wrote: »

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!!!.

Honest Banker
My 18 year old son on £95 / fortnight jobseekers allowance went £12 overdrawn for 2 days ( he has no overdraft facility !!!) & was hit with £75 worth of charges. Reasonable / Fair / Profiteering - Discuss
We penned a polite letter explaining how / why & what he has to exist on asking for a refund which was declined by Yorkshire Bank.
He could quite easily have had children to feed, clothe etc & the bank would still have declined to refund. You sound a reasonable person- would you consider in these instances that the bank has acted reasonably/ fairly & that you feel that you are working in an industry that deserves the fairness of the masses in return. Thats a rhetorical question.
You do not deserve to be treated badly on the " frontline " as you call it but you do need to recognise why the Public feels the way they do & this is a Prime example.
Become an honourable banker & change the system from within.

Newkid

Morglin

Honest_Banker wrote: »

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!!!.

I agree with you that it's good news we won't all have to make up what the banks would have to have paid out if the 'reclaim customers' had won - there may be a case foir moe reaosnable charges to be applied in the future, but the idea of all past charges having to be repaid was fairly silly.:rolleyes:

Only 1 out of 5 customers pay charges on their current accounts anyway (according to the BBC business news).

But, it is taxpayers that have bailed out the banks - the Treasury gets their money from us, and I hope that more controls are put on banks to stop them selling finance to cutomers that obviously couldn't afford it, mrely to try and earn commission and excessive profits. There also needs to be a cap put on bonus's.:rolleyes:

There is surely a case for banks to treat ALL current accounts the same as their 'basic accounts' - NO overdraft at all, unless previously agreed. It's fairly pointless allowing people to exceed any credit/OD limit set, and then keep charging them heavily for the priviledge, thereby causing more financial hardship.

But, when an account is opened, a customer signs to say they agree to the T&C's and there was no reason whatsoever for charges to be refunded to those who had agreed to pay them in the first instance.

I do feel a bit for those who had been led to believe by people like the OFT that this would be a foregone conclusion in their favour, and it has turned out to be the opposite.

Lin

C_Mababejive

This is a comment for the bankers on here...

First thing is ,i agree with the ruling. I dont incur charges 99.9% of the time.

I dont go in branches very often.

I dont want counter staff to push products at me,i want them to serve me and move on to the next customer.

I dont want junk mail with products & services. Alliance & Leicester seem to be worse for this.

My bank once charged me for a bounced cheque due to an overlap. It was a large cheque !

I resented their impertinence at charging a longstanding customer (20 years?) who is in credit 99.9% of the time AND lets the bank have use of a substantial wad of my cash.

I moved the money elsewhere..fair swap..my wad for their £5 charge..whos laughing now ?