Realy do not - understand- bank charges

ILW

euronorris wrote: »

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.

How about this for an idea?

Accounts are made generally available to the majority of people.
The terms of using the account are made clear.
If the terms of the account are broken then a hefty charge is made.
This would educate people to keep an eye on their finances.
Oh B*gger...........................

zenmaster

The biggest and most unfair issue I have with bank charges, and I have not seen this addressed elsewhere, is that the barstewards can help themselves to your money whenever they want.

The builder, the mortgage advisor and Uncle Tom Cobley and all will send a bill. You might dispute this bill if necessary but in all probability will pay it, but at a time (within reason) that is convenient and practical to you i.e. when you've got the money. No such luxury with the banks.

To use mrcow's example, assuming the account balance is £0.

1. DD for £20 comes in. Can't pay it as insufficent funds and would overdraw.
2. Bank immediately charges £25. The above rule does not apply and the account is overdrawn £25. The bank note this with some smug satisfaction as later on they are going to charge £30 for this trangression, which is of their own making.
3. Money comes in to pay the bill. If the amount paid in exceeds £45 the the represented DD will be paid, if less than £45 then go back to step 1.
4. Bank takes £30 unauthorised overdraft fee.

If the amount paid in is sufficient to cover bill plus fees you are back on track but watch out next month as you are £55 down and the cycle is likely to begin again. If it is insufficient then tough luck, you are overdrawn again and are likely to get another £30 charge and have other DDs bounced.

If however the bank notified you that they were going to charge you the £25 then, provided you made provision for this by the due date, that would be the end of it and, annoying as it may be, you could write it down to experience. As it is the charges are compounded and can easily run into hundreds of pounds in a short space of time.

ILW

zenmaster wrote: »

The biggest and most unfair issue I have with bank charges, and I have not seen this addressed elsewhere, is that the barstewards can help themselves to your money whenever they want.

The builder, the mortgage advisor and Uncle Tom Cobley and all will send a bill. You might dispute this bill if necessary but in all probability will pay it, but at a time (within reason) that is convenient and practical to you i.e. when you've got the money. No such luxury with the banks.

To use mrcow's example, assuming the account balance is £0.

1. DD for £20 comes in. Can't pay it as insufficent funds and would overdraw.
2. Bank immediately charges £25. The above rule does not apply and the account is overdrawn £25. The bank note this with some smug satisfaction as later on they are going to charge £30 for this trangression, which is of their own making.
3. Money comes in to pay the bill. If the amount paid in exceeds £45 the the represented DD will be paid, if less than £45 then go back to step 1.
4. Bank takes £30 unauthorised overdraft fee.

If the amount paid in is sufficient to cover bill plus fees you are back on track but watch out next month as you are £55 down and the cycle is likely to begin again. If it is insufficient then tough luck, you are overdrawn again and are likely to get another £30 charge and have other DDs bounced.

If however the bank notified you that they were going to charge you the £25 then, provided you made provision for this by the due date, that would be the end of it and, annoying as it may be, you could write it down to experience. As it is the charges are compounded and can easily run into hundreds of pounds in a short space of time.

By setting up the mandate to make the payment, and then not having the funds in the account, this is a problem of the account holders making, not the banks.

justjohn

zenmaster wrote: »

The biggest and most unfair issue I have with bank charges, and I have not seen this addressed elsewhere, is that the barstewards can help themselves to your money whenever they want.

The builder, the mortgage advisor and Uncle Tom Cobley and all will send a bill. You might dispute this bill if necessary but in all probability will pay it, but at a time (within reason) that is convenient and practical to you i.e. when you've got the money. No such luxury with the banks.

To use mrcow's example, assuming the account balance is £0.

1. DD for £20 comes in. Can't pay it as insufficent funds and would overdraw.
2. Bank immediately charges £25. The above rule does not apply and the account is overdrawn £25. The bank note this with some smug satisfaction as later on they are going to charge £30 for this trangression, which is of their own making.
3. Money comes in to pay the bill. If the amount paid in exceeds £45 the the represented DD will be paid, if less than £45 then go back to step 1.
4. Bank takes £30 unauthorised overdraft fee.

If the amount paid in is sufficient to cover bill plus fees you are back on track but watch out next month as you are £55 down and the cycle is likely to begin again. If it is insufficient then tough luck, you are overdrawn again and are likely to get another £30 charge and have other DDs bounced.

If however the bank notified you that they were going to charge you the £25 then, provided you made provision for this by the due date, that would be the end of it and, annoying as it may be, you could write it down to experience. As it is the charges are compounded and can easily run into hundreds of pounds in a short space of time.

I can go with that and agree..no probs. And they do kinda do that anyway just they take the cash same time as the letter goes out or just before.

But thats not what all this is about..

mrcow

ILW wrote: »

By setting up the mandate to make the payment, and then not having the funds in the account, this is a problem of the account holders making, not the banks.

Then why not just refuse the transaction?

Why force the account into an unauthorised overdraft? And then have to impose a charge?

After all, if someone is trying to pay for something whne they don't have the funds, then they shouldn't be trying to pay for it in the first place.

What's wriong with temporarily shutting down the account until funds are made available and cleared and then let the account operational again? Why the need to charge £35 three times in three days when it was pretty obvious on day one that there were no funds?


Answer: because it's an income generator. No more, no less.

euronorris

ILW wrote: »

How about this for an idea?

Accounts are made generally available to the majority of people.
The terms of using the account are made clear.
If the terms of the account are broken then a hefty charge is made.
This would educate people to keep an eye on their finances.
Oh B*gger...........................

Oh yes, cos that's worked so well so far.

Something needs to be done to resolve the massive debt problem the UK has. Or would you prefer it to go on until the country is bankrupted??

ILW

euronorris wrote: »

Oh yes, cos that's worked so well so far.

Something needs to be done to resolve the massive debt problem the UK has. Or would you prefer it to go on until the country is bankrupted??

Think you may have missed the intended irony.