Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Cleany

:-)

__________

Chrysalis

Cleany wrote: »

i submit to you that they aren't unfair trading conditions!



isnt that what this is all really about? it's not really got anything to do with the banks, they're just the ones where the buck happens to stop.

if it really was the case that instead of people being charged for DDs not being paid, the bills were simply rejected, wouldnt the same people still have problems? probably the spiral effect would disappear, but all the same, some people can sleep through the loudest alarms, no matter what sound it makes.

of course they would ultimately still owe money to the recipient of the direct debit but at least they wouldnt be flooded with extra needless debt.

There is nothing logical about not charging for various things such as rejected ATM transaction and rejected card payment but then charging a lot of money for a bounced automated payment. There is no logic to it at all. It is simply a way for them to make easy money.

the logical thing to do is not clear payments where no cash is available, and to charge everyone in the country a standard banking fee. Get rid of all these silly fees for bounced payments.

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you said except that you stated that the campaign tried to change the rules. The campaign tried to create a fairer banking system and to a degree there have been some successes with regards to some firms lowering their charges and I think I would agree that people themselves do need to take a good look at how banking works. For example, how direct debits works and their mechanisms so that they realise that if a bill is due over the weekend that the bill will be taken early. Personally, I would like the DD providers to state a date for collection of a payment and stick to it. TV licence for example, are deadly in terms of when they take money via DD. It never goes earlier than the date is states on on the licence(from my own experience).
However, Lloyds have recently advertised a service which means that if you get to your account limit they will decline all payments yet they are charging £10 to do this. I don't agree with this idea because they should be doing this already as a service to their customers. Perhaps opting into overdraft services is the way to go because whilst it won't necessarily stop people being financially dumb, it will make them think more if a payment is declined and not charged rather than charged when it is declined. An opt in service that allows this to happen would be legitimate with a charge attached to it which the customer is fully aware of. Just my own take on it.

Thats pretty funny, lloyds charging £10 for something they already do on my account. Does that £10 stop them adding the extra charges for bounced payments as well?

Chrysalis

Cleany wrote: »

well the last 3 posts have been about direct debit again. and like i have said, perhaps if the campaign was just about the Direct Debit Maelstrom of Infinity (or whatever name you can think of) then it might have had more chance of succeeding.



yes that does sound ridiculous, but spare a thought for the alternatives and the situation.

you're a utilities company with millions of customers. you have a massive automated system whereby people who don't pay are dealt with in some way. you cant be concerned with whether or not someone forgot to pay, or the cheque got lost etc. etc. , you have to draw a line and say that if someone pays x days late, there's going to be action. it used to be that people got cut off all the time, but that doesnt happen now (i think the law changed?), so there will be court threat letters etc. etc.
<snip>

Your comparison with a late paying bill isnt valid for me, they not comparable things.

What is clear to me.

1 - the court case was screwed up where they tried to lump unauthorised overdrafts and bounced payments together, both are different things, the latter as the other guy said is insanity, whilst the former there is a case there to say its a service.
2 - the media have consistently been getting it wrong, the result is there is less public sympathy to those who are affected as most people think that the charges only apply to people who go overdrawn.
3 - people who dont pay a direct debit get the fee from the bank, this doesnt substitute the consequences of that bill not been paid, the utility company or whoever it is will still likely chase the debt.

Chrysalis

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.

EDIT: got booted as responding to the thread but hope this is good.

correct on the buffer.

The last time I had a problem with my account was in jan 2006

1 - I had £400 due to go in my account 3 days after a £350 bill was due to go out.
2 - This £400 was regular every month going back nearly 3 years.
3 - There was £320 available funds in the account.

Basically I went into my branch and asked for a temporary £50 overdraft limit increase so this bill would get paid, they did a check on the computer and said sorry no we cannot do that, I said you can see the £400 is regular for a long time, they acknowledged it but still said no. However before walking out I was offered a £1000 loan, I said no and could see the banks priorities are wrong for their customers now.

