Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Alpine_Star

Cleany wrote: »

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

You cannot be serious.

Where on earth have you been for the last 2 years?

orc_2

Cleany might be the nom de plume of Angela Knight.

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

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.
No to the first part, yes to the credit card, moving out and not new car, but paid attention to the bank account though not as much as when I worked for the bank. Never been charged to reclaim it but I have never opened a bank account with the intention of spending money that I was not allowed to spend by the bank I was with.
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.
It's my fault is a natural reaction when if you went into it a bit further may not necessarily be the case. The question might be, how did you get into that situation and if it is their fault, what did they do precisely/
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.
In my experience of dealing with people in a live situation is that there are cases where that is the case but the majority of cases are about not understanding how the charges work, how they can go overdrawn using their card even if they were told they couldn't verbally.
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.
Utter rubbish, those who deserve the help such as those in financial hardship are still ones who could and can be helped whether there is a test case or not and it continues to be the case.


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

The truth of that is that banks have multi million pounds worth of CCJ against them so they clearly do not take care of their own business, in fact, if the government had used a credit reference agency and used the same criteria as banks use against their own customers then they would not have lent them any money

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.


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.
It's not about justice, it's about fairness which is different. Fairness means that the system is fair for the bank and the customer concerned rather than simply being one sided or overcomplicated to the customer.,


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!)



thats the problem!



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.
It's not about price but fairness.
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
How can they spend charges? I don't understand the comment at all,
3. it should be up to the banks to set their penalties (sort of the same as point 1 i suppose)
They cannot charge penalties but they can charge fees(legal definition btw)
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.

If charges were fair then we wouldn't have ongoing reclaiming re credit cards or bank accounts.

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.

Some of us in the campaign continue to work towards helping consumers, continue to make things clearer for consumers. Most of us in the campaign itself help.

Please redefine CAMPAIGNERS and CLAIMERS cos you are putting myself and others into a box we cannot hope to get out of and accusing us of greed and being unhelpful.

Cleany

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"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.

i think we can assume that those of us taking the time to discuss things here on the forum want whats best in general, we are all on the same side so to speak.

i hear what you're saying about this and that situation that seems unfair, but this isnt the situation in general.

for the most part, its the "people who get the charges and can manage to pay them, more fool them." that we are talking about. i dont think it's right that the banks should be made to change their policy on dealing with these people. i imagine its a fine balance between deterring people from just taking the mickey and dealing with the other situations that we hear so much about on here.

so i say it again, the problem i see is the blanket approach of the campaign to change all bank charges. i think that it is fair that people are charged as much in most situations, and knowing the attitude that many people have to money it should be that way because it's spend spend spend as we all know, and damn the consequences. the success of the campaign would, more than anything else, encourage this attitude, which in my opinion is wrong.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You cannot be serious.

Where on earth have you been for the last 2 years?

lol yes, well done for picking me up on that.

cheap shot though lets face it because the global banking crisis isn't really what i was talking about, however oops and haha again.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

No to the first part, yes to the credit card, moving out and not new car, but paid attention to the bank account though not as much as when I worked for the bank. Never been charged to reclaim it but I have never opened a bank account with the intention of spending money that I was not allowed to spend by the bank I was with.

well done. lets hope we can all learn to be more responsible withour money.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

It's my fault is a natural reaction when if you went into it a bit further may not necessarily be the case. The question might be, how did you get into that situation and if it is their fault, what did they do precisely/

the question is this: "how do you get people to take responsiblity for their affairs and deal with them instead of not doing so, citing reasons such as circumstances, people running businesses, the traffic etc."

there are times where situations happen which cannot be avoided, but these are the minority. but when people claim that this is the case, when it is fact isnt, i find that dispicable, low life, and pathetic. riding on the back of others misfortune for your own advantage. nearly as low as the professional beggar.

lets make sure that when people are in unfortunate circumstances and deserve help that they get it. at the same time lets make sure that those falsely claiming such circumstances through selfish greed are clearly identified.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

