Realy do not - understand- bank charges

voiceofreason

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Absolutely, 100% incorrect actually.

The law hasn't stated they are fair, or even unfair. The judgement simply meant that the OFT aren't allowed to examine if they are fair or unfair on the route they took. The lords stated that going via another route, they may well actually be proven to be unfair.

Quite.

So hush it with the "it's unfair" patter, please.

voiceofreason

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.

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.

Wow! Do you have evidence that they're operating a cartel here? If I were you, I'd take it to the police or something.

euronorris

mrcow wrote: »

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.

You make a very good point.

I had credit thrown at me as soon as I turned 18. I've even had cards, that I didn't apply for, sent to me in the post! And hey, I was 18, of course I took them. Am older and wiser now and paying them back. Had I understood them fully, I would've treated them with more respect and made them work for me.

And yes, they'll lend to anyone. Including those who are mentally impaired and clearly incapable of even understanding what they've agreed to, let alone have the ability to pay it back.

I've heard of banks lending to people with dementia for crying out loud! Why would they expect that money to be repaid? They never should've lent it in the first place!

euronorris

voiceofreason wrote: »

Quite.

So hush it with the "it's unfair" patter, please.

No, that's my opinion and lots of others.

We are entitled to voice our opinion, as are you.

ILW

euronorris wrote: »

You make a very good point.

I had credit thrown at me as soon as I turned 18. I've even had cards, that I didn't apply for, sent to me in the post! And hey, I was 18, of course I took them. Am older and wiser now and paying them back. Had I understood them fully, I would've treated them with more respect and made them work for me.

And yes, they'll lend to anyone. Including those who are mentally impaired and clearly incapable of even understanding what they've agreed to, let alone have the ability to pay it back.

I've heard of banks lending to people with dementia for crying out loud! Why would they expect that money to be repaid? They never should've lent it in the first place!

Are you saying that everyone that borrowed money they could not pay back is mentally impaired?

voiceofreason

euronorris wrote: »

No, that's my opinion and lots of others.

We are entitled to voice our opinion, as are you.

Quite so, quite so.

No legal backing, though.

euronorris

ILW wrote: »

Are you saying that everyone that borrowed money they could not pay back is mentally impaired?

No of course not. I said 'they'll lend to anyone, including those who are mentally impaired'.

I did not, and would never, say that everyone who cannot pay back is mentally impaired.

However, the vast majority of people who are struggling to pay or now find they can't, were not adequately educated about finances and financial products. And, currently, the banks do not care about this one, very important point, when they offer their financial products.

That said, the onus should not entirely be on the banks to check this. We need to have better education in general also. Education, together with banks doing proper checks into the eligibility of a potential customer would remove a great deal of problems.

euronorris

voiceofreason wrote: »

Quite so, quite so.

No legal backing, though.

Well, that's debateable.

But, have been over this already, so am not going to re-iterate my points again. If you really want to know, you can read previous posts.

I'm hungry, where's that banana from lunch? Ah, yes. There it is....

Rafter

It is the 80:20 'pareto' rule.

20% of the customers provide 80% of the profit.

Why have we got into this mess? Because the 20% of the customers who have paid all these charges either don't care or don't have the ability, knowledge or spare income to switch accounts or avoid the charges in the first place. Also fees and charges aren't generally what people think about when comparing accounts - they look at interest rates.

Regulation has also been 'light touch' focusing on making it easier for people to switch accounts but not regulating the price.

I think the government now need to have a rethink and think of banking services as a utility like gas or electricity. We need bank accounts to be paid, to pay our taxes, to pay bills, to do basic tasks - they are a key part of life in the 21st century.

The banks have made it totally clear that they are incapable of providing an efficient service with fair pricing for all customers without cross subsidy - so that means that price needs to be regulated.

So penalty charges need to be less than £5 per time and a maximum of £25 a month.

Customers who regularly incurr them need to either have a basic account imposed upon them or be pulled into a debt counselling session.

When the Bank of England base rate is at 'normal' levels of 4-6%, the banks will be able to provide free banking services because they will earn enough on balances to balance the books.

The problem is right now when rates are so low that isn't possible so their might have to be monthly account charges. However if overdraft rates remain high (which they have) this should also act as an income stream.

And lets face it, the only reason interest rates are so low is because the banks went on a lending binge and this is the hangover cure!!! So maybe a bit of short term pain on pricing (rather than paying out billions in refunds) achieves the same goal of putting money back into society and getting punished for past greed.

R.

ILW

euronorris wrote: »

That said, the onus should not entirely be on the banks to check this. We need to have better education in general also. Education, together with banks doing proper checks into the eligibility of a potential customer would remove a great deal of problems.

So only people who can prove they had an above average education should be allowed to have bank accounts?