A High Street Bank Employee's View

nickmack

AlexisV wrote: »

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

Indeed, although some claimants situations are morally questionable, the matter is a point of law. In the case being considered, it really makes no difference whether charges have been incurred through terrible hardship or frivolous overspending.

Charlie94

voiceofreason wrote: »

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! )

Well this post cleary explains your arrogant remarks on this forum. You clearly look down on most people and see yourself as superior. No wonder you have so little compassion for other peoples financial mistakes or diffulculties. As I have said before I hope I never get to the point in my life when I gloat over people losing money.

Also why on earth would the print media be against the banks? The print media are a largely private industry so they would be far more likely to be biased towards the banks and certainly not the government. Did the UK government force RBS to takeover ABN Ambro? Probably one of the worst takeover deals in history.

Of course they did n't it was gross financial mismangement. At least back up your points with some evidence to support them before you make sweeping assumptions.

euronorris

dzug1 wrote: »

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.

Screw up enough? When is that exactly?

If I make one small mistake, resulting in unauthorised lending, I receive a charge. Yet, if they make a mistake by taking funds they shouldn't have, I am not able to charge them!

mackers8923

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 yes I suspect that you probably are however you are also playing by your own employers rules.

Now whilst I agree with a couple of your points about being a business etc can you then explain and justify to me and the other MSE members the £38 you charge for someone who goes even a few pence into an unauthorised overdraft? Do you expect me and others to accept that it actually costs your bank that amount of money for such an instance?

I think any organisation that charges the consumer additional money should be looking out for the look in. We are fighting back, we are sick and tired of organisations like yours bleeding every penny out of our pockets, yes you may play the "Cheaper Charges" line on us but I can assure you my friend this war is not over. My bank will no doubt fight the claim I have against them for almost £7000 but what they don't know is I will fight them every step of the way and I will win.

I measure banks with major software companies, if Microsoft made Windows 7 say £50 then people would pay it and not use illegal software because it would be worth it. If banks charged the correct and a measured charge in all cases then people would pay it and probably in most cases not complain.

Good on you for posting, but all your little test case has done is open the flood gates.

See you in court!

mackers8923

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'm interested to know if you have ever been charged? ever thought if you'll have enough money to get you through to the end of the month? ever wondered if there will be enough food in the fridge for the family to eat? or what about enough oil to keep the house warm!

Welcome to the average joe bloggs life made worse by organisations and banks by taking every little single spare penny people have. Can you not understand how and why people feel so angry at this? Yes of course accept the responsibility for your actions and all that but in a measured and justified way don't rip the !!!! out of it and bleed people dry.

A lot of signatures on here have the details of what people are claiming through the courts, the highest I have ever seen is something like £12k explain to me why the banks allowed DDs and unauthorised transactions and such like and not close the accounts of these people before they got too deep into it. I tell you why, they have been milking every penny enjoying the nice life while joe bloggs struggles on.

These court cases should not only be about getting money back they should be about banks being held to account for allowing people to build up problems so bad to a stage where they get charged so much money in some cases £1000s, my bank never once contacted me about some of the problems I was having with the account.

Spirit_of_Truth

mackers8923 wrote: »

These court cases should not only be about getting money back they should be about banks being held to account for allowing people to build up problems so bad to a stage where they get charged so much money in some cases £1000s, my bank never once contacted me about some of the problems I was having with the account.

To be fair, if charges ever got to even near the £1000's level, someone from the bank would be CONSTANTLY ringing you!!!

Pammy

Spirit_of_Truth wrote: »

To be fair, if charges ever got to even near the £1000's level, someone from the bank would be CONSTANTLY ringing you!!!

Thats not true at all, why do you think that?

Some people here have the impression that you go overdrawn and the banks are like "Oh my god this is terrible lets rings them up Sandra and find out what the hells going on?". Where does that happen? Fantasy bank 1950

As established, the banks are happy for you to go overdrawn. Its being discussed as if they find it the crime of the century. They love it.

Some of the other posts such as getting out a policy and reading the fine print are almost troll like in their agenda because its ridiculous to assume that will happen or indeed justifys the amount or the callous attitude.

robpw2

the banks haven't won thought
i think you all seem to forget this wasn't a case to see if bank charges were fair but merely if the oft had the right to decide if they are fair or not using section six of the unfair contract terms act

robpw2

furthermore i don't disagree with penalty charges but it should be proportionate to the amount you go over drawn
for example you go over by 1p with Halifax and currently they charge £39.00 that's 39000%
which is somewhat excessive

as0ta

mackers8923 wrote: »

honest yes i suspect that you probably are however you are also playing by your own employers rules.

Now whilst i agree with a couple of your points about being a business etc can you then explain and justify to me and the other mse members the £38 you charge for someone who goes even a few pence into an unauthorised overdraft? Do you expect me and others to accept that it actually costs your bank that amount of money for such an instance?

I think any organisation that charges the consumer additional money should be looking out for the look in. We are fighting back, we are sick and tired of organisations like yours bleeding every penny out of our pockets, yes you may play the "cheaper charges" line on us but i can assure you my friend this war is not over. My bank will no doubt fight the claim i have against them for almost £7000 but what they don't know is i will fight them every step of the way and i will win.

I measure banks with major software companies, if microsoft made windows 7 say £50 then people would pay it and not use illegal software because it would be worth it. If banks charged the correct and a measured charge in all cases then people would pay it and probably in most cases not complain.

Good on you for posting, but all your little test case has done is open the flood gates.

See you in court!

:t............


:T