Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Cleany

I wonder if it's the best thing for everyone that the claim to make bank charges "unfair" has failed.

I think Martin Lewis is great, and so is this website. I have put loads of my friends onto it and they get the email, use vouchers, look up stuff and the rest. I say this just so that people don't think I am having a go for the sake of it.

I like the fact that people are charged money for having an unauthorised overdraft. I know that sometimes circumstances can end up with it being unfair, but in general if people don't act responsibly with somebody elses money then don't they deserve to be charged?

There is the argument that bank charges "subsidise" banking costs for people, but on the other hand those people with money in the bank are making a profit for the banking system too (as well as a bit for themselves).

I know someone who has been through all of this process to recaim bank charges a couple of years ago. Whatever fair and unfair situations went on, I know that this person is irresponsible with money. I don't know if he was successful, but he was happy that he could "get some more money".

In the long run, and in general (there are of course many unfair situations), shouldn't irresponsibility with other people's money be punished, rather than ignored, especially in the light of recent economic history?

Premier_2

chipbeck wrote: »

Put many of your friends onto the site very good, never bothered posting before though. Probably a good thing with the dross you've posted above. We already have our full compliment of trolls so you might as well go somewhere else.

Welcome to MSE.

How rude! :mad:

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. ... and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

chipbeck

Premier wrote: »

How rude! :mad:

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. ... and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

Yeah a bit over the top sorry OP. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Cleany

Sorry but I'm not a troll.

I'm genuinly wondering if there's another side to this argument, or if there's anyone who, like me, love this website, but don't agree that bank charges are, in general, unfair.

I have been reading the articles on the website about it. Yes there are many instances where people have been charged unfairly, but there are also many millions of people who are irresponsible with money, and been charged because of that.

What the eradication of "unfair" bank charges would ultimately mean is that it would be easier to be irresponsible with other people's money. What are the implications of saying that it's effectively easier to go into debt, that it will cost you less? Isn't that the problem with the economy at the moment?

Cleany

chipbeck wrote: »

Yeah a bit over the top sorry OP. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

No problem. I know what forums can be like

chipbeck

Cleany wrote: »

Sorry but I'm not a troll.

I'm genuinly wondering if there's another side to this argument, or if there's anyone who, like me, love this website, but don't agree that bank charges are, in general, unfair.

I have been reading the articles on the website about it. Yes there are many instances where people have been charged unfairly, but there are also many millions of people who are irresponsible with money, and been charged because of that.

What the eradication of "unfair" bank charges would ultimately mean is that it would be easier to be irresponsible with other people's money. What are the implications of saying that it's effectively easier to go into debt, that it will cost you less? Isn't that the problem with the economy at the moment?

Can't get my head round this point. In my case I didn't get anybody elses money. I was over my limit and Lloyds didn't pay my dd's. They then charged me £1200 for the month for doing this.

Cleany

chipbeck wrote: »

Can't get my head round this point. In my case I didn't get anybody elses money. I was over my limit and Lloyds didn't pay my dd's. They then charged me £1200 for the month for doing this.

Sorry to hear that. That sounds like an unfair satuation, I hope you got your money back. I've heard about banks charging for not paying Direct Debits, but I don't know much about it, and I didn't see anything mentioned about it on the main articles about bank charges on this website.

Couldn't it be that for every unfair situation, there's more than a few fair ones, where poeple simply can't be bothered to pay attention to their bank balance?

chipbeck

I have no problem with paying overdraft charges, I should do as I've in effect borrowed the money from the bank. My problem is with the fines (that's how I see them) when they can't pay a DD or SO. £35 plus a daily charge is unbelievable, hence the £1200 charge in a month.

The bank will then take these charges as soon as your wages are paid. You are then left in a situation where, with luck you may be able to keep the charges to a minimum but in my case it can take you an age to get back on track. I simply cannot afford to lose £1200 in one go.

euronorris

Cleany wrote: »

Sorry to hear that. That sounds like an unfair satuation, I hope you got your money back. I've heard about banks charging for not paying Direct Debits, but I don't know much about it, and I didn't see anything mentioned about it on the main articles about bank charges on this website.

