Why Reclaim Bank Charges

brown1950

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Ok I'm typing this for the second time due to the annoying nature of these forums (sort it out MSE!).

First thing I picked out

"assuming they do generate that much and it is all profit (which ill accept for the sake of argument), then its a lot less than the banks make from loans and mortages etc. and there's nobody moaning about the charges on these (yet :P)."

I'm pretty sure that figure was given by the OFT and is widely quoted. Interesting that you mentioned mortgages and a day or two after the FSA fined some firms for not treating customers fairly. Amongst other things they were told they could not make a profit out of charges, which is EXACTLY the same complaint people have had over bank charges. Way to be consistent there (this is directed at the FSA not you, I'm not even sure if they have powers over current accounts but then they were involved in the waiver...).

"to be honest if you would have told me before i made this thread that you can get stung for around £100 for just an unpaid direct debit i would have been surprised and said that it was too much. however after thinking about how direct debits work, and reading the many cases on here of people simply wanting the money back for the sake of it, even though they are clearly responsible for going over their limits, i think the charges are about right."

And which level is about right? Natwest now charge £5 for an unpaid item, until sometime last year they used to charge £38, around 2000 it was £12. Nothing has changed in the interim in terms of thier costs and processes and they haven't stated that the reduction to £5 was anything to do with the test case (which I don't believe BTW).

Regarding direct debits its the company that requests the DD, the bank doesn't do an awful lot except where there is an indemnity claim and even there most of this would be handled by computer. Mind you they still charge for an unpaid standing order, which is even harder to defend. They've done nothing yet they charge? Hmm I'm clearly in the wrong job.

"ill ask you this. before people could claim their money back, what happened to them? were they made bankrupt? did they end up on the streets? no. in the vast majority of cases they paid it, absorbed the cost, and hopefully learned a lesson."

I've no doubt some did go bankrupt purely because of charges, you know the whole snowball effect I've mentioned about five times. I've no doubt some managed to absord them with varying degrees of difficulty. Since neither of us have figures we're not in a position to say whether its more common for charges to cause problems for the customer or not.

"lets get the competition or the monopolies commision and get it sorted properly then. i would welcome that on more than a few fronts including supermarkets and oil companies."

I agree with that, I believe the conservatives said they would do just that, lets hope the other parties also have some useful ideas. What I want to know is why hasn't the OFT done this already given the uniformity in the charges?

"if lowering bank charges would make people stop and think and slow down the race towards consumer oblivion i would be all in favour. but it wouldnt, it would make it worse."

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would be less bankruptcies if charges were lower. We don't know since we can't predict the future.

"of course it's not unstoppable."

Depends on the individual, some people can cover a few charges, for some people one charge starts the snowball effect. If you believe up to £100 is reasonable you need to understand the banks the charges can reach hundreds or even thousands of pounds. For someone on a meagre income they are screwed from day one. I agree they shouldn't incur the charge in the first place, but once dont I don't think its fair they should be driven to the wall because of one mistake. This argument is particularly powerful if the bank does things like apply a charge immediately since this is clearly designed to generate more charges.

"you dont have to pay by direct debit or take out a loan."

No you don't but you do need a bank account if you want to get paid ever. So I can choose to save £100 a year on my gas and electricity if I pay by DD, or risk financial oblivion if I opt for DD. The trouble is many people don't see it this way, they believe the banks flannel that DD's are safe, secure and convenient.

We agree on one thing companies and banks promote DD's for thier benefit. I would advocate standing orders for people on tight budgets. Its about control, a DD says a company has unfettered access to your account. There are rules but they leave a lot to the customer and are poorly enforced. Companies don't give discounts for standing orders in my opinion because they don't have control.

"but you want to make the banks a special case, that i dont agree with."

There used to be a requirement called utmost good faith, the banks have totally lost sight of that. It is precisely because the bank is looking after your money that they are a special case. For example if there was an amazing new savings account on offer the bank cannot, and should not, put me into it without my consent. It may not be suitable for me.

Yet in relation to DD's they decide whether or not to make a payment, a process the customer has no info on or input into, and this decision determines which charged is levied. We know they are out for themselves so I bet the computer decides which charge will generate the most revenue.

"you want me to actually tell you why a million pounds would be a silly charge for going overdrawn?"

Yeah sure, it might inform the debate. Whilst you are on it would be helpful to state what differenties a reasonabel charge from an unreasonable one. Would £100 be acceptable? £1000? £20?

"as far as the customers "fault" is concerned, it is up to them to stop spending beyond their limits, nobody else.

you seem to be muddling it all up, its quite clear:

its the responsibility of the bank to set their charges. its the responsibility of the customer to manage their finances."

I'm sorry you feel I'm muddling things up, there are two sides to every story... The world is not black and white my friend, there are many issues which overlap when discussing bank charges, many seperate problems and scenarios.

So here goes, I AGREE that it is clearly the customers fault that a charge is incurred. We'll ignore errors by the bank or the company, assuming they will be effortlessly solved by the direct debit guarantee. I AGREE that there should be a charge for this, but then you make a mighty leap.

You go from and dammit they should be charged to and the bank can charge whatever they want. The level of the charges has a direct impact on the customers ability to manage thier finances.

