Realy do not - understand- bank charges

mrcow

euronorris wrote: »

Er, putting everything else to one side for a moment, but I assume that your friends don't understand basic mathematics if that is the conclusion that they drew.

But this is the problem wioth a lot of people who get charged. The whole idea of the money is distanced these days.

If it was actuallly cash coming out of their pockets, then this wouldn't happen. It's because it's just numbers on a computer - and as long as that computer doesn't "say "No"," then they've no reason to really sit up and deal with it.

mrcow

MrLeeLee wrote: »

I'm not sure the powers that be in this country would let it drag on another 2 and a half years. A certain someone will be desperate for votes soon

Trust me - he doesn't want to even go there. As far as the current Prime Minister is concerned, the longer this strings out, the better. The last thing he needs is the upset of the major banks turning around and saying they can't afford the £22 to £45 billion that it would take to pay it all back.

euronorris

mrcow wrote: »

But this is the problem wioth a lot of people who get charged. The whole idea of the money is distanced these days.

If it was actuallly cash coming out of their pockets, then this wouldn't happen. It's because it's just numbers on a computer - and as long as that computer doesn't "say "No"," then they've no reason to really sit up and deal with it.

Mmmm, yeah. But, also, we need financial education in this country.

We should be taught in schools how to budget our money and have financial products fully explained.

So many people on here seem to assume that anyone in financial difficulty either a) is reckless and doesn't care or b) they are stupid and shouldn't be allowed access to credit.

Now, there are some folk who are reckless and don't care, but certainly not all. And then there are those who struggle with budgeting and understanding financial products. However, sometimes, no matter how hard they try, they have a need for one.

If we could just improve people's education on the subject then we would remove a large proportion of the problem. It is not OK to just look down your nose and say 'you're too stupid'. Because they're not stupid, they just haven't been given the additional guidance and support they needed before being thrown out into the adult world.

The proof of this, is this site. So many people have come on here and found help, support and guidance and subsequently turned the situation around. But there are still more who need help. Some people stuggle with figures and others with words. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed credit if required. It just means they need more help in understanding it all.

mrcow

euronorris wrote: »

If we could just improve people's education on the subject then we would remove a large proportion of the problem. It is not OK to just look down your nose and say 'you're too stupid'. Because they're not stupid, they just haven't been given the additional guidance and support they needed before being thrown out into the adult world.

I don't disagree with you - but actually some people are simply not fit for many of the finanical products that are thrown at them.

The company in question will know this - often quite blatantly in fact. But will still proceed to sell it to them.

Don't be fooled. It's not just ignorance. It's also often desperation - coupled with the "I want it now" society that we've become so accustomed too.

Couple that with irresponsible lending - and you've a match made in hell.

Tom1234

do you loudly and shrilly denounce Asda for profiteering by making a 240% profit on baked beans, for instance?

No - I shop elsewhere, where there isn't so high a markup. However with the banking industry in the UK, this isn't a possiblity as they have agreed the level of charges between themselves.

As they are poorly policed (look at the amount of bailout they needed if you want something to back this statement up) they have got away with incrementally increasing these charges over the past 10 years or so until they reached the point that people started to complain - starting the process we find ourselves in the middle of now.

dzug1

Tom1234 wrote: »

No - I shop elsewhere, where there isn't so high a markup. However with the banking industry in the UK, this isn't a possiblity as they have agreed the level of charges between themselves.

.

If you can prove that it's a major scandal

If you can't it's potentially libellous

And given that banks are charging different amounts it will be difficult to prove.

NowWhat?

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that the majority of posters who think that the ruling was a good thing are recent newbies and are quite antagonistic in their posting?
I appreciate that this is a forum but the quantity of negative unhelpful posts has drastically increased in the past two weeks.


Please don’t be mislead by my lack of posts – I usually share an account with my partner and we are over the 3000 count.

mramra

NowWhat? wrote: »

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that the majority of posters who think that the ruling was a good thing are recent newbies and are quite antagonistic in their posting?
I appreciate that this is a forum but the quantity of negative unhelpful posts has drastically increased in the past two weeks.


Please don’t be mislead by my lack of posts – I usually share an account with my partner and we are over the 3000 count.

Funny, I thought quite the opposite actually. There seem to be a large number of newbies who have submitted claims. Maybe we only see what we want to...

Tom1234

dzug1 wrote: »

If you can prove that it's a major scandal

If you can't it's potentially libellous

And given that banks are charging different amounts it will be difficult to prove.

I'm sure they haven't sat down and said 'this is what we'll charge', apologies if I gave that impression. What I meant was that they have gradually ALL increased charges to the point they were all charging (roughly) the same as each other, leaving the customer with no options.

natweststaffmember

Tom1234 wrote: »

I'm sure they haven't sat down and said 'this is what we'll charge', apologies if I gave that impression. What I meant was that they have gradually ALL increased charges to the point they were all charging (roughly) the same as each other, leaving the customer with no options.

I kinda have to disagree with you since many of the bank have changed their charging structure since the beginning of the OFT test case, for example, Barclays have changed completely the way they charges, RBS Group have lowered their charges and Santander are bringing out their mortgage alongside a current account with no charges whatsoever in January. Some people will link it with the idea that the OFT test case made them change them but I think the Personal Current Account study has a part to play in the process because it was clear that there was no real competition in the market.
I think another poster mentioned about newbies coming in saying that they thought that the decision was a good decision and that they were gloating over those that were reclaiming. I would have to say that I welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court because they didn't say that the charges were fair and indeed they perhaps said the opposite ie that those incurring charges were perhaps not getting value for money. For example, when you buy a house, you are not paying for your neighbours bathroom to be fitted, so why are consumers paying individually a price to help someone else, they have never met, have the same services that they are paying for?
I don't think anyone is arguing for a free lunch but those who are in credit all the time are actually getting one because of the imbalance which the charges are making on one individual against those not being charged.