Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Cleany

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Most people have used any money that they received, not on the latest widescreen television or holiday overseas but on other bills that needed paying or on repaying the bank for any debt that was oustanding.

because they were in debt for some reason? presumably someone elses fault?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I do kinda agree with what you are saying with regards to how will a refund simply prevent charges in the future. If the charges themselves were fair then perhaps we would all be on the budgetting and current account forum advising how to deal with creditors.

lol !

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The shopkeeper though can say it will cost you £200 before you pay rather than saying it will be £200 because I considered how much it was. There is a slight difference.

?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The success of the bank charges campaign is the fair treatment of its customers and the fair charging system where it is required. If someone runs out of money then simply refuse all transactions no matter how embarrassing it is to the customer. Yes they would be enraged in a supermarket but they would understand why it happened.

i thought that was the good scenario?! i thought the problem was people running out of money and then still being allowed to spend?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I am not sure you can blame banks or customers but it's a bit of both. Credit became easy and people were thrown into it without the pitfalls being clear to them. By the time they got there they were in deep trouble. Some people were lead to believe that overdrawing on their account was impossible and some people knew that they were close and still spent in unnecessary things. The success of the campaign would correct something that was unfair ie collective redress but at the same time leave in its place a fair system of banking and perhaps TRUST in the bank which has gone in the large part. Furthermore, we can look at the way someone deals with their account and the way that the charges spiral so that we can get people, if charged, to avoid the spiral into debt.

people are fully responsible for using credit and getting into debt.

i trust the bank to do the following:

• keep my money
• provide access to certain services
• try to get me to take on loans and credit cards
• charge me if i break certain terms and conditions

is there anything wrong with these expectations?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Don't understand this beat, sorry

the point here is that the british dairy industry is slowly being destroyed by the supermarkets, but who cares about that eh? nobody because is doesnt cost them any money. it's greed thats driving both sides of the bank charges argument and all this campaign is trying to do is beat banks at their own game.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I am crap with money is a natural human reaction ie within the sentence is blame to oneself. Some people genuinely do not understand how they were charged, why they were charged or when the charges were going out, so they spent money and then were charged perhaps a month later. The bottom line is shoulda, coulda, and didn't because of a lack of real understanding of why it happened and how the charges were to be taken.

some people have been hard done by, some people will learn from their mistakes, some wont, some dont care. but the fact is that most will run into debt no matter what. do you know what the total debt of this countries population is? i cant remember off hand but its unbelievable.

debt costs money - get over it and stop trying to get out of it!

Smasher wrote: »

There is also the added problem of retailers not banking cheques or processing debit card payments for a while. For example, I look at my balance and it says I got £100, so I buy my shopping. Then the petrol I paid with my debit card last week gets taken from my account the following day and the account goes overdrawn.

Someone is surely now going to tell me that a budgeting spreadsheet will fix that, but seriously, very few people are going to be able to even remember to input everything they ever pay for and check the status on their spreadsheet before they make any kind of purchase.
Banks would know that even if everyone were to do this, there is still a huge probablility that a heck of a lot of people would slip up from time to time. We sometimes make mistakes, it is a fundamental design flaw of humans. Even the most financially astute make them, I needn't expand on that..

around 10 years ago i was living hand to mouth, drinking instant tea and waking up cold. i had a diary with a notes section where i put every transaction so i knew how much money i had. i had no choice to do this because i needed to know how much cash i had.

many people take a proactive approach to their finances, and there are many more people that take a more relaxed approach (but still do more than most) while they are able, but would still adopt the approach you see as fantasy above if necessary.

your insistance that its impossible to do what i have done and so have many others have too further convinces me that it's simply laziness on the part of many people who just cant be arsed to sort it out.

try this simple exercise:

1. find out your income per month
2. keep tabs on your spending and dont let it exceed your income.

if thats too hard you dont deserve your own money.

