Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Morglin

Chrysalis wrote: »

please understand this.

block all payments so unauthorised overdrafts are impossible, if a bank clears a payment then they are authorising the overdraft at their own choice.

Things like delayed wages, banking errors, etc. do happen that can cause bounced direct debits. These should not result in large charges they should pretty much no fee, if there is a fee then the same fee should be applied to all forms of blocked payments.

To me the common sense approach is this.

1 - Block all attempted payments where there is insufficient funds.
2 - optionally have a service where the customer receives a letter stating payment has failed, this could perhaps be charged at 50p to cover the cost of postage and paper etc.
3 - if someone has repeated bounced payments eg. 4 in a month, then call them in for an interview so can discuss how to improve things with their cash balance. Not to sell them more products.
4 - consider a flat banking fee for everyone that is not waived for been rich.

The punishment for not having sufficient funds is simply the bill doesnt get paid and whatever the bill was for will soon have its repurcussions anyway for the billpayer.

I agree with some of this, but I really don't see why a flat banking fee should be introduced.

Why would those of us not paying any charges now wish to start paying charges/fees, so that those who go overdrawn without permission, have to pay less?

The banks have said they are looking at more transparent and fair methods of charging, the argument for reclaim is dead in the water, and it's obviously going to remain it's always been - if you spend money that is not yours, you will be charged by the banks for doing that.

I would say that an overdraft opt-out is a good idea though - although I thought the basic accounts were like this already?

Lin :rolleyes:

Cleany

Morglin wrote: »

I would say that an overdraft opt-out is a good idea though - although I thought the basic accounts were like this already?

That would be a good idea but wouldn't solve the problem I dont think.

I think much of the problem lies with people who use Direct Debit but aren't prepared for the consequences when they can't make a payment. It seems that it's been mixed up with "Bank Charges" in general, which from what I can gather, was something of a mistake.

Even though I didn't know the ins and outs of this situation with Direct Debits, I had heard of bank charges, and my default position of "Don't incur any charges because it will cost me money" has kept me out of trouble. Also the "No, really. Under no circumstances run out of money and incur any bank charges because otherwise I may as well just give money away" philosophy seemed to have helped. My low income doesn't seem to have hindered me in this.

For whatever reason some other people seem more willing to play it fast and loose with their bank account limit, incuring bank charges and other stuff when "unexpected" things happen, varying from someone dying, to something good being on the TV. These varying circumstabnces and attitudes produce a wide range of consequences from being hit with quite unnecessary (but ultimately avoidable) hundreds and thousands of pounds of "bank charges", to realising that while on the one hand Direct Debits are a convenient and cheaper way to pay, on the other hand if you can't pay (thus undermining the premise upon which Direct Debits seem to be founded) you may as well go to the cashpoint and forget to take your money.

The whole bank charges issue includes all of these situations, and rather unfortunately lumps together peope who have been quite unfairly treated and who deserve compensation with people who think they've been unfairly treated but haven't, people who's basic premise in life is that problems are somebody elses responsibility, people who may as well still be aged 10 and live at home with their parents as far as their attitude to life and consumption is concerned, people who have enough money not to care, and the downright lazy and greedy.

My personal opinion is there there will never be a solution for many people who simply aren't aware that money is an issue, or that it's worth taking the effort to take care of it. There's nothing wrong with that, but if they choose not take care over their money, then it will always cost them, because whatever money is saved in one place will be squandered, I mean invested somewhere else.

I hope that there will now be more attention focused on those who genuinely deserve to be compensated or something else. I feel the broad scope of the campaign may have up to now ultimately failed to help those who needed it the most.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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 ).

How about a wager? :P

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

How about a wager? :P

On one condition: any wager must be a charitable donation only and must not benefit either one of us directly since that would be betting. If I name my charity and you name yours then no doubt a paypal donation can be made and details passed on via PM to confirm it has been done.
6 months is my timeline and proof of the pudding is in the eating but I suspect this might be a short race since I am certain someone will win within that timeline in court.......(is out of court settlement[no hardship] ok? )

Chrysalis

Cleany wrote: »

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

etc.

they were doing fine before the OFT got involved tho weren't they, the banks were paying out many millions, the OFT steps in and suddenly everything has gone sour.

As for your other comments I think you was very unreasonable, I would love to see how you could handle a snowball affect of charges without the income to exceed those charges.

The fact remains the charges subsidise other accounts that have a low credit but no fees.

Chrysalis

Morglin wrote: »

if you spend money that is not yours, you will be charged by the banks for doing that.

you was doing well up to that point.

how is a returned item spending money not yours?

even for those unplanned overdrafts it is the bank authorising the payment.

Morglin

Charges are applied when an item is presented and there are not sufficient funds to cover it - which means that *you* haven't got the money for the DD or whatever.

I have been clobbered with bank chages in the past - and have now learnt, from bitter experience, not to allow myself to go overdrawn, no matter what.

That way - no charges whatsoever.

If the money isn't in the person's account, then anything else they try to spend belongs to 'the bank' and not them.

Lin

Cleany

natweststaffmember wrote: »

On one condition: any wager must be a charitable donation only and must not benefit either one of us directly since that would be betting. If I name my charity and you name yours then no doubt a paypal donation can be made and details passed on via PM to confirm it has been done.
6 months is my timeline and proof of the pudding is in the eating but I suspect this might be a short race since I am certain someone will win within that timeline in court.......(is out of court settlement[no hardship] ok? )

lol no it was a joke!

Chrysalis wrote: »

they were doing fine before the OFT got involved tho weren't they, the banks were paying out many millions, the OFT steps in and suddenly everything has gone sour.

well that tells me the campaign is wrong!

Chrysalis wrote: »

As for your other comments I think you was very unreasonable, I would love to see how you could handle a snowball affect of charges without the income to exceed those charges.

i wouldnt handle it very well, i would be very annoyed indeed, and I simply couldnt afford it. thats why I wont let it happen!

Chrysalis wrote: »

The fact remains the charges subsidise other accounts that have a low credit but no fees.

well here's my reply to that:

firstly there's no evidence that that's true, but that doesnt matter because even if it is true thats just tough for those people that incur charges and if they dont want to incur them then they should take more care. people pay to subsidise others in most, if not all, business models. the price very rarely reflects the cost of production and more often than not reflects the price that the business can get for it, which is where competition comes in. just look at the offers on this website for exmple. there are people paying premuim prices who are ignorant of these deals who are subsidising those coming on here and getting the offers. is there a campaign to balance this off on the grounds of "fairness". my god no.

then if what youre saying isnt true then you're wrong :P

Morglin wrote: »

I have been clobbered with bank chages in the past - and have now learnt, from bitter experience, not to allow myself to go overdrawn, no matter what.

do you see that? learnt. no matter what. listen!

natweststaffmember

Cleany wrote: »

lol no it was a joke!



well that tells me the campaign is wrong!



i wouldnt handle it