In my experience of dealing with people in a live situation is that there are cases where that is the case but the majority of cases are about not understanding how the charges work, how they can go overdrawn using their card even if they were told they couldn't verbally.

may i suggest that in the "majority" of cases you are talking about, "i dont understand how the charges work" isnt actually a reason to go over the limit/not pay dds etc. and that customers who have been charged and phoned up that bank are hardly going to tell you that they didnt pay it any attention until they got a charge, which is more likely the reality.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Utter rubbish, those who deserve the help such as those in financial hardship are still ones who could and can be helped whether there is a test case or not and it continues to be the case.

well if you think so. lets hope your right and those who deserve the help aren't rejected by the banks because now everyone seems to be jumping on the "hardship" bandwagon.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The truth of that is that banks have multi million pounds worth of CCJ against them so they clearly do not take care of their own business, in fact, if the government had used a credit reference agency and used the same criteria as banks use against their own customers then they would not have lent them any money

hey they're not perfect ive never said they were, theyre business run by people out to make money, pure and simple.

but if you look at the bank charges situation the banks are protecting themselves. dont you think thats a lesson more people could learn? try to be a bit more careful? yes i know about the banking crisis, but thats on another planet from an actual high street banking outlet. you can bet that those people working at the bank arent going to give anything away because they are under pressure to meet targets etc. didnt you find that when you worked there?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

It's not about justice, it's about fairness which is different. Fairness means that the system is fair for the bank and the customer concerned rather than simply being one sided or overcomplicated to the customer.,

justice means whats right. if your saying fairness isnt that then your saying fairness isnt right.

and its not one sided. i find that my bank provides a great service, makes it very easy to deal with transactions etc, can give me a loan (though i dont want one) a credit card with free insurance etc. etc.

of course if you take all that for granted and dont pay any attention to your finances, even though it's never been so easy, then get charged high fees, then maybe it doesnt seem so fair.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

1. its sets a pretty sad (and illegal) precedent for the customers to determine the price of a product.
It's not about price but fairness.

tell it to the supreme court or the oft!

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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
How can they spend charges? I don't understand the comment at all,

if they are charged £10 instead of £80, where do you think that £70 will go?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

3. it should be up to the banks to set their penalties (sort of the same as point 1 i suppose)
They cannot charge penalties but they can charge fees(legal definition btw)

yes noted above :-)

natweststaffmember wrote: »

f charges were fair then we wouldn't have ongoing reclaiming re credit cards or bank accounts.

but it got thrown out of court and the office of fair trading have pulled out.

i think the charges are fair for the vast majority of cases.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Some of us in the campaign continue to work towards helping consumers, continue to make things clearer for consumers. Most of us in the campaign itself help.

Please redefine CAMPAIGNERS and CLAIMERS cos you are putting myself and others into a box we cannot hope to get out of and accusing us of greed and being unhelpful.

hmm i didnt realise you were working for the campaign, and i think if youre helping people thats great.

it comes across to me in your posts that your attitude is that everyone making a claim is deserving of it. now im aware that may not be the case, but thats certainly how it comes across. there is a great deal of a lack of sympathy for this campaign because there is a perception that it's simply serves as an open door for greedy lazy people to be even greedier and lazier. for myself, i am of the opinion that this is exactly what is happening in the majority of cases. of the several people i know personally who have fallen foul of bank charges, its simply lack of attention thats caused the problem.

i hope that the good that campaigners like yourself do, helping people with mental health problems and difficult circumstances for example, isnt hidden behind the percieved money-grabbing that this campaign had instigated, with people coming on and making claims 2 or 3 times.

i think it would do everyone good to make these issues seperate, and it would also promote helpful discussion.

Alpine_Star

Cleany wrote: »

lol yes, well done for picking me up on that.

cheap shot though lets face it because the global banking crisis isn't really what i was talking about, however oops and haha again.
.