Couldn't it be that for every unfair situation, there's more than a few fair ones, where poeple simply can't be bothered to pay attention to their bank balance?

Unfortunately, whilst we all agree that a charge should be imposed, it is the amount of the charge we disagree with.

If someone has a DD rejected because let's say there is only 10GBP left in the account, and the DD was for 20 GBP. Fair enough. But to then be charged 28-35 GBP for not paying the DD will then pushe them into an unauthorised overdraft and they are then hit with another charge. Whilst some can afford to pay this off with their next monthly pay, other's simply cannot afford to and so, they incur further charges and so on and so on.

Unfortunately, requests to the bank for a sensible repayment structure are refused. So, the spiral continues. If you are lucky enough to be approached by the bank to find a solution, they usually offer an extended authorised overdraft, but then reject said person on 'affordability' grounds. The other solution offered is a loan, on a high interest rate, with repayments that the person cannot afford.

It's like all common sense is thrown out of the window!

I understand that there are a fair few people who really need to improve their budgeting skills etc, however, the system is set up in such a way that one time offenders can become stuck in an ever increasing spiral of debt.

Had the charges been smaller, or if the banks agreed to more sensible repayment terms, then this could be avoided. But they don't, because they don't have to. And that's a big problem.

Most other companies, that I can think of, will agree repayment terms with you very easily and sensibly (if you fell behind on gas or electric for example).

Also, I would like to point out here, as I have in other places, that the banks here do not charge fees for going overdrawn or rejecting a DD. You are charged interest on the amount you are overdrawn by for the length of time you overdrawn. Although, it is very hard to go overdrawn here as, if you don't have the funds, they simply don't pay. And, as they don't charge a fee for rejecting a DD, this doesn't send you into an unauthorised overdraft either. Everyone pays a fee for their banking services and, at my bank, it is €8.95 per quarter. Not separate fees for every transaction as some people seem to think would be necessary.

I would also like to point out that the average household debt here is considerably lower than the UK.

I think we could learn some lessons from the Dutch.

Chrysalis

Cleany wrote: »

I wonder if it's the best thing for everyone that the claim to make bank charges "unfair" has failed.

I think Martin Lewis is great, and so is this website. I have put loads of my friends onto it and they get the email, use vouchers, look up stuff and the rest. I say this just so that people don't think I am having a go for the sake of it.

I like the fact that people are charged money for having an unauthorised overdraft. I know that sometimes circumstances can end up with it being unfair, but in general if people don't act responsibly with somebody elses money then don't they deserve to be charged?

There is the argument that bank charges "subsidise" banking costs for people, but on the other hand those people with money in the bank are making a profit for the banking system too (as well as a bit for themselves).

I know someone who has been through all of this process to recaim bank charges a couple of years ago. Whatever fair and unfair situations went on, I know that this person is irresponsible with money. I don't know if he was successful, but he was happy that he could "get some more money".

In the long run, and in general (there are of course many unfair situations), shouldn't irresponsibility with other people's money be punished, rather than ignored, especially in the light of recent economic history?

do you not see a problem with the fact if you get declined money on an ATM there is no charge.
if you get declined using a debit card there is no charge.
yet if declined direct debit then this monstrous charge kicks in.

see the lack of consistency?

Cleany

euronorris wrote: »

the system is set up in such a way that one time offenders can become stuck in an ever increasing spiral of debt.

Perhaps that's what it should be about.

euronorris wrote: »

I understand that there are a fair few people who really need to improve their budgeting skills etc,

But it's been about this and perhaps that's why it's failed.

I think that people should be encouraged to be responsible and sensible with their money, but in my opinion this campaign goes too far and therefore encourages many people who know very well that they should pay more attention to their short and long term finances to make it somebody elses problem, responsibilty, and cost.