Realy do not - understand- bank charges

euronorris

ILW wrote: »

I do understand your point, but this leads to a situation where a genius computer programmer (to use your example) will be refused a bank account because he cannot demonstrate to a clerk that he fully understands the contract to the clerks satisfaction. That seems wrong to me.

Sorry, I don't mean that this should include bank accounts. Well, at least not basic bank accounts. Everyone should have a right to a basic bank account.

But credit facilities is a different issue. If the computer programmer cannot demonstrate a sufficient understanding of what he's taking on, then I don't think he should have credit. It will only cause problems for him and the bank.

If there is a genuine need for financial assistance. ie, boiler broken, needs replacing and there are not sufficient funds saved, then there are other avenues they can follow. Unfortunately, these are not well known either.

MrLeeLee

voiceofreason wrote: »

Quite.

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

Ahhh so you're one of those types who make a statement, get proven to be incorrect and back track by making out they were actually making another point.

Got it, will in future skip your posts.

mrcow

ILW wrote: »

I do understand your point, but this leads to a situation where a genius computer programmer (to use your example) will be refused a bank account because he cannot demonstrate to a clerk that he fully understands the contract to the clerks satisfaction. That seems wrong to me.

If someone can't understand what they are signing, then they shouldn't be signing it.

nickmack

voiceofreason wrote: »

Nonsense - just as in any other line of business, these charges are in line only with exactly how much the business thinks the market will bear.

One of the problems was the bank itself mislead people about what the charges were for.

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at the Govan Law Centre provides some of the history in his recent article:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2109261

In the early stages of charge reclaiming, claimants were told the charges reflected 'actual costs' including situations where 'manual intervention' was required. This was later shown to be untrue.

The banks later gave evidence saying the costs of various tasks of payment collection were added together and then 'and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges'.

In the recent test case, the banks explained that the charges were in fact 'cross-subsidies' to facilitate 'free in credit banking'.

You can see where some of the resentment here lies. On several occasions when challenged, the banks continually moved the goalposts.

Subsequently, charging structures did change. T&C's were altered to state the presentation of a transaction that exceeds an agreed limit was in effect an 'informal overdraft request' which attracts a fee. In this new scenario, a customer can't ever 'steal' the banks money, because the bank treat such conduct as a valid request as in the T&C's.

You accept this reasoning across the rest of your day-to-day life - do you loudly and shrilly denounce Asda for profiteering by making a 240% profit on baked beans, for instance? - so what's the difference here?

The difference is you get a tin of beans for your money. If you get a transaction rejected and get charged, what exactly have you got from this?

My opinion is that if you have an account that allows additional borrowing, if a transaction is denied, no charge should be made. If a transaction that would cause you to exceed a previously agreed limit is honored, then you should be charged a small proportional fee in addition to any extra interest.

Out of interest, how much would you deem to be "fair"?

The various studies that took place mostly settled around the £2.50 figure for the actual cost. I would say this isn't far off the mark of what should be considered 'fair'.

ILW

mrcow wrote: »

If someone can't understand what they are signing, then they shouldn't be signing it.

I agree, the problem is WHO gets to decide whether an individual is capable of understanding? Bank clerk, Big brother, You, Me, etc

voiceofreason

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Ahhh so you're one of those types who make a statement, get proven to be incorrect and back track by making out they were actually making another point.

Got it, will in future skip your posts.

Can you not skip signing into MSE altogether?

voiceofreason

nickmack wrote: »

[/I]

One of the problems was the bank itself mislead people about what the charges were for.

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at the Govan Law Centre provides some of the history in his recent article:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2109261

In the early stages of charge reclaiming, claimants were told the charges reflected 'actual costs' including situations where 'manual intervention' was required. This was later shown to be untrue.

The banks later gave evidence saying the costs of various tasks of payment collection were added together and then 'and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges'.

In the recent test case, the banks explained that the charges were in fact 'cross-subsidies' to facilitate 'free in credit banking'.

You can see where some of the resentment here lies. On several occasions when challenged, the banks continually moved the goalposts.

Subsequently, charging structures did change. T&C's were altered to state the presentation of a transaction that exceeds an agreed limit was in effect an 'informal overdraft request' which attracts a fee. In this new scenario, a customer can't ever 'steal' the banks money, because the bank treat such conduct as a valid request as in the T&C's.



The difference is you get a tin of beans for your money. If you get a transaction rejected and get charged, what exactly have you got from this?

My opinion is that if you have an account that allows additional borrowing, if a transaction is denied, no charge should be made. If a transaction that would cause you to exceed a previously agreed limit is honored, then you should be charged a small proportional fee in addition to any extra interest.



The various studies that took place mostly settled around the £2.50 figure for the actual cost. I would say this isn't far off the mark of what should be considered 'fair'.

Thanks for the sensible, reasoned post Nickmack - appreciate you taking the time, it's shed some light on the issue for me

euronorris

ILW wrote: »

I agree, the problem is WHO gets to decide whether an individual is capable of understanding? Bank clerk, Big brother, You, Me, etc

I see your point. But something has clearly got to change.

If it doesn't change then we will be bailing out the banks again in a few years time. And more and more people will be in an unmanageable debt position.

Perhaps setting clear guidelines and questions would help? Or even a standard questionnaire that needs to be completed by the applicant with questions about the product?

I don't know, but it is definitely something that should be considered and researched before being dismissed. After all, the bank's are currently deciding who's eligible at the moment and doing a very bad job of it.

euronorris

The criteria for lending currently is also not transparent and varies from lender to lender.

Would it not be a good idea for this to be uniformed at least? And then, if you are deemed higher risk, you pay a higher interest rate.

At the moment, it's a bit hit and miss. You could be declined by one provider but then accepted by another for exactly the same rate!

justjohn

STILL none the wiser. could someone do a quick accurate rundownd