Premier_2

Smasher wrote: »

There is also the added problem of retailers not banking cheques or processing debit card payments for a while. For example, I look at my balance and it says I got £100, so I buy my shopping. Then the petrol I paid with my debit card last week gets taken from my account the following day and the account goes overdrawn.

Someone is surely now going to tell me that a budgeting spreadsheet will fix that, but seriously, very few people are going to be able to even remember to input everything they ever pay for and check the status on their spreadsheet before they make any kind of purchase.
Banks would know that even if everyone were to do this, there is still a huge probablility that a heck of a lot of people would slip up from time to time. We sometimes make mistakes, it is a fundamental design flaw of humans. Even the most financially astute make them, I needn't expand on that..

In the old days, if the money is in your pocket, you can have it. If not, then you can't.

Whilst any delay in a Payee submitting a cheque to a bank for payment has always been an issue, banks now work to an agreed timescale once they are in receipt of the cheque (2-4-6). Previously banks took as long as they wanted to actually process a cheque transaction.
Furthermore, to be fair, ythe acceptance of cheques by many retailers has recently been withdrawn.

With regards debit cards, when these were originally introduced (mid 1980's), the old fashioned manual swipe machines were still very common.
Therefore a delay was quite easy to have occured between payment and the retailer submitting transaction receipts for payment. Nowadays, with online chip & pin technology, the transaction times have generally reduced, often taking place the same day as the transaction was authorised by the payer.

Yes, as humans, we all make the odd mistake from time to time, and banks are generally very good at waiving the odd charge now and again as a goodwill gesture if asked in such circumstance.

But I put it to you, those people who have bank charges amounting to many thousands of pounds have not made the odd mistake now and again

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

because they were in debt for some reason? presumably someone elses fault?
Have you ever lost your job? Had the death of a partner? Had mental health problems? I have on the first question but not the other two. The debt I talk is a culmination of bank charges and charges then added to other bills that were unpaid. The fault is not enough income, the penalty(for want of a better word) is debt and more debt.


lol !



?

A charge is for consideration as to whether to pay or not pay or to grant an extension of an overdraft. The shopkeeper doesn't charge to think about whether he will sell it to you or not sell it to you which is where the bank and the shopkeeper differ.

i thought that was the good scenario?! i thought the problem was people running out of money and then still being allowed to spend?

If banks were more responsible than their customers then they would prevent it from occurring in 100% of cases rather than it not being the case today,

people are fully responsible for using credit and getting into debt.

i trust the bank to do the following:

• keep my money
• provide access to certain services
• try to get me to take on loans and credit cards
• charge me if i break certain terms and conditions

is there anything wrong with these expectations?

There is nothing wrong with your expectations but not everyone has the same expectations. We did expect all the time for the bank to be trustful in the advice they gave and not driven by sales and bonuses(yes even at the branch level). Some people were easily persuaded.

the point here is that the british dairy industry is slowly being destroyed by the supermarkets, but who cares about that eh? nobody because is doesnt cost them any money. it's greed thats driving both sides of the bank charges argument and all this campaign is trying to do is beat banks at their own game.
I wasn't aware that the British Dairy industry was being destroyed since there is a readily accessable supply of milk. I have never been driven by greed to help people. I've never incurred bank charges and I have never charged anyone for advice. Can you explain to me personally how greed drives me to help people?



some people have been hard done by, some people will learn from their mistakes, some wont, some dont care. but the fact is that most will run into debt no matter what. do you know what the total debt of this countries population is? i cant remember off hand but its unbelievable.
I know how much I owe and I am a debtor(credit cards/loan and overdraft for me).
debt costs money - get over it and stop trying to get out of it!
Are you aiming the comment at me or at others reading the thread?

See above. I'll let smasher deal with his own part of the post.

