We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why Reclaim Bank Charges
Comments
-
One last attempt Cleany as to what I see as being wrong.
You are correct when you say people should be better at managing their finances, I'm crap I admit it.
The problem is that the punishment (and thats what it is) does not befit the crime.
I should pay for messing the bank about but I shouldn't pay so much. I've mentioned previously that Lloyds took £1500 in charges in two months. Yes I should have ensured all DD's were cancelled so I am well out of order. But that £1500 was crippling and now I can't get out of the mire. Are Lloyds trying to suggest that they have had to allocate a person full time on my account, I think not only the amount of charges would suggest this.
In summary - I'm a plonker I know I am but they could be a tad more sympathetic. Indeed it would appear with the reduction of the charges prior to the Supreme Courts announcement that they to realise this.0 -
I've mentioned previously that Lloyds took £1500 in charges in two months. Yes I should have ensured all DD's were cancelled so I am well out of order. But that £1500 was crippling and now I can't get out of the mire. Are Lloyds trying to suggest that they have had to allocate a person full time on my account, I think not only the amount of charges would suggest this.
From what you said that does seem wrong to me. If only the campaign were about this specific problem, rather than all bank charges.In summary - I'm a plonker I know I am but they could be a tad more sympathetic. Indeed it would appear with the reduction of the charges prior to the Supreme Courts announcement that they to realise this.
They could be more sympathetic, but do you really expect them to be?The problem is that the punishment (and thats what it is) does not befit the crime.
This is where we differ. Although in your situation, and other extreme ones, this does seem harsh to me, in general I think the banks should be free to set whatever punishment they see fit, after all it is their bank.
All businesses set their prices according to a vast array of variables. The actual cost of supplying that good or service (which in many cases is almost impossible to quantify) is only one of them. They use all sorts of tactics to maximise income, and there's market influence to consider. Just ask an economist. (I'm not one by the way). It's the job of the consumer (if they so wish!) to find the most cost effective way of getting goods or services. This is the free market in which we live.
I believe that the reason the campaign has failed up to this point is that the banks say that these charges form a part of the price of their accounts. Sadly it's all come down to words, such are legal matters. But I think that if they don't want people running up big debts and generally messing them about, they have to draw the line somewhere. Let's be honest, even if they did put a cap on bank charges at, say, £10, wouldn't there still be people doing the same thing, running up the same charges. In fact wouldn't they, in general, just do it more because the penalty was less?
So my take on it is that there will always be people going into debt and mismanaging their money etc, it's just a matter of where the banks draw the line, and it should be up the banks to draw that line, and set the price of charges as they wish.0 -
1. Yes that situation sounds crazy.
2. My criticism is that the campaign is about all bank charges, not just specific situations.
It depends which site you read and what you read. I would say that there is issues I have with the fact that there is no real genuine discretion whatsoever. There used to be and it is all about selling something to somebody if they have had charges. In fact, I have known charges waived if they took out a loan. That shouldn't be the point since an opportunity is missed.
3. But even then, you don't have to pay by direct debit, and the bank doesnt have to have you as a customer. If you don't like their services, don't use them!
I agree with you but think about direct debits in this way. 99% of retailers state that you get it cheaper if you do so if you choose to pay by cash then it is a lot more expensive for you. Let's be honest, we want people to get things cheaper but take out Direct Debit and it makes it more expensive.
Not sure what you're saying here, sorry.
In 2005, 50% of income generated in the personal current account market was from low credit interest given whilst the banks' invested the money ie interest forgone(not taken) on credit balances.
I think that no matter what happens, people will be people and run up debt and credit. It's not the banks responsibility to manage people's accounts, and nor should it be!
But the bank isn't encouraging responsibility by negotiating an increased and potentially too much repayment plans because they are targetted for getting income back on potentially defaulting accounts. Let's be blunt, the let's agree an amount and the amount agreed is unsustainable leading to additional credit perhaps being taken to pay off existing issues. There has to be a better way.
Life hardly ever never runs on a smooth course, that's why you need a buffer. If people are going to deny this and blame everyone but themselves for the situation, then it's no wonder they get into trouble.