I know exactly what you had in mind: that somehow all the things you comlpain of about reclaimers - greed & financial irresponsibility - don't apply to banks. They unquestionably do.

Cleany

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I know exactly what you had in mind: that somehow all the things you comlpain of about reclaimers - greed & financial irresponsibility - don't apply to banks. They unquestionably do.

i agree, yes they do.

but lets not get the global banking crisis mixed up with the charges reclaiming issue, its complicated enough already.

Premier_2

Two wrongs don't make a right

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

well done. lets hope we can all learn to be more responsible withour money.



the question is this: "how do you get people to take responsiblity for their affairs and deal with them instead of not doing so, citing reasons such as circumstances, people running businesses, the traffic etc."

there are times where situations happen which cannot be avoided, but these are the minority. but when people claim that this is the case, when it is fact isnt, i find that dispicable, low life, and pathetic. riding on the back of others misfortune for your own advantage. nearly as low as the professional beggar.

lets make sure that when people are in unfortunate circumstances and deserve help that they get it. at the same time lets make sure that those falsely claiming such circumstances through selfish greed are clearly identified.
There are times where you lose me cos the approach you seem to come up with is that some people are genuine, some people are questionable and others are milking it. To be honest with you, there will be people who will fall into all categories but unless we psychoanalyse them it would be impossible to know. People who come here admit that they have an issue with charges.


may i suggest that in the "majority" of cases you are talking about, "i dont understand how the charges work" isnt actually a reason to go over the limit/not pay dds etc. and that customers who have been charged and phoned up that bank are hardly going to tell you that they didnt pay it any attention until they got a charge, which is more likely the reality.
You will be amazed how badly charges are explained to customers even if it is in their leaflets.


well if you think so. lets hope your right and those who deserve the help aren't rejected by the banks because now everyone seems to be jumping on the "hardship" bandwagon.
Banks have subscribed to something called "Treating Customer Fairly" or TCF for short. The BCOBS that took over from the banking code talks about dealing with customers in financial hardship fairly and sympathetically and the Lending Code section 9 gives further details. There is no bandwagon cos an income and expenditure form does not lie as to the details of whether someone is in financial hardship or not, nor does the arrears notices required either. Many times on here under the FSA Waiver, I stated that I didn't think people would get charges back under financial hardship because I read their posts and stated how it would in all likelihood be viewed. Not much has changed since the SC decision.


hey they're not perfect ive never said they were, theyre business run by people out to make money, pure and simple.

but if you look at the bank charges situation the banks are protecting themselves. dont you think thats a lesson more people could learn? try to be a bit more careful? yes i know about the banking crisis, but thats on another planet from an actual high street banking outlet. you can bet that those people working at the bank arent going to give anything away because they are under pressure to meet targets etc. didnt you find that when you worked there?
The branches were targetted on the amount of refunds they gave as well.


justice means whats right. if your saying fairness isnt that then your saying fairness isnt right.

and its not one sided. i find that my bank provides a great service, makes it very easy to deal with transactions etc, can give me a loan (though i dont want one) a credit card with free insurance etc. etc.

of course if you take all that for granted and dont pay any attention to your finances, even though it's never been so easy, then get charged high fees, then maybe it doesnt seem so fair.
I have stated overcomplicated in terms of the way the customer understands those fees when they are deducted. Many people might have avoided additional charges if they had been able to determine when they were going out which was not always the case.


tell it to the supreme court or the oft!
The case was on a collective challenge rather than you the buyer against me the seller. We will see who wins the final battle because you seem to think that the SC said that the charges were fair. They didn't and please don't say they do cos I am happy to get the judgement and state what the Supreme Court judges said?


if they are charged £10 instead of £80, where do you think that £70 will go?
If they were charged £10 instead of £80 it would mean that they didn't have the £70 anyway so again it is not really a question with an obvious answer

yes noted above :-)



but it got thrown out of court and the office of fair trading have pulled out.

i think the charges are fair for the vast majority of cases.

There are still bank charges cases going through the courts and Credit card claims are being repaid on a daily basis so the Supreme court has never ruled on Credit cards.

hmm i didnt realise you were working for the campaign, and i think if youre helping people thats great.

it comes across to me in your posts that your attitude is that everyone making a claim is deserving of it. now im aware that may not be the case, but thats certainly how it comes across. there is a great deal of a lack of sympathy for this campaign because there is a perception that it's simply serves as an open door for greedy lazy people to be even greedier and lazier. for myself, i am of the opinion that this is exactly what is happening in the majority of cases. of the several people i know personally who have fallen foul of bank charges, its simply lack of attention thats caused the problem.

i hope that the good that campaigners like yourself do, helping people with mental health problems and difficult circumstances for example, isnt hidden behind the percieved money-grabbing that this campaign had instigated, with people coming on and making claims 2 or 3 times.

i think it would do everyone good to make these issues seperate, and it would also promote helpful discussion.

The battle is not over and I don't think ours is either

davidgmmafan

" how they can go overdrawn using their card even if they were told they couldn't verbally. "

This is one of the basic problems, I have spoken to customer who have taken out a basic bank account specifically for this reason but it is still possible to incur charges.

The only way to avoid this is to have a savings account with a card but lets to a quick calculation. That would cost me £100 in the discount I get for my dual fuel direct debit, and £60 for Virgin Media. That's just two utilities. So not such a great option if you are on a low income.

Another point to throw into the mix if somebody under 18 incurs a charge for an unpaid item the bank is not allowed to charge it. Surely a similar system could operate for basic bank accounts?

What confuses me about the pro charges brigade (open to name suggestions, I like status quo brigade but clearly that name is taken!) is on the one hand the argument seems to be there MUST be harsh penalties to deter people from making payments which are returned, or payments; yet in the same breathe they berate people who keep incurring charges. Logically then the deterrent is not working. Given the charges were as high as £38-£39 (I'd say around £30 was average) there are two options. Higher charges to increase the deterrant, or admitting that's its all a smokescreen and the only purpose is profit.

I would argue if the issue was how to deter a lot of people would find the prospect of a meeting with the bank manager to discuss the running of thier account a lot more daunting than some huge automated charge.

In summary no I do not think in principle people should claim back charges unless they have had a (significant) detrimental affect on them. However given that the very legality of the charges was questioned (and this was upheld by two courts) such claims were not unreasonable.

What really needs to happen is for the banks to be proactive and intervene in exactly the way other firms would if a customer fell into difficulty with payments, at the moment.

I'm really enjoying this thread, glad to see they don't all descent into a slanging match

I agree it is unhelpful to generalize, but this comes from both sides, it cannot be correct that all custmoer are !!!!less, and it cannot be that everyone is in hardship.

I think the current position can best be summed up by saying the banks cannot be arsed to offer a proper banking service, part of which would be effectively managing delinquent accounts. Other companies do this all the time, banks instead prefer to automate the process. Effectively giving up on proactive management to minimze thier risk and rake in as much money as possible.

Except its only money if people can afford it. Which is what I don't get, where is the benefit to banks of allowing customer who cannot afford it to rack up massive debts? I'm sure they have insurance for this, which is probably why my car insurance is going up (joking!).

There are faults on both sides IMO, I'm with the poor peeps as they get a raw deal generally and I would say to anyone on the other side of the debate go do some work for the CAB or similar, you simply won't believe what happens to some people.