Smasher

There's nothing to deal with..

esmerellda

Premier -- > But I put it to you, those people who have bank charges amounting to many thousands of pounds have not made the odd mistake now and again


i agree, but some of these people, and people who have posted the last few days even, made a tiny error, one this morning went £3.99 over and incurred charges of £85 - they managed after appealing to the bank to get a £35 reduction so only has to pay £50 - Imagine that person is on Jobseekers, or IS, or very low pay, how easy is it for someone with a low income like that to find an extra £50 ? So it just builds up because they HAVE to pay rent, eat and keep vaguely warm. Next time they get a payment in, £50 is gone already, when u are living minimally and hand to mouth, you can't get back up again, and you get more charges, more interest and so on and so forth. Its bloody hard and bloody unfair and the government continually push people into having bank accounts.

Anyway keeping out this conversation that just bugged me because its putting everyone in the same basket and they just aren't.

gpaul49

chipbeck wrote: »

OK Cleany end of correspondence. You tell me to stop moaning and I'll tell you to stop Pontificating.

You must lead some boring life, good luck and I hope nothing ever goes wrong in your world.

We should all write a one paragraph letter to our labour MPs in plain words about how we feel and what we think of their government and their policies and they may not rely on our vote in the forthcoming election. Send it recorded delivery so that the morons will have to sign for each indictment of their failure! That might get the message home!

Time to turn the tables I think!

davidgmmafan

To the OP no you are not alone there are many people here and elsewhere (in particular thisismoney) who are totally against reclaiming of any charges. One of them sees nothing wrong in princple with a bank charge of £1million.

This is one problem with the status quo brigade, one charge and bamm most people are bankrupt. I know its an extreme but the difference is only one of degree once the general principle is accepted.

Most people, as evidenced from the back and forth here are not so blinkered. I cannot really say there should be no refunds, or they should all be refunded as every case is different. Truth be told is someone incur lots of charges and can afford to cover them I wouldn't see some great injustice.

I am most concerned about the debt spiral which could be averted easily by the banks by for example returning any and all payments which there are not funds to cover OR invoicing seperately for the charges.

With regards to people who say banks should not be expected to help that's a sensible position. Except that's not what they themselves say. They waffle on about the banking code and promise to respond positively and sympathetically to cases of hardship.

I do not believe they do that. As others say other utility providers do seem to exercise some discretion with regards to customer in difficulty. As far as I can tell banks do not. In fact it always irks me slightly to see presenters on TV in thier shiny suits telling people to appraoch thier bank at the first sign of trouble. I bet they've never done so as they couldn't say it with a straight face.

My brother did this with Nawtest (mortgage) and was told we can't do anything until you are three months in arrears then they offered to switch the product to interest only (at a cost of £120) this would save an amzing £20/month (so six months to break even). Oh and there would be another similar fee to put it back to repayment. Way to go guys.

I am interested in the issue of T & C's again irks me, EXACTLY the same thing occurs as occurred before but now the wording is all different. Doesn't that mean the previous T & C's were a lie or somehow invalid?

I'd say in most cases a compromize would be the best approach. I think the charges were refunded in such number because people felt they had been screwed over the banks and wanted revenge. Now that's not right, its too much to one extreme, but the banks DO NOT do what they say, which is why I don't hold out much hope for the voluntary code mentioned by the OFT. I mean sersiously how many people has the banking code helped???

I do feel the banks have an obligation to intervene and indeed in the past they would have done. They are charging higher fees for less work and I can only assume by thier lack of a committment to finding workable solutions they make a lot of money from selling debt on.

If they do not then I simply cannot understand why they keep hammering people with charges they know they cannot afford to repay.

Premier_2

esmerellda wrote: »

Premier -- > But I put it to you, those people who have bank charges amounting to many thousands of pounds have not made the odd mistake now and again


i agree, but some of these people, and people who have posted the last few days even, made a tiny error, one this morning went £3.99 over and incurred charges of £85 - they managed after appealing to the bank to get a £35 reduction so only has to pay £50 - ....

You mean this thread?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2197989
Yes I added my comments about that to that thread at the time.