But sometimes, when you have no income coming in the bank does not even agree to a £50 buffer if for example you are on JSA. Yes you can get a buffer but what happens when the buffer is used up? JSA is £64.00 a week and that is nothing really when you have rent light heat etc. etc. to pay excluding food.
I would advise you not to use pity for suicide as an argument for this campaign. There's no evidence that they are related, and in many people consider suicide to be a completely selfish act.
I can produce evidence that has lead directly to someone killing themselves which was in the press. There is evidence of a debt that was not legally owned by the person a Debt Collection Agency harrassed who killed themselves which was brought up in Parliament. I haven't used the suicide argument because statistically, what one person does and another one can be different. However, you have to look at the knock on effect of a bank charge ie charges by the provider as well, further charges, etc,etc, leading to a build up of stress caused by multiple debts. Some people blame the bank for the initial start of it all. I don't because the charge is the consequence. However, let's take someone claiming £3000 from RBS Group for example. If the charges had been levied as they are today we would be looking at probably less than £2500.00(that is huge). Furthermore, 7 years ago, banks used to step in at NatWest when the account went £125.00 over the limit, it then changed to £250. Surely early intervention WOULD have helped.
Don't really know what you mean here.
In the early days the advice was to open a new account while claiming the charges back, ie the "parachute" account which meant you started again. In a sense, it was your redemption account. You read and knew how the system now worked and it meant you would use the new account to make sure you kept in credit since you were perhaps in a cycle in which the charges were eating into your budget that it was getting unmanageable.
From my point of view the problem behind all this is a lack of people taking responsibility for their affairs. I think that's wrong, and really quite sad. I can't see that the success of this campaign would have resulted in anything but encouraging millions of people to take even less responsibility for their affairs.
Give me an example of the banks helping customers with their affairs. You can make 1 mistake and they will refund but make 2 and you have no sympathy from the bank whatsoever. The success is lower bank charges from RBS Group, lower charges from Barclays, increased awareness of banks and regulators that customers are not being treated fairly and in fact the replacement to the banking code, BCOBS is actually much more in depth on fairness. Some people have taken control of their finances as a direct result of reclaiming.
We will see what happens!
See above but I do appreciate your point of view and I do think it is interesting us debating this issue because I think your views are important as to how the campaign is viewed and how it should progress further.
EDIT: got booted as responding to the thread but hope this is good.0 -
From what you said that does seem wrong to me. If only the campaign were about this specific problem, rather than all bank charges.
They could be more sympathetic, but do you really expect them to be?
This is where we differ. Although in your situation, and other extreme ones, this does seem harsh to me, in general I think the banks should be free to set whatever punishment they see fit, after all it is their bank.
All businesses set their prices according to a vast array of variables. The actual cost of supplying that good or service (which in many cases is almost impossible to quantify) is only one of them. They use all sorts of tactics to maximise income, and there's market influence to consider. Just ask an economist. (I'm not one by the way). It's the job of the consumer (if they so wish!) to find the most cost effective way of getting goods or services. This is the free market in which we live.
I believe that the reason the campaign has failed up to this point is that the banks say that these charges form a part of the price of their accounts. Sadly it's all come down to words, such are legal matters. But I think that if they don't want people running up big debts and generally messing them about, they have to draw the line somewhere. Let's be honest, even if they did put a cap on bank charges at, say, £10, wouldn't there still be people doing the same thing, running up the same charges. In fact wouldn't they, in general, just do it more because the penalty was less?
So my take on it is that there will always be people going into debt and mismanaging their money etc, it's just a matter of where the banks draw the line, and it should be up the banks to draw that line, and set the price of charges as they wish.
We'll agree to disagree - you give them a blank chequebook and people like me will continue to fork out any amount they fancy on a given day. Your a mile off the mark cleany, this is wrong. You may not be as happy with this approach should it mean you are affected.
Again let me add that with me it is my own fault, with others a minor slip has reeked havoc.
I don't want to spout on about this but imagine if a sensible person like yourself parked your car on the street and got back 5 minutes after your ticket ran out. Your thinking is that the Traffic Warden can charge whatever he likes and you have to pay it.
