A High Street Bank Employee's View

stelly

voiceofreason wrote: »

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?

I think you are making a lot of assumptions.

In none of my posts have i said that bank charges are unfair.

In fact I agree that if you have done something wrong then you should be charged.

But it was the amount of money they charged that was unfair in relation to the actual work they had to do to refuse a dd.

voiceofreason

MillaJoJo wrote: »

The banking world have no one but themselves to blame for the way people perceive them.

Well, no-one aside from an opportunistic government eager to foist the blame for financial mismanagement of the economy onto someone - anyone! - else, print media who're determined to flog every last inch of coverage out of this dead horse by printing skewed stories that appeal to base ignorance in their readership, and a population who, quite frankly, are largely wilfully, criminally ignorant regarding pretty much any issue outside telly, celebs and drink.

But yeah, bankers - they're all bad, uh-huh!

(and I said nearly wee'd myself - not ready for the old Tena-Lady quite yet! )

voiceofreason

stelly wrote: »

I think you are making a lot of assumptions.

In none of my posts have i said that bank charges are unfair.

In fact I agree that if you have done something wrong then you should be charged.

But it was the amount of money they charged that was unfair in relation to the actual work they had to do to refuse a dd.

If you think it's so unfair, why on earth did you agree to it when you opened the account?

You did check the small-print beforehand, right?

euronorris

voiceofreason wrote: »

If you think it's so unfair, why on earth did you agree to it when you opened the account?

You did check the small-print beforehand, right?

Yes, I certainly did. I also checked the other banks which had similar terms.

I NEEDED a bank account and so I was left with no choice but to agree. I was also informed that the terms were non-negotiable by the bank. And yet, they can change the charges and interest rates whenever they like.

We have not been afforded the same entitlement.

Whenever the bank has screwed up, I've been lucky to get them to resolve it, or even admit they ffed up in the first place. And yet, I'm not able to charge them.

I've seen plenty of business contracts and the terms usually apply to both parties. ie, if we mess up then we compensate the client (usually via a discount of fees or a complete waiver of them - depending on the issue at hand) and if they mess up, then they have to pay extra for the amount of extra work we have to do.

If it was a two way street then fair enough. But it's not, is it?

natweststaffmember

stclair wrote: »

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

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

Yes that was the one.
Cashier/moneysense advisor. former SQA(service quality advisor--now called service quality managers) etc. etc,

natweststaffmember

PROLIANT wrote: »

A perfect example of "biting the hand that feeds you".
For them to trace it back to you; you must have been letting your mouth go at work and drawn attention to yourself?

That assumes a lot Proliant. That assumes that my work colleagues were aware of my personal actions: they weren't. It assumes that they actively agreed with them: I have no idea. It assumes that they grassed on me to HR: they didn't have a clue.
The article StClair quoted has some quotes direct from one document that was traced as were those who accessed it which lead to me after a month and a half.
When confronted, I admitted it and I was suspended which lead to me being sacked.
I wasn't biting the hand that feeds but perhaps unlocking the handcuffs that had imprisoned me for so long. I do not regret that decision since I left a ship that was very much floundering.
I await for the next assumption with glee.

natweststaffmember

C_Mababejive wrote: »

NWSM...do you still work in the banking industry? Did you find it difficult to get another job due to the reason for dismissal?

I don't work in the banking industry but I do work.
I found it difficult myself to get my head around how I explained it which is why I spoke to the Independent on Sunday a few days after my dismissal. I was roughly 14 weeks out of work(and 14 weeks almost full time online ).

natweststaffmember

oxenryd wrote: »

Are you talking serious here ?

Yep most definitely.

dzug1

euronorris wrote: »

Whenever the bank has screwed up, I've been lucky to get them to resolve it, or even admit they ffed up in the first place. And yet, I'm not able to charge them.

Well not charge them as such, but my experience has been that if they screw up badly enough they will pay compensation. If they don't, or you don't think it's enough, you can take it to the FOS.

Ditto if they can't resolve it.

AlexisV

The OP's post has fallen into the trap of deeming who deserves any of their money back (in conclusion, no one it seems).

As far as I knew, this was an objective matter of law.