However, I must say half of that £50 charge appears to be as a result of the poster not having done anything to correct the situation promptly, so had to suffer a following month's charge.

I must say that when I've had reason to challenge one off bank charges in the past, they have been waived without issue, but now that the banks are like the cat that got the cream having won a massive victory in court, the goodwill gestures do seem more difficult to secure. (Refer to that other thread for a better understanding of why this may be)
It's often better to negotiate solutions out of court - but there will always be someone along to spoil a good thing by taking the mickey.

Cleany

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Have you ever lost your job? Had the death of a partner? Had mental health problems? I have on the first question but not the other two. The debt I talk is a culmination of bank charges and charges then added to other bills that were unpaid. The fault is not enough income, the penalty(for want of a better word) is debt and more debt.

yes, no, i hope not.

have you ever grown up in a situation where your parents gave you lots of pocket money and you were used to spending and having things, then you got a job, moved out, and kept spending, got a credit card, a new car, more debt, meanwhile not paying any attention to your bank account because, well why would you, been charged a few times and thought "oh well", found out you can get some of it back, gone on here, claimed, spent it, then left.

i know several people who have been the victim of bank charges, and none of your scenarios happened to them. they just arent careful, and ive asked them about it and they said oh its my fault.

in my experience the majority of cases are not as you describe - its simply a bit of laziness and people arent really bothered until one day someone says they can have it back.

it is my opinion that it is the fault of the campaign to lump those people in with the ones you describe above. it has runied it for those who deserve the help.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

If banks were more responsible than their customers then they would prevent it from occurring in 100% of cases rather than it not being the case today,

i think you will find the banks very responsible at taking care of their business!

natweststaffmember wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with your expectations but not everyone has the same expectations. We did expect all the time for the bank to be trustful in the advice they gave and not driven by sales and bonuses(yes even at the branch level). Some people were easily persuaded.

lets hope that people's apparent naivety will be dispelled thanks to this episode. mind you, most people believe what they want to, and its easy to believe that the banks going to help you out if you then dont have to worry about your money as much.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the British Dairy industry was being destroyed since there is a readily accessable supply of milk. I have never been driven by greed to help people. I've never incurred bank charges and I have never charged anyone for advice. Can you explain to me personally how greed drives me to help people?

nothing personal, im generalising. this campaign for "justice", while im sure quite honerable as far as martin is concerned (i think hes great), has been jumped on by people for the simple reason that they can get some money. thats not helpful or justice, its simple greed.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Are you aiming the comment at me or at others reading the thread?

never aiming at you :-)

but debt does cost money! it also makes money too! and not just for the banks (even though they are quite within their rights to, and should!)

esmerellda wrote: »

Anyway keeping out this conversation that just bugged me because its putting everyone in the same basket and they just aren't.

thats the problem!

davidgmmafan wrote: »

To the OP no you are not alone there are many people here and elsewhere (in particular thisismoney) who are totally against reclaiming of any charges. One of them sees nothing wrong in princple with a bank charge of £1million.

This is one problem with the status quo brigade, one charge and bamm most people are bankrupt. I know its an extreme but the difference is only one of degree once the general principle is accepted.

Most people, as evidenced from the back and forth here are not so blinkered. I cannot really say there should be no refunds, or they should all be refunded as every case is different. Truth be told is someone incur lots of charges and can afford to cover them I wouldn't see some great injustice.

I am most concerned about the debt spiral which could be averted easily by the banks by for example returning any and all payments which there are not funds to cover OR invoicing seperately for the charges.

With regards to people who say banks should not be expected to help that's a sensible position. Except that's not what they themselves say. They waffle on about the banking code and promise to respond positively and sympathetically to cases of hardship.

I do not believe they do that. As others say other utility providers do seem to exercise some discretion with regards to customer in difficulty. As far as I can tell banks do not. In fact it always irks me slightly to see presenters on TV in thier shiny suits telling people to appraoch thier bank at the first sign of trouble. I bet they've never done so as they couldn't say it with a straight face.