Basically their computer for whatever reason didn't see fit to give me £50 for a short period of time, but decided I was a safe bet to lend £1000. The difference been the loan was probably at some silly apr like 29% and the bank would have made a 4 figure profit out of me, to the bank its all about making money, they don't care one bit if their customers manage their finances well.

This is why when I see spokespeople for the banks telling the press all the customer needs to do is ask for the overdraft, I moan and groan about it because I know its bull****.

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

correct on the buffer.

The last time I had a problem with my account was in jan 2006

1 - I had £400 due to go in my account 3 days after a £350 bill was due to go out.
2 - This £400 was regular every month going back nearly 3 years.
3 - There was £320 available funds in the account.

Basically I went into my branch and asked for a temporary £50 overdraft limit increase so this bill would get paid, they did a check on the computer and said sorry no we cannot do that, I said you can see the £400 is regular for a long time, they acknowledged it but still said no. However before walking out I was offered a £1000 loan, I said no and could see the banks priorities are wrong for their customers now.

Basically their computer for whatever reason didn't see fit to give me £50 for a short period of time, but decided I was a safe bet to lend £1000. The difference been the loan was probably at some silly apr like 29% and the bank would have made a 4 figure profit out of me, to the bank its all about making money, they don't care one bit if their customers manage their finances well.

This is why when I see spokespeople for the banks telling the press all the customer needs to do is ask for the overdraft, I moan and groan about it because I know its bull****.

In 2006 they might have made a profit out of you on the loan but now you have the right to cancel within 14 days so it could be used to your advantage(albeit, the bank would use this against the advisor to sack them....as ridiculous as that sounds)

Cleany

Chrysalis wrote: »

There is no logic to it at all. It is simply a way for them to make easy money.

so?

I want to vision express to get some glasses, I wanted rimless frames. The price on the frames was mostly over £100. There's no way that it costs that much to make them.

That's not logical but it doesnt have to be, that's the way it works!

I tell you an easier way to make money .. wait that's too easy :P

Cleany

Chrysalis wrote: »

Your comparison with a late paying bill isnt valid for me, they not comparable things.

What is clear to me.

1 - the court case was screwed up where they tried to lump unauthorised overdrafts and bounced payments together, both are different things, the latter as the other guy said is insanity, whilst the former there is a case there to say its a service.
2 - the media have consistently been getting it wrong, the result is there is less public sympathy to those who are affected as most people think that the charges only apply to people who go overdrawn.
3 - people who dont pay a direct debit get the fee from the bank, this doesnt substitute the consequences of that bill not been paid, the utility company or whoever it is will still likely chase the debt.

that's not a comparison, it's the exact situation!

1 - exactly!

2 - some honest advice - dont waste your time blaming the media

3 - the direct debit system is what it is, if you dont like getting fined for non payment then use another payment system. maybe the fines for non-payment is why theres a discount, because there's guaranteed money for the payee.

anyway the OFT have pulled out maybe some people are going to start having to take responsibility for themselves again.

etc.

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

that's not a comparison, it's the exact situation!

1 - exactly!

2 - some honest advice - dont waste your time blaming the media

3 - the direct debit system is what it is, if you dont like getting fined for non payment then use another payment system. maybe the fines for non-payment is why theres a discount, because there's guaranteed money for the payee.

anyway the OFT have pulled out maybe some people are going to start having to take responsibility for themselves again.

etc.

To be blunt with you and everyone on the reclaims board in general. We are losing the battle on this one and it started on November 25th, not in the Courts but in the press. We lost the press coverage and since then we haven't regained that back. The only way to do that is for a win excluding financial hardship(since that has always been there before and after the OFT test case) to be seen post test case.
Yes, I am positive that it will happen but the media battle is being lost because of this. In 6 months if there are still no wins, then Cleany, I'll find that white flag and throw it in(subject to any appeals of course ).

Smasher

natweststaffmember wrote: »

In 6 months if there are still no wins, then Cleany, I'll find that white flag and throw it in(subject to any appeals of course ).

I don't believe you..