Cleany

natweststaffmember wrote: »

There are times where you lose me cos the approach you seem to come up with is that some people are genuine, some people are questionable and others are milking it. To be honest with you, there will be people who will fall into all categories but unless we psychoanalyse them it would be impossible to know. People who come here admit that they have an issue with charges.

well in life its easy to generalise and tar all people with the same brush. its my position here that while there's a lot of people who have been hard done by with these charges, in the vast majority of cases peopler are incuring charges because they dont think monitering their money is worth the effort.

the reason i think this is because i know what people are like, i know what the culture of spending without care is in this country, and my own personal experience.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

may i suggest that in the "majority" of cases you are talking about, "i dont understand how the charges work" isnt actually a reason to go over the limit/not pay dds etc. and that customers who have been charged and phoned up that bank are hardly going to tell you that they didnt pay it any attention until they got a charge, which is more likely the reality.
You will be amazed how badly charges are explained to customers even if it is in their leaflets.

perhaps not that amazed, but thats not the point. the point was that customers understanding of how charges work isn't a reason to incur them accidentally.

tell me what exactly would the concequences be of customers better understanding the charges?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Banks have subscribed to something called "Treating Customer Fairly" or TCF for short. The BCOBS that took over from the banking code talks about dealing with customers in financial hardship fairly and sympathetically and the Lending Code section 9 gives further details. There is no bandwagon cos an income and expenditure form does not lie as to the details of whether someone is in financial hardship or not, nor does the arrears notices required either. Many times on here under the FSA Waiver, I stated that I didn't think people would get charges back under financial hardship because I read their posts and stated how it would in all likelihood be viewed. Not much has changed since the SC decision.

well im hoping youre right, but i read a post on here yesterday saying someone had been turned down their hardship case. what happened there then?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The branches were targetted on the amount of refunds they gave as well.

yep its all statistics sadly.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I have stated overcomplicated in terms of the way the customer understands those fees when they are deducted. Many people might have avoided additional charges if they had been able to determine when they were going out which was not always the case.

it sounds like you're saying that people have been sort of duped into believing that the charges were less than they actually were by making it too complicated to understand.

so the higher the fees charged as understood by the customer, the less likely they are to incur those fees?

if that is true then would a solution be better published, higher fees?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The case was on a collective challenge rather than you the buyer against me the seller. We will see who wins the final battle because you seem to think that the SC said that the charges were fair. They didn't and please don't say they do cos I am happy to get the judgement and state what the Supreme Court judges said?

as far as i know wasn't the verdict that the fees form a part of the price of the product, and therefore were not subject to any "fairness" judgement?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

If they were charged £10 instead of £80 it would mean that they didn't have the £70 anyway so again it is not really a question with an obvious answer

it will get spent! which was what i meant by "spending charges". didnt explain that very well did i.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

There are still bank charges cases going through the courts and Credit card claims are being repaid on a daily basis so the Supreme court has never ruled on Credit cards.

well im glad to see justice working.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The battle is not over and I don't think ours is either

davidgmmafan wrote: »

" how they can go overdrawn using their card even if they were told they couldn't verbally. "

This is one of the basic problems, I have spoken to customer who have taken out a basic bank account specifically for this reason but it is still possible to incur charges.

The only way to avoid this is to have a savings account with a card but lets to a quick calculation. That would cost me £100 in the discount I get for my dual fuel direct debit, and £60 for Virgin Media. That's just two utilities. So not such a great option if you are on a low income.

Another point to throw into the mix if somebody under 18 incurs a charge for an unpaid item the bank is not allowed to charge it. Surely a similar system could operate for basic bank accounts?

i agree that there should be some sort of bank account where it is impossible to incur charges. maybe it would cost more because decreased financial liquidity costs money, however it should be an option.

but ... doesnt it say something about this country, that such a thing is necessary? that people are quite simply unable to manage their own affairs to the point that only being forced not to spend money can actually help? isnt that particularly sad and pathetic? cant people control themselves at all?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

What confuses me about the pro charges brigade (open to name suggestions, I like status quo brigade but clearly that name is taken!) is on the one hand the argument seems to be there MUST be harsh penalties to deter people from making payments which are returned, or payments; yet in the same breathe they berate people who keep incurring charges. Logically then the deterrent is not working. Given the charges were as high as £38-£39 (I'd say around £30 was average) there are two options. Higher charges to increase the deterrant, or admitting that's its all a smokescreen and the only purpose is profit.