Its a bit like getting done for drink driving, its stupid and dangerous. If a professional footballer gets fined a few hundred quid it makes no difference, if they get banned from driving they hire a driver. Put your average Joe in there and the same sanctions cause much larger problems.

Now it would be very difficult for the bank to charge based on a persons ability to pay so far simpler to just pass a law saying companies can only charge thier legitimate costs. This would also get rid of those annoying admin fees for paying by card or for not paying by direct debit.

I say yet again the banks initially claimed that these charges WERE to cover this costs. It was only in the face of overwhelming evidence to the countrary (despite them refusing to give thier actual costs!!!) that this service fee idea popped up.

Shall we just agree to dis-agree? I'm getting tired of this.

I'm getting tired of this.[/QUOTE]

Your not the only one ! Must be thousands on here thinking the same.

Cleany

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Ok I'm typing this for the second time due to the annoying nature of these forums (sort it out MSE!).

not happened to me, maybe theres some way to sort it out?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"assuming they do generate that much and it is all profit (which ill accept for the sake of argument), then its a lot less than the banks make from loans and mortages etc. and there's nobody moaning about the charges on these (yet :P)."

I'm pretty sure that figure was given by the OFT and is widely quoted. Interesting that you mentioned mortgages and a day or two after the FSA fined some firms for not treating customers fairly. Amongst other things they were told they could not make a profit out of charges, which is EXACTLY the same complaint people have had over bank charges. Way to be consistent there (this is directed at the FSA not you, I'm not even sure if they have powers over current accounts but then they were involved in the waiver...).

well i dont claim to know what happens with the charges, just that i dont think disgruntled customers should be involved in making policy or judgement calls.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"to be honest if you would have told me before i made this thread that you can get stung for around £100 for just an unpaid direct debit i would have been surprised and said that it was too much. however after thinking about how direct debits work, and reading the many cases on here of people simply wanting the money back for the sake of it, even though they are clearly responsible for going over their limits, i think the charges are about right."

And which level is about right? Natwest now charge £5 for an unpaid item, until sometime last year they used to charge £38, around 2000 it was £12. Nothing has changed in the interim in terms of thier costs and processes and they haven't stated that the reduction to £5 was anything to do with the test case (which I don't believe BTW).

i dont know which charge is right. what i do know is that theres one way to avoid them.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Regarding direct debits its the company that requests the DD, the bank doesn't do an awful lot except where there is an indemnity claim and even there most of this would be handled by computer. Mind you they still charge for an unpaid standing order, which is even harder to defend. They've done nothing yet they charge? Hmm I'm clearly in the wrong job.

you can claim that defaulting on direct debits only costs some small admin charge, but i disagree. if you sign up to a payment system that depends upon reliability and then arent reliable its going to cost the others using the system and that cost has to come from somewhere.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"ill ask you this. before people could claim their money back, what happened to them? were they made bankrupt? did they end up on the streets? no. in the vast majority of cases they paid it, absorbed the cost, and hopefully learned a lesson."

I've no doubt some did go bankrupt purely because of charges, you know the whole snowball effect I've mentioned about five times. I've no doubt some managed to absord them with varying degrees of difficulty. Since neither of us have figures we're not in a position to say whether its more common for charges to cause problems for the customer or not.

im assuming here that "some" means a very small percentage, i.e. less than 1. you claim that 2.6 billion had been paid out in charges. if that is the case, thats a hell of a lot of cases dont you think? and where there are that many cases dont you think its a problem thats not going to be solved by making the penalty less by lowering the charges?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"lets get the competition or the monopolies commision and get it sorted properly then. i would welcome that on more than a few fronts including supermarkets and oil companies."

I agree with that, I believe the conservatives said they would do just that, lets hope the other parties also have some useful ideas. What I want to know is why hasn't the OFT done this already given the uniformity in the charges?

because like you said they have no power? because the very people that benefit from lower charges, those that use credit, need a market with very little restriction to keep the credit flowing?

just a guess.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"if lowering bank charges would make people stop and think and slow down the race towards consumer oblivion i would be all in favour. but it wouldnt, it would make it worse."

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would be less bankruptcies if charges were lower. We don't know since we can't predict the future.

i can.

prediction 1 - if the bank charges go down there will be some other way introduced for banks to stop some customers taking the mickey, and when thats introduced it will be a: worse than the current situation and b: campaigned against.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"of course it's not unstoppable."

Depends on the individual, some people can cover a few charges, for some people one charge starts the snowball effect. If you believe up to £100 is reasonable you need to understand the banks the charges can reach hundreds or even thousands of pounds. For someone on a meagre income they are screwed from day one. I agree they shouldn't incur the charge in the first place, but once dont I don't think its fair they should be driven to the wall because of one mistake. This argument is particularly powerful if the bank does things like apply a charge immediately since this is clearly designed to generate more charges.

its only unstoppable if you ignore it.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"you dont have to pay by direct debit or take out a loan."

No you don't but you do need a bank account if you want to get paid ever. So I can choose to save £100 a year on my gas and electricity if I pay by DD, or risk financial oblivion if I opt for DD. The trouble is many people don't see it this way, they believe the banks flannel that DD's are safe, secure and convenient.

lol! seriously?

1. you dont get £100 off paying by direct debit or anything like that.