My brother did this with Nawtest (mortgage) and was told we can't do anything until you are three months in arrears then they offered to switch the product to interest only (at a cost of £120) this would save an amzing £20/month (so six months to break even). Oh and there would be another similar fee to put it back to repayment. Way to go guys.

I am interested in the issue of T & C's again irks me, EXACTLY the same thing occurs as occurred before but now the wording is all different. Doesn't that mean the previous T & C's were a lie or somehow invalid?

I'd say in most cases a compromize would be the best approach. I think the charges were refunded in such number because people felt they had been screwed over the banks and wanted revenge. Now that's not right, its too much to one extreme, but the banks DO NOT do what they say, which is why I don't hold out much hope for the voluntary code mentioned by the OFT. I mean sersiously how many people has the banking code helped???

I do feel the banks have an obligation to intervene and indeed in the past they would have done. They are charging higher fees for less work and I can only assume by thier lack of a committment to finding workable solutions they make a lot of money from selling debt on.

If they do not then I simply cannot understand why they keep hammering people with charges they know they cannot afford to repay.

if im summing up right, youre sort of talking about moving the goal posts, making the penalty less harsh, making it easier to recover. an honourable suggestion, but i disagree for the following reasons:

1. its sets a pretty sad (and illegal) precedent for the customers to determine the price of a product.
2. in general, i believe that people will spend their charges until they cant actually afford to, they will get charged the same but just misbehave more
3. it should be up to the banks to set their penalties (sort of the same as point 1 i suppose)

in summary, in terms of helping people it wont make much of a difference, if at all, it will encourage people to get into debt more, and rather than being a "victory for consumers" it will be a victory for laziness and irresponsibility in general.

Premier wrote: »

It's often better to negotiate solutions out of court - but there will always be someone along to spoil a good thing by taking the mickey.

exactamundo!

ill say it again to be clear, after having read quite a few posts in this thread it seems that the campaign has got mixed up between actually helping people, and encouraging greed. some people really need the help and are in bad situations, but most simply want more money. and you wont hear from them on here cos they dont care about the issues. theyve downloaded the forms, got some money, and got on with their selfish lives, and in the mean time runied the idea of a "goodwill" gesture for those who really need it.

davidgmmafan

"if im summing up right, youre sort of talking about moving the goal posts, making the penalty less harsh, making it easier to recover. an honourable suggestion, but i disagree for the following reasons:

1. its sets a pretty sad (and illegal) precedent for the customers to determine the price of a product.
2. in general, i believe that people will spend their charges until they cant actually afford to, they will get charged the same but just misbehave more
3. it should be up to the banks to set their penalties (sort of the same as point 1 i suppose)"

Kinda, I am talking about the way the banks apply charges to the account. This is single most damaging practice they engage in. I don't really care about people who get the charges and can manage to pay them, more fool them.

As I've stated many times I am worried about someone who, if they incur one charge, is pretty much screwed forever. For example if my direct debit to NPower is returned twice I get charged a whopping £6, now I don't know how they calculate this but it doesn't seem unreasonable. Nearly for £40 for ONE returned (automated) transaction does.

I agree there is a lot that needs to be done about education as some people don't udnerstand banking and general and direct debits in particular (including some bank staff who have no idea what the DD guarantee actually says).

With regard to point one what is the product here? The bank account itself or the wonderful 'service' that generates some £2.6 billion a year

I can't speak for this site because I've only been posting relatively recently in response to those defending the banks but on other forums they do take an approach of education as well reclaiming to help the person out of a bad spot AND keep them out of it.

This is pretty much what the CAB do BUT I recall many cases where the individual made exactly the same offer as the CAB but thier offer was rejected. This kind of thing has got to stop, I mean what's the point of saying contact your bank if you are having difficulty if doing so will do you no good whatsoever.