I know thats a daft example and you obviously wouldn't let it happen again but hopefully you can see what I mean.
I'm knocking on a bit now and as I've always been crap with my finances so I've had a lifetime of these penalties. Fact is cleany they would have appeared to have adopted the 'we can charge them whatever we want' approach over the last few years. Had a minor scare whereby they paid some people back their charges, then had a bigger scare whereby they set up new terms prior to the Supreme Court ruling (would they have reduced the charges had they known they where going to win the Supreme Court round, I think not). In a nutshell it's being fair that's important and all the people who have been hammered can't see that, as indeed some of the people who haven't been hammered also agree with.0 -
natweststaffmember wrote: »It depends which site you read and what you read. I would say that there is issues I have with the fact that there is no real genuine discretion whatsoever. There used to be and it is all about selling something to somebody if they have had charges. In fact, I have known charges waived if they took out a loan. That shouldn't be the point since an opportunity is missed.
sounds like you're saying the banks can do what they like and they shouldnt be able to.natweststaffmember wrote: »I agree with you but think about direct debits in this way. 99% of retailers state that you get it cheaper if you do so if you choose to pay by cash then it is a lot more expensive for you. Let's be honest, we want people to get things cheaper but take out Direct Debit and it makes it more expensive.
if a person can't pay by direct debit because they can't guarantee that the money's in the bank then that's their problem. if they want the cheaper tariff then they should sort it out, if they can't, then tough. you don't get something for nothing.natweststaffmember wrote: »In 2005, 50% of income generated in the personal current account market was from low credit interest given whilst the banks' invested the money ie interest forgone(not taken) on credit balances.
ok but whats your point?natweststaffmember wrote: »But the bank isn't encouraging responsibility by negotiating an increased and potentially too much repayment plans because they are targetted for getting income back on potentially defaulting accounts. Let's be blunt, the let's agree an amount and the amount agreed is unsustainable leading to additional credit perhaps being taken to pay off existing issues. There has to be a better way.
It's not the bank's job to encourage responsibility, nor is it asdas, ikeas, or any other business.natweststaffmember wrote: »But sometimes, when you have no income coming in the bank does not even agree to a £50 buffer if for example you are on JSA. Yes you can get a buffer but what happens when the buffer is used up? JSA is £64.00 a week and that is nothing really when you have rent light heat etc. etc. to pay excluding food.
There are many cases where a person is unable to manage their finances due to a set of cirsumstances that is unfair, and they should get more help. But to use this as a general argument for less bank charges is insulting to those who have the real problems. It's just like professional begging. Not only is it wrong and greedy, it's taking the money straight out of the pockets of those who really need it.
Consumers in this country aren't helpless at the mercy of the big evil banks. They are more wealthy, healthy, and generally better off that most people in the whole world. While there are some individual situations that are unfair, I have simply not heard enough evidence to suggest that the consumer is being wronged as a whole. In fact, the overwhelming evidence from our society, these forums, and what you just said, is that the consumer is greedy, spoiled, unable to stop spending money, and worst of all, deluded into thinking that they are hard done by?!natweststaffmember wrote: »I can produce evidence that has lead directly to someone killing themselves which was in the press. There is evidence of a debt that was not legally owned by the person a Debt Collection Agency harrassed who killed themselves which was brought up in Parliament. I haven't used the suicide argument because statistically, what one person does and another one can be different. However, you have to look at the knock on effect of a bank charge ie charges by the provider as well, further charges, etc,etc, leading to a build up of stress caused by multiple debts. Some people blame the bank for the initial start of it all. I don't because the charge is the consequence. However, let's take someone claiming £3000 from RBS Group for example. If the charges had been levied as they are today we would be looking at probably less than £2500.00(that is huge). Furthermore, 7 years ago, banks used to step in at NatWest when the account went £125.00 over the limit, it then changed to £250. Surely early intervention WOULD have helped.