so what if it is profit? how else are the banks going to make money from people who constantly go over limits and default on payments? they are running a business, thats the way it works, we live in a free market economy!

look at it this way: banks make money from interest on the millions of people who keep money in there, and they also loan that money out and make interest on that. thats the way it works. also the direct debit system is cheaper for a reason, that the money is guaranteed. there's no quibble with payments or waiting for people to pay. if you sign up for it thats what youre saying, that you have the money in the account, if its not there then you should get a penalty.

its availablility of cash and liquidity that makes the money that keeps our banking system the way it is for customers. those people who keep defaulting on DDs, going over their limits, and basically being beyoned unreliable, to the point of exceeding agreements with the banks, are therefore operating contrary to the way the system works, and it costs everyone money. the fees are there to compensate for that.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I would argue if the issue was how to deter a lot of people would find the prospect of a meeting with the bank manager to discuss the running of thier account a lot more daunting than some huge automated charge.

if thats true then they have more money than sense, and should be charged more!

if people cant be bothered to keep an eye on their money, even though its easier now then its ever been, why would they meet with their bank manager?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

In summary no I do not think in principle people should claim back charges unless they have had a (significant) detrimental affect on them. However given that the very legality of the charges was questioned (and this was upheld by two courts) such claims were not unreasonable.

but it does have a detrimental affect, as i described above. and even if it didnt, its not the business of customer to determine the price of a product.

ill just also note, if its not obvious, that the supreme court overturned the judgement of the two courts you mentioned, and declared the charges legal, and a part of the price of the account.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

What really needs to happen is for the banks to be proactive and intervene in exactly the way other firms would if a customer fell into difficulty with payments, at the moment.

firstly businesses dont do that, especially the big ones. secondly, why should they? its not their job to organise someone elses finances - if you buy something, then you should be able to pay for it, simple as that.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I'm really enjoying this thread, glad to see they don't all descent into a slanging match

agreed

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I agree it is unhelpful to generalize, but this comes from both sides, it cannot be correct that all custmoer are !!!!less, and it cannot be that everyone is in hardship.

I think the current position can best be summed up by saying the banks cannot be arsed to offer a proper banking service, part of which would be effectively managing delinquent accounts. Other companies do this all the time, banks instead prefer to automate the process. Effectively giving up on proactive management to minimze thier risk and rake in as much money as possible.

good! good that they cant be arsed and send in the legal letters and charges at the first sign of misbehaviour!

its the responsibilty of the individual to manage their own affairs, and to meet their obligations to society and other people.

this is cheap, but i cant resist. let me paraphrase here:

I think the current position can best be summed up by saying the people cannot be arsed to offer a proper repayment service for money borrowed or services used, part of which would be effectively managing themselves. Other people do this all the time, some instead prefer to ignore the process. Effectively giving up on proactive management to maximize thier risk and pay out as much money as possible.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Except its only money if people can afford it. Which is what I don't get, where is the benefit to banks of allowing customer who cannot afford it to rack up massive debts? I'm sure they have insurance for this, which is probably why my car insurance is going up (joking!).

interest payments? what does it matter? why is it the banks fault? what are they people's mums? the question i want answered is why customers who cannot afford it rack up massive debts? surely that's the issue?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

There are faults on both sides IMO, I'm with the poor peeps as they get a raw deal generally and I would say to anyone on the other side of the debate go do some work for the CAB or similar, you simply won't believe what happens to some people.

there are most definately faults on both sides. there are people who have fallen foul of the system, as there always are. i think they're the ones that need help, but i dont see that coming from the banks.

its damned easy to get into debt, to buy stuff cos it looks all shiny, to mismanage your expectations, and in this to lose track of your emotional wellbeing so you cant manage your life, let alone your finances. the root cause of the problem is never going to be answered in any measure by lower bank charges, rather that will just paper over the cracks and enable people to continue to delude themselves.

its easy money, easy credit, easy stuff. thats the problem, lets not make it even easier.