2. if paying by dd is a risk then you, quite rightly, forfeit the savings?!??!?!?!?!

its quite simple. reliable payments make it easier to invest, saving money. you can open up a savings account that pays higher interest if you regularly put money into it. there are higher interest paying savings accounts that you cant take money out of. do you really not understand this?

if you seriously think that you can opt into a payment system that places some responsibility on you to make regular payments and is cheaper because of that, not make the payments, and then not bear any of the cost, then i pity you.

you cant have your cake and eat it. you can blather on all you like about this or that company being some evil overlords, but if your coming from the viewpoint that you simply want financial benefits without putting the work in then then you're living in a dream world.

its attitudes and statements like that which totally justify the banks actions and charges because there's no reasoning with people who think they are justified using a service without living up to its conditions.

if you cant make the payments dont use the system.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

We agree on one thing companies and banks promote DD's for thier benefit. I would advocate standing orders for people on tight budgets. Its about control, a DD says a company has unfettered access to your account. There are rules but they leave a lot to the customer and are poorly enforced. Companies don't give discounts for standing orders in my opinion because they don't have control.

yes, exactly! because if people dont make the payments theres nothing they can do about it, so they cant guarantee funds, and invest those funds making it cheaper for those who can make the regular payments!

a discount isnt a birthright, you do know that dont you?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"but you want to make the banks a special case, that i dont agree with."

There used to be a requirement called utmost good faith, the banks have totally lost sight of that. It is precisely because the bank is looking after your money that they are a special case. For example if there was an amazing new savings account on offer the bank cannot, and should not, put me into it without my consent. It may not be suitable for me.

good faith?

good faith means that if you sign up to a payment scheme you make the payments. its one rule for the banks and another one for customers is it?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Yet in relation to DD's they decide whether or not to make a payment, a process the customer has no info on or input into, and this decision determines which charged is levied. We know they are out for themselves so I bet the computer decides which charge will generate the most revenue.

i have never, not once, had any direct debit payment gone out of my bank without my prior knowledge and consent.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"you want me to actually tell you why a million pounds would be a silly charge for going overdrawn?"

Yeah sure, it might inform the debate. Whilst you are on it would be helpful to state what differenties a reasonabel charge from an unreasonable one. Would £100 be acceptable? £1000? £20?

a million pounds would be unenforcable.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"as far as the customers "fault" is concerned, it is up to them to stop spending beyond their limits, nobody else.

you seem to be muddling it all up, its quite clear:

its the responsibility of the bank to set their charges. its the responsibility of the customer to manage their finances."

I'm sorry you feel I'm muddling things up, there are two sides to every story... The world is not black and white my friend, there are many issues which overlap when discussing bank charges, many seperate problems and scenarios.

So here goes, I AGREE that it is clearly the customers fault that a charge is incurred. We'll ignore errors by the bank or the company, assuming they will be effortlessly solved by the direct debit guarantee. I AGREE that there should be a charge for this, but then you make a mighty leap.

You go from and dammit they should be charged to and the bank can charge whatever they want. The level of the charges has a direct impact on the customers ability to manage thier finances.

i never said that banks can charge what they like. i said the current charges seem fair to me and its not up to disgruntled customers to set them.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Its a bit like getting done for drink driving, its stupid and dangerous. If a professional footballer gets fined a few hundred quid it makes no difference, if they get banned from driving they hire a driver. Put your average Joe in there and the same sanctions cause much larger problems.

good! it should cause problems! dont drink and drive!

please tell me that you think that some poeple should pay less for drink and drive fines because they earn less. please tell me that.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Now it would be very difficult for the bank to charge based on a persons ability to pay so far simpler to just pass a law saying companies can only charge thier legitimate costs. This would also get rid of those annoying admin fees for paying by card or for not paying by direct debit.

theres another way of getting rid of those annying fees. can you guess what it is?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I say yet again the banks initially claimed that these charges WERE to cover this costs. It was only in the face of overwhelming evidence to the countrary (despite them refusing to give thier actual costs!!!) that this service fee idea popped up.

was it. good for them. its a pity they cant call it a "please use our service and default on your agreements and then we'll get you - haha!" fee.

then you would find people using it on purpose and subsequently claiming their charges back because the banks we're "admitting" thats what they were doing in the first place. that would be funny.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Shall we just agree to dis-agree? I'm getting tired of this.

brown1950 wrote: »

Your not the only one ! Must be thousands on here thinking the same.

must be a lot of people being forced to read against their will then eh?

davidgmmafan

"i dont know which charge is right. what i do know is that theres one way to avoid them."

But you just said the charges are about right. Backtracking again.

"you can claim that defaulting on direct debits only costs some small admin charge, but i disagree. if you sign up to a payment system that depends upon reliability and then arent reliable its going to cost the others using the system and that cost has to come from somewhere."

So Natwest are losing money at £5 per time? If this is the case why are banks so reluctant to provide the evidence? This is a moot point anyway, I don't know why you keep making it since your other argument is even if there is a profit made there's no problem with that; however whilst we're on the subject it is worth pointing out that the benefits of direct debit are TO THE COMPANY why else do would my gas and electricity supplier give £100 discount? Why does Virgin Media charge £60 per annum more for non-dd payments? Because DD saves them money. Oh and as I've said before if you have a DD returned unpaid twice NPower charge a whopping £6.

Since they setup DD's and request them THEY are doing the work, and they value that work at £6. Why are the banks calculations so different? Greed.

"im assuming here that "some" means a very small percentage, i.e. less than 1. you claim that 2.6 billion had been paid out in charges. if that is the case, thats a hell of a lot of cases dont you think? and where there are that many cases dont you think its a problem thats not going to be solved by making the penalty less by lowering the charges?"

I frankly have no idea, if you have some actual figures please enlighten me. I'm afraid you have totally mis-understood the figure of 2.6 billion. This is the figures given by the OFT, as part of an investigation which the banks had input into. This is ther figure they give for what the charges generate EACH YEAR. I believe the TOTAL paid out is between half a billion and a billion pounds depending who you believe.

Have you EVER spoken to anyone on a low income who has had the charges snowball? I'm sure there would be many cases where insolvency would be the only option. Banks often refuse to freeze charges and interest when customers setup a debt management plan through a charirty. Personally I'd say that's evidence that the individual is out of thier depth and is seeking to put things right, but the banks don't give a !!!!, despite thier fine words.

"I can.

prediction 1 - if the bank charges go down there will be some other way introduced for banks to stop some customers taking the mickey, and when thats introduced it will be a: worse than the current situation and b: campaigned against."

Can you let me know next weeks lottery numbers whilst you are on? Thought not. Your prediction might be accurate, might not be, please don't flatter yourself by saying you have access to some unique insight. A new law could stop what you suggest, as could increased consumer awareness generally. Halifax has voluntarily introduced a new charging structure which strains credibility.

You get charged £1 per day for an authorized overdraft, they claim the APR is 0%, but if you worked out the APR on small sums it coms out at huge percentages. They have also ignored correspondance from customers who state they do not accept the new changes and will repay the debt at the old rate.

Personally I want to see a law that makes all admin fees just that. Yes they'll make up the revenue elsewhere but at least this will be optional. They also make a lot of money from the interest people forgoe on thier current accounts, but I have no problem with this since it doesn't ruin lives.

"because like you said they have no power? because the very people that benefit from lower charges, those that use credit, need a market with very little restriction to keep the credit flowing?

just a guess."

Right to the first one, possibly wrong to the second one. Do we REALLY need credit flowing easily when that caused the whole problem in the first place? I'd sooner banks returned to years gone by, there is such a contract between my granded being grilled by the bank manager for his first mortgage when he had a good job, spouse's income not taken into account, and the way young people get money thrown at them when they go to university.

"1. you dont get £100 off paying by direct debit or anything like that.

2. if paying by dd is a risk then you, quite rightly, forfeit the savings?!??!?!?!?!

its quite simple. reliable payments make it easier to invest, saving money. you can open up a savings account that pays higher interest if you regularly put money into it. there are higher interest paying savings accounts that you cant take money out of. do you really not understand this?"

Not sure what 1 is on about? NPower do give a £100 discount for paying for gas and elec by DD. Check it out its on the first page of thier website. I'm all ears if you can find me a savings account that would pay £100 interest on my monthly payments of £80. It doesn't exist does it?

"if you seriously think that you can opt into a payment system that places some responsibility on you to make regular payments and is cheaper because of that, not make the payments, and then not bear any of the cost, then i pity you.

you cant have your cake and eat it. you can blather on all you like about this or that company being some evil overlords, but if your coming from the viewpoint that you simply want financial benefits without putting the work in then then you're living in a dream world.

its attitudes and statements like that which totally justify the banks actions and charges because there's no reasoning with people who think they are justified using a service without living up to its conditions.

if you cant make the payments dont use the system."

Ok here we go again... Maybe the customer should bear the costs but the BANKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DD. A direct debit is setup BY THE COMPANY, the banks just have to have a computer sit there and say yes or not, that's it. Maybe the company should charge for failed DD's? This would be more justifiable than the bank doing it since they are effectively saying yeah we'll have a huge sum for doing sod all. Thanks.

Some companies only accept payments by DD and most others promote it heavily, why? BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM. The banks do hardly any work so why are they charging many times more than a company would for a missed payment?

Its a bit like people saying cheque use is declining, or people don't want to be paid in cash. Supermarkets and others recently stopped accepting cheques so of course the usage is going to decline. Virtually everyone is paid into a bank account these days because they have no choice.

"yes, exactly! because if people dont make the payments theres nothing they can do about it, so they cant guarantee funds, and invest those funds making it cheaper for those who can make the regular payments!

a discount isnt a birthright, you do know that dont you?"

You know just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an idiot. A standing order and a direct debit are both forms of regular payment, one gets a discount one does not. You are confusing two things.

"good faith?

good faith means that if you sign up to a payment scheme you make the payments. its one rule for the banks and another one for customers is it?"

Yes it is, the banks are wholly dominant when it comes to drawing up the contract. The only power the customer has is to shop around, but the cartel we've discussed renders that useless. That's why we have laws and stuff.

"a million pounds would be unenforcable."

I've asked the same question several times and you seem reluctant to fully answer it. Please explain what makes the above amount unreasonable. Then apply this logic to other amounts. It is difficult to do and I suspect that is why you avoid it.

"i never said that banks can charge what they like. i said the current charges seem fair to me and its not up to disgruntled customers to set them."

Yet earlier you said you don't know which charge is right. My brain hurts

The effect of your statement that customers just have to accept the charge MEANS the banks can charge what they like. I don't see how that can be fair since it permits the million pound bank charge.

"good! it should cause problems! dont drink and drive!

please tell me that you think that some poeple should pay less for drink and drive fines because they earn less. please tell me that."

Once again mis-understanding me. Of course there should be penalties for drink driving. The point of my example was that for different peole the same penalty effects them differently.

You comments about the snowball effect betray an inability to consider others in circumstances different to yourself. There are people who do not have £30, one charge starts a spiral they cannot stop. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? I cannot see how it is in the banks interest to continue apply charges and interest which can never be repaid, but they do. Maybe it makes thier balance sheet look better.

Some people will have had to not pay the rent, or some other ESSENTIAL expense to deal with debt. This causes other problems. This is why any debt charity tells them, qutie rationally, non-priority debts are only paid AFTER you have made your ESSENTIAL expenses.

"was it. good for them. its a pity they cant call it a "please use our service and default on your agreements and then we'll get you - haha!" fee.

then you would find people using it on purpose and subsequently claiming their charges back because the banks we're "admitting" thats what they were doing in the first place. that would be funny."

I prefer profit boosting fee, or free money for doing sod all levy. I am genuinly interested to know what the banks will come up with next. They are already giving legal advice in the letter they are sending out to customers after the test case.

There you go again people doing it on purpose. WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN IS THERE IN INCURRING CHARGES ON PURPOSE? You state

"nobody benefits from financial instability. it costs. about £100 or so it seems." and yet you go on to say they are doing it on purpose? Eh I can't see your logic there.

Your logic appears self defeating at times.

Cleany

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"i dont know which charge is right. what i do know is that theres one way to avoid them."

But you just said the charges are about right. Backtracking again.

i was refering to the question you asked me about different natwest charges.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"you can claim that defaulting on direct debits only costs some small admin charge, but i disagree. if you sign up to a payment system that depends upon reliability and then arent reliable its going to cost the others using the system and that cost has to come from somewhere."

So Natwest are losing money at £5 per time? If this is the case why are banks so reluctant to provide the evidence? This is a moot point anyway, I don't know why you keep making it since your other argument is even if there is a profit made there's no problem with that

well exactly so why do you keep arguing that point? and whats the point arguing over £20 here or £5 there. they have a right to charge and make a profit. anyway its quite hard to determine how much money unreliable bank customers cost the economy. simply asking how much it "costs the bank" is a red herring.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

however whilst we're on the subject it is worth pointing out that the benefits of direct debit are TO THE COMPANY why else do would my gas and electricity supplier give £100 discount?

the benefit is to the economy as a whole. you can pretend that people are in a little hole where they can do what they like and not suffer any consequences because theyre not harming anybody, but thats not the case.

anyway if you dont like it you dont have to use it do you?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Why does Virgin Media charge £60 per annum more for non-dd payments? Because DD saves them money. Oh and as I've said before if you have a DD returned unpaid twice NPower charge a whopping £6.

Since they setup DD's and request them THEY are doing the work, and they value that work at £6. Why are the banks calculations so different? Greed.

yes greed seems to be a common theme in this subject.

and so what if it is greed? have you seen dragons den? ever worked in a company that isnt a charity?

you can argue the toss all you like about whether this or that charge should be higher, but you dont have to use direct debits and you dont have to default on your credit or bank limit agreements or whatever.

why dont we simply assume, for the sake of argument, that the charges are made up of partly compensation, partly deterrant, and partly profit? given that we dont know any different why would you assume any different?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"im assuming here that "some" means a very small percentage, i.e. less than 1. you claim that 2.6 billion had been paid out in charges. if that is the case, thats a hell of a lot of cases dont you think? and where there are that many cases dont you think its a problem thats not going to be solved by making the penalty less by lowering the charges?"

I frankly have no idea, if you have some actual figures please enlighten me. I'm afraid you have totally mis-understood the figure of 2.6 billion. This is the figures given by the OFT, as part of an investigation which the banks had input into. This is ther figure they give for what the charges generate EACH YEAR. I believe the TOTAL paid out is between half a billion and a billion pounds depending who you believe.

oh right. well i misunderstood you then. i certainly dont have any figures.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Have you EVER spoken to anyone on a low income who has had the charges snowball? I'm sure there would be many cases where insolvency would be the only option. Banks often refuse to freeze charges and interest when customers setup a debt management plan through a charirty. Personally I'd say that's evidence that the individual is out of thier depth and is seeking to put things right, but the banks don't give a !!!!, despite thier fine words.

no. i know some people who have had bank charges and every one of them say its their fault and have no quibble. i have read some posts on here and the ones i have read all think they deserve something back simply because they want it.

anyway im not denying there are many legitimate cases of people who deserve their charges refunded to them, but its very much a minority.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"I can.

prediction 1 - if the bank charges go down there will be some other way introduced for banks to stop some customers taking the mickey, and when thats introduced it will be a: worse than the current situation and b: campaigned against."