In that particular case intervention may have helped. But that's no reason to lower all bank charges.natweststaffmember wrote: »In the early days the advice was to open a new account while claiming the charges back, ie the "parachute" account which meant you started again. In a sense, it was your redemption account. You read and knew how the system now worked and it meant you would use the new account to make sure you kept in credit since you were perhaps in a cycle in which the charges were eating into your budget that it was getting unmanageable.
ok. Forgotten the point here sorry.natweststaffmember wrote: »Give me an example of the banks helping customers with their affairs. You can make 1 mistake and they will refund but make 2 and you have no sympathy from the bank whatsoever. The success is lower bank charges from RBS Group, lower charges from Barclays, increased awareness of banks and regulators that customers are not being treated fairly and in fact the replacement to the banking code, BCOBS is actually much more in depth on fairness. Some people have taken control of their finances as a direct result of reclaiming.
I don't understand, what leads you to expect the banks to help you and have sympathy for you? Didn't you work for a bank? Weren't your management under pressure to meet targets, budgets etc?
If people can't learn to take care of their business where will it end up? Even if the banks become a helpful utopia of money management, won't that just turn people into helpless morons?
Come to think of it that's quite an important point. It's crucial that people remain responsible for their own finances, can you imagine a world where corporations "manage" our money? God help us!natweststaffmember wrote: »See above but I do appreciate your point of view and I do think it is interesting us debating this issue because I think your views are important as to how the campaign is viewed and how it should progress further.
0 -
We'll agree to disagree - you give them a blank chequebook and people like me will continue to fork out any amount they fancy on a given day. Your a mile off the mark cleany, this is wrong. You may not be as happy with this approach should it mean you are affected.
Never! The banks can hold my money if I choose. If I want to use the service then I follow their rules. But it's my money, and I can manage it as I please.Again let me add that with me it is my own fault, with others a minor slip has reeked havoc.
I don't want to spout on about this but imagine if a sensible person like yourself parked your car on the street and got back 5 minutes after your ticket ran out. Your thinking is that the Traffic Warden can charge whatever he likes and you have to pay it.
I know thats a daft example and you obviously wouldn't let it happen again but hopefully you can see what I mean.
I can see how unfair it might appear, but the problem is that it's only unfair after the rules have been broken. Ok they charge a lot, so then don't break the rules, don't use Direct Debit.
What the campaign seems to be doing is some sort of enforced leniency on a private business. That's not right either. We should be free to choose things, and that includes the banks method of conducting business.
Direct debits are cheaper because it's an automated process, and the money is more reliably there. This makes it cheaper. Because of this there should be higher charges for non-payment, to compensate. You can't take a system of payment that is based on reliable payments, not pay, and then argue about the consequences.
Simply put, the only argument for forcing banks to reduce bank charges is idiocy. Basically people are too stupid and helpless in general to not incur charges, and so need protecting. I don't want some law passed that's based on that, where's that going to lead?
If you don't like bank charges, stop using Direct Debit or manage your money better. Don't try and ruin it for everyone else!
As for the traffic warden, there's an area round my way where roads are dangerously blocked around a school because people park on double yellows outside a shop. Yet there's a free car park literally 20 metres away (LITERALLY!). I WANT those people to get fined a lot of money because they are selfish and lazy. £1000 wouldn't be enough.
Wake up, take responsibility, and stop moaning!I'm knocking on a bit now and as I've always been crap with my finances so I've had a lifetime of these penalties. Fact is cleany they would have appeared to have adopted the 'we can charge them whatever we want' approach over the last few years. Had a minor scare whereby they paid some people back their charges, then had a bigger scare whereby they set up new terms prior to the Supreme Court ruling (would they have reduced the charges had they known they where going to win the Supreme Court round, I think not). In a nutshell it's being fair that's important and all the people who have been hammered can't see that, as indeed some of the people who haven't been hammered also agree with.
Well yes I can see how it can seem unfair to people who have been charged so much money. But I have lived in this country for a long time, and met, known and experienced many people. And for every innocent person who will have been unfairly treated, there are ten who are out for what they can get and won't care about the consequences as long as they get more money.
Anyway they can charge whatever they want, and they should be able to. It's their bank.0 -
-
Yes that sounds like the consumer society?0
-
OK Cleany end of correspondence. You tell me to stop moaning and I'll tell you to stop Pontificating.
You must lead some boring life, good luck and I hope nothing ever goes wrong in your world.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards