A High Street Bank Employee's View

ILW

euronorris wrote: »

You've missed a very important point here: not everyone can afford the insurance premiums in the first place. Particularly if they have pre-existing medical conditions.

I was lucky enough to obtain most insurance deals through my work at reduced rates. Pre existing conditions such as asthma, epilepsy and back problems means that the advertised average premium of 10 or 15 GBP is often double for someone like myself. And, if you have had a serious illness before you are lucky if you can even find a company that will insure you.

My sister had to wait until her youngest daughter was 5 before they could take her on holiday. She had heart surgery weeks after her birth and recovered fully and quickly but the insurance companies refused her cover until 5 years had passed.

Maybe I am being harsh, but if one cannot afford an insurance premium, maybe you should think twice about taking out the loan, or just borrow a smaller amount.

voiceofreason

stelly wrote: »

There is no honesty within the banking system. Its all set up to benefit them.

Yes, there is honesty within the system - in this context, it's in the T&Cs to the contract which you'll have signed when you took out the account; assuming you didn't bin the paperwork, perhaps you should dig it out and find the paragraph which'll quite clearly say something like "we reserve the right to charge you if you exceed your overdraft limit".

Fairly honest, then.

As for it being "set up to benefit them" - ditto any business, dear. Did you not read Martin's Money Guide?

Except charities and the like - but even they have to cover the overheads

stclair

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Leaking information of a confidential information without authority.

Remember last December when the BBC posted about RBS "pro actively" refunding customers should they lose the test case? That one was most definitely me who passed the information on.
The bank traced the source and sacked me as well as for the article in August 2008 in which the bank were told by the OFT that their terms were unfair.
Before anyone asks, I worked for the bank from 1998 and I have been within the bank charges campaign since June 2006.

Was it this article? What did you actually do for natwest?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7759054.stm

stelly

voiceofreason wrote: »

Yes, there is honesty within the system - in this context, it's in the T&Cs to the contract which you'll have signed when you took out the account; assuming you didn't bin the paperwork, perhaps you should dig it out and find the paragraph which'll quite clearly say something like "we reserve the right to charge you if you exceed your overdraft limit".

Excuse me but you dont know me so please dont assume i binned my paperwork. If you read my first post in this thread you will see that i didnt exceed my overdraft limit.

Fairly honest, then.


As for it being "set up to benefit them" - ditto any business, dear. Did you not read Martin's Money Guide?

Again you dont know me so please dont call me dear. Im not your child.

I except the commment about not swearing etc. I dont usually swear so have to admit my anger got the better of me.

Except charities and the like - but even they have to cover the overheads

Yes i understand that they are a business and they have overheads etc but they have a complete inability to see that sometimes people have no control over a situation.

euronorris

ILW wrote: »

Maybe I am being harsh, but if one cannot afford an insurance premium, maybe you should think twice about taking out the loan, or just borrow a smaller amount.

Such policies are not only in place to protect the payment of a loan or mortgage. They are also available for general income protection to ensure that your basic outgoings are met (rent/mortgage, utlities etc).

Besides, sometimes a loan is essential. If you are on a low income for instance. You could be very good with your money, save what little you can, and then the boiler breaks for instance. And the cost of replacement far outweighs your savings.

Not everything is black and white or as simple as you imply.

voiceofreason

stelly wrote: »

Yes i understand that they are a business and they have overheads etc but they have a complete inability to see that sometimes people have no control over a situation.

Aye, aye - fair enough.

Look at the paperwork and see the bit about "if you set up a DD but have no money in the account when the time comes to pay it, we'll charge you" or however it's worded.

The bank told you clearly that they'd do this - it's even quite possible that on each month's statement there's a charge tariff, so you may have known exactly how much you'd be charged in advance.

You signed up to this, you kept your money in the account in full knowledge that this term was in effect, and therefore you must take some of the responsibility here.

If your employer didn't pay you on time, then that's something to sort out with them, not your bank.

Tell me - if you'd had the difference refunded by your employer, would you be so keen to yammer on about how "unfair" these (clearly-defined and fully-explained) charges are?

voiceofreason

Pammy wrote: »

Have you ever seen some of those old Robin Hodd stories where the Sheriff comes along and takes all the grain leaving the people starveing.

Is that Robin Hodd, the charitable bricklayer of Sherwood Forest?

Farmer_jones

Honest Banker = Oxymoron does it not ?

voiceofreason

Farmer_jones wrote: »

Honest Banker = Oxymoron does it not ?

Hey, that's really original!

You know, I nearly did a little wee in my knickers laughing at that witty riposte.

MillaJoJo

voiceofreason wrote: »

Hey, that's really original!

You know, I nearly did a little wee in my knickers laughing at that witty riposte.

The banking world have no one but themselves to blame for the way people perceive them. Original or not, it's the way alot of people think, and not all of them are paying grotesque amounts in bank charges.

By the way, there are liners for that little problem you have.