Can you let me know next weeks lottery numbers whilst you are on? Thought not. Your prediction might be accurate, might not be, please don't flatter yourself by saying you have access to some unique insight. A new law could stop what you suggest, as could increased consumer awareness generally.

well i think that i posess some insight that you dont have otherwise we would agree wouldnt we? what you say about consumer awareness is a case in point.

money talks. the other day a friend at work, who is a cleaner, asked for a new bin for one of the rooms she is cleaning. she asked her cleaning superviser who said it was up to those who worked in the room to ask, so she asked them to ask. they came back to her and said sorry but they couldnt because they would get charged. why is this absurd situation happening? because people cant trust each other to simply be responsible and the only answer is to set up a financial arbitration system.

its human nature and the uk today my friend and its why the direct debit system is the way it is and its why "consumer awareness" is for the most part an impotent tool. this is all because many people dont have the time or the inclination to be properly considerate towards each other, or themselves for that matter.

its financial arbitration all the way. i wish there was another answer but many of the poeple on here complaning about their charges have incurred them because attempts at trust and obligation have failed.

that why i say that if you first cant meet your commitments and obligations and be a considerate and cooperative human being then you are turned over to the financial arbitration system because theres no other choice.

i.e. if you cant make the payments dont use the system.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Halifax has voluntarily introduced a new charging structure which strains credibility.

You get charged £1 per day for an authorized overdraft, they claim the APR is 0%, but if you worked out the APR on small sums it coms out at huge percentages. They have also ignored correspondance from customers who state they do not accept the new changes and will repay the debt at the old rate.

Personally I want to see a law that makes all admin fees just that. Yes they'll make up the revenue elsewhere but at least this will be optional. They also make a lot of money from the interest people forgoe on thier current accounts, but I have no problem with this since it doesn't ruin lives.

ruin lives? this isnt the tabloid press.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"because like you said they have no power? because the very people that benefit from lower charges, those that use credit, need a market with very little restriction to keep the credit flowing?

just a guess."

Right to the first one, possibly wrong to the second one. Do we REALLY need credit flowing easily when that caused the whole problem in the first place? I'd sooner banks returned to years gone by, there is such a contract between my granded being grilled by the bank manager for his first mortgage when he had a good job, spouse's income not taken into account, and the way young people get money thrown at them when they go to university.

no the problem was caused by credit not flowing, thats why it was called the credit crunch.

i agree there is something better about the way things were, and while i would agree that there are many things about going back that would be better, it doesnt matter because we cant.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"1. you dont get £100 off paying by direct debit or anything like that.

2. if paying by dd is a risk then you, quite rightly, forfeit the savings?!??!?!?!?!

its quite simple. reliable payments make it easier to invest, saving money. you can open up a savings account that pays higher interest if you regularly put money into it. there are higher interest paying savings accounts that you cant take money out of. do you really not understand this?"

Not sure what 1 is on about? NPower do give a £100 discount for paying for gas and elec by DD. Check it out its on the first page of thier website. I'm all ears if you can find me a savings account that would pay £100 interest on my monthly payments of £80. It doesn't exist does it?

wow! "up to" £100 off for paying by direct debit. sounds amazing.

you do know its a trick dont you? that firstly its not £100, its "up to" £100, and that "up to" £100 off another price which is almost certainly too high in the first place.

go into next or something when there's a sale on. it will say "SALE - up to 70% off". the "up to" will be hardly readable and the SALE and 70% off will be in huge letters. then you go into the shop and its only one or 2 racks, maybe 5 or 10% of their actual stock. and then of those items in the sale only a couple or perhaps even 1 item will actually have 70% off (hence the "up to"). and even those items with 70% off will be 70% off what? the first price they set that was high because it was new.

so its not a sale, its mostly a trick for people who have enough money to shop in next in the first place and want to feel they are saving money, when they could just shop somewhere else cheaper.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"if you seriously think that you can opt into a payment system that places some responsibility on you to make regular payments and is cheaper because of that, not make the payments, and then not bear any of the cost, then i pity you.

you cant have your cake and eat it. you can blather on all you like about this or that company being some evil overlords, but if your coming from the viewpoint that you simply want financial benefits without putting the work in then then you're living in a dream world.

its attitudes and statements like that which totally justify the banks actions and charges because there's no reasoning with people who think they are justified using a service without living up to its conditions.

if you cant make the payments dont use the system."

Ok here we go again... Maybe the customer should bear the costs but the BANKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DD. A direct debit is setup BY THE COMPANY, the banks just have to have a computer sit there and say yes or not, that's it. Maybe the company should charge for failed DD's? This would be more justifiable than the bank doing it since they are effectively saying yeah we'll have a huge sum for doing sod all. Thanks.

Some companies only accept payments by DD and most others promote it heavily, why? BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM. The banks do hardly any work so why are they charging many times more than a company would for a missed payment?

Its a bit like people saying cheque use is declining, or people don't want to be paid in cash. Supermarkets and others recently stopped accepting cheques so of course the usage is going to decline. Virtually everyone is paid into a bank account these days because they have no choice.

ok i get your point. but dont you think that there is some relationship between the banks, bacs (who run the direct debit system), and the companies?

i can see why you would assume that the banks have no right to this charging money when they dont get the benefits etc. and i can see why you must think me odd for not agreeing with you,but i dont, and there are 2 very good reasons. this is the crux of our disagreement i think.

1. there must be some cost to defaulting payments somewhere in the system.

like i said before regular payments means lower costs and easier investment. i dont know how it works but at some point there must be some cost for those non-payments, if there are savings for regular payments. the banking charges are the only retrieval process in place and so there must be a relationship between the banks, bacs (who run direct debit) and the companies.

it is my argument that if you get rid of bank charges you will simply move the recouperation of costs to another, most probably worse system. of course the new system wont be worse for those incurring the charges, they'll simply be passing the cost on. which leads me to point 2.

2. the priority should be in fixing people's approach to their financial responsibilities.

whatever you may say about snowballs and peoples lives being ruined, it is my position that in the vast majority of cases people are incuring and absorbing back charges without being particularly inconvenienced by it. also, the cases i have read on here consist of people feeling hard done by because its £100 or something for going overdrawn by a couple of quid. now i would feel hard done by, but i wouldnt expect the whole system to change just to fit me. i would pay it and not do it again. in fact everyone would if it wasnt for this campaign.

a persons finances are their responsibility, that means if it goes wrong they have to pick up the pieces. it doesnt matter what happened or why. even if youve been hard done by and you are entitled to help, youve still got to organise that.

many people semm to think they can wonder along without paying any attention to their money and that when it goes wrong someone else should sort it out, thats wrong and the success of this campaign would make that much worse as i see it.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"yes, exactly! because if people dont make the payments theres nothing they can do about it, so they cant guarantee funds, and invest those funds making it cheaper for those who can make the regular payments!

a discount isnt a birthright, you do know that dont you?"

You know just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an idiot. A standing order and a direct debit are both forms of regular payment, one gets a discount one does not. You are confusing two things.

they are both different forms of regular payment. dont pretend they're the same but one incurs charges and another doesnt and therefore neither needs to because we both know thats not the case.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"good faith?

good faith means that if you sign up to a payment scheme you make the payments. its one rule for the banks and another one for customers is it?"

Yes it is, the banks are wholly dominant when it comes to drawing up the contract. The only power the customer has is to shop around, but the cartel we've discussed renders that useless. That's why we have laws and stuff.

lol "the cartel".

what im saying to you is that you cant expect the banks to operate in good faith when the very argument youre putting forward is based on what happens after the customer has not acted in good faith

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"a million pounds would be unenforcable."

I've asked the same question several times and you seem reluctant to fully answer it. Please explain what makes the above amount unreasonable. Then apply this logic to other amounts. It is difficult to do and I suspect that is why you avoid it.

its simple. a million quid would be unenforceable, 100 wouldnt.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"i never said that banks can charge what they like. i said the current charges seem fair to me and its not up to disgruntled customers to set them."

Yet earlier you said you don't know which charge is right. My brain hurts

your brain hurts because youre trying to get me to say what charges are right and all i can say is that the current ones seem fair, thats the best i can do.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

The effect of your statement that customers just have to accept the charge MEANS the banks can charge what they like. I don't see how that can be fair since it permits the million pound bank charge.

im not saying what anyone has to do, im just saying that given that the charges are what they are and theyre not going to change, wouldnt it be better to concentrate on avoiding them in the first place?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"good! it should cause problems! dont drink and drive!

please tell me that you think that some poeple should pay less for drink and drive fines because they earn less. please tell me that."

Once again mis-understanding me. Of course there should be penalties for drink driving. The point of my example was that for different peole the same penalty effects them differently.

so what? some people have more money.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

You comments about the snowball effect betray an inability to consider others in circumstances different to yourself. There are people who do not have £30, one charge starts a spiral they cannot stop. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? I cannot see how it is in the banks interest to continue apply charges and interest which can never be repaid, but they do. Maybe it makes thier balance sheet look better.

Some people will have had to not pay the rent, or some other ESSENTIAL expense to deal with debt. This causes other problems. This is why any debt charity tells them, qutie rationally, non-priority debts are only paid AFTER you have made your ESSENTIAL expenses.

i have stated many times that i accept, understand and sympathise with those who are in that position.

i do not sympathise with those who think they are hard done by, but actually arent.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"was it. good for them. its a pity they cant call it a "please use our service and default on your agreements and then we'll get you - haha!" fee.

then you would find people using it on purpose and subsequently claiming their charges back because the banks we're "admitting" thats what they were doing in the first place. that would be funny."

I prefer profit boosting fee, or free money for doing sod all levy. I am genuinly interested to know what the banks will come up with next. They are already giving legal advice in the letter they are sending out to customers after the test case.

There you go again people doing it on purpose. WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN IS THERE IN INCURRING CHARGES ON PURPOSE? You state

"nobody benefits from financial instability. it costs. about £100 or so it seems." and yet you go on to say they are doing it on purpose? Eh I can't see your logic there.

Your logic appears self defeating at times.

no im not saying they do it on purpose at all. but at the same time it could have been avoided. bank charges are avoidable, it depends how much time and care you take to avoid them. if you dont then that doesnt mean theyre doing it on purpose, it means in most cases they're not taking enough time and care.

davidgmmafan

You are wrong on the DD discount I am on the cheapest dual fuel tariff in my area. If I did not pay by DD I could not have the tariff I have which is online and if I were on standard versus standard on DD the prices would be the same except the effect of not paying by DD monthly would be 100 more over the year.

There are so many things in you post I dis-agree with but as I've said we have to agree to disa-agree. There is just one point I want you to answer.

"its simple. a million quid would be unenforceable, 100 wouldnt."

Why? What about £50? I'd like more than a one sentence response. What about £125? £150? £200?

Oh and I forgot to say you have to justify it without reference to the value of the work involved because that is the current position.

Cleany

davidgmmafan wrote: »

You are wrong on the DD discount I am on the cheapest dual fuel tariff in my area. If I did not pay by DD I could not have the tariff I have which is online and if I were on standard versus standard on DD the prices would be the same except the effect of not paying by DD monthly would be 100 more over the year.

but that doesnt mean the saving you're making are equivelant to the savings the company are making by dd.

as you have pointed out many times, the price (or charge) quoted doesnt reflect actual costs.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

There are so many things in you post I dis-agree with but as I've said we have to agree to disa-agree. There is just one point I want you to answer.

"its simple. a million quid would be unenforceable, 100 wouldnt."

Why? What about £50? I'd like more than a one sentence response. What about £125? £150? £200?

Oh and I forgot to say you have to justify it without reference to the value of the work involved because that is the current position.

clearly £100 is enforcable as it is being and has been enforced. I'm speculating that £1,000,000 isnt enforcable quite obviously because most people dont have access to it. £125, £150, and £200 probably is enforcable.

chipbeck

Cleany wrote: »

but that doesnt mean the saving you're making are equivelant to the savings the company are making by dd.

as you have pointed out many times, the price (or charge) quoted doesnt reflect actual costs.



clearly £100 is enforcable as it is being and has been enforced. I'm speculating that £1,000,000 isnt enforcable quite obviously because most people dont have access to it. £125, £150, and £200 probably is enforcable.

What about the people who don't have access to £125?

davidgmmafan

"but that doesnt mean the saving you're making are equivelant to the savings the company are making by dd."

No it doesn't I'd be a fool to think it was but clearly there is some relationship. I'm getting a better price than I would without DD (since you need to have that for the online tariff) and a rebate. Also if the Direct Debit is returned unpaid twice they charge me a whopping £6. They beenfit from the DD and they don't shaft me if something goes wrong. That's all I ask of banks.

"clearly £100 is enforcable as it is being and has been enforced. I'm speculating that £1,000,000 isnt enforcable quite obviously because most people dont have access to it. £125, £150, and £200 probably is enforcable."

You've made my point very nicely that's its not so clear cut. What people can afford is irrevelent, they are part of a package of services which the customer consented to.

You can't use the fact people are doing something to suggest it is legal, or even desirable. Millions of people drive uninsured, MP's were clearly taking the mickey with thier expenses.

I think I'll bow out now as I've taken this as far as I can. I understand prevention is better than a cure and when giving advice will make sure I pay more attention to this. Beyond that we'll agree to disagree. Good debate though

Cleany

chipbeck wrote: »

[/COLOR]


What about the people who don't have access to £125?

who?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"but that doesnt mean the saving you're making are equivelant to the savings the company are making by dd."

No it doesn't I'd be a fool to think it was but clearly there is some relationship. I'm getting a better price than I would without DD (since you need to have that for the online tariff) and a rebate. Also if the Direct Debit is returned unpaid twice they charge me a whopping £6. They beenfit from the DD and they don't shaft me if something goes wrong. That's all I ask of banks.

they dont have to shaft you if something goes wrong, i thought it was the banks job to shaft you?

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"clearly £100 is enforcable as it is being and has been enforced. I'm speculating that £1,000,000 isnt enforcable quite obviously because most people dont have access to it. £125, £150, and £200 probably is enforcable."

You've made my point very nicely that's its not so clear cut. What people can afford is irrevelent, they are part of a package of services which the customer consented to.

ok ...

davidgmmafan wrote: »

You can't use the fact people are doing something to suggest it is legal, or even desirable. Millions of people drive uninsured, MP's were clearly taking the mickey with thier expenses.

i didnt. i was using the fact the something is being financially enforced, to suggest that it is financially enforcable. i never said anything about right and wrong in answer to your question.

but actually you can use that argument, and people do it all the time. but i didnt, and i wont.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I think I'll bow out now as I've taken this as far as I can. I understand prevention is better than a cure and when giving advice will make sure I pay more attention to this. Beyond that we'll agree to disagree. Good debate though

ahh well thanks, good debate I agree.

perhaps thats the end of this thread, ahh well. thanks for the chat :-)

davidgmmafan

"i didnt. i was using the fact the something is being financially enforced, to suggest that it is financially enforcable. i never said anything about right and wrong in answer to your question."

What does financially enforced mean? I presume by that you mean legal?

"What about the people who don't have access to £125?who?"

Students, unemployed people, even some pensioners wouldn't have access to £125 on 309 days notice which is how the spiral starts. But you've already agreed that some people should be helped, and frankly I WISH banks would take this approach in situations like this.

Bascially my main point is there are people in many different situations to our own. I've encountered them, and I understand voluntary work is not for everyone, but it was a real eye opener for me. I simply could not believe how screwed over some people get and no before you say they weren't idiots, lazy etc etc, some of them had vigorously gone through all the right channels but still drew a blank.

"they dont have to shaft you if something goes wrong, i thought it was the banks job to shaft you?"

The banks decided it was the banks job, which is kinda my point. The direct debit is between the company and the indidiidual, the bank is just the middleman. So I don't see where this punishment element comes from.

The current situation is totally inadequate, there is nothing to stop the charges increasing other than consumer choice (ha) and the vague threat of a referal to the competition commission.

Ok ok I promise I'm out this time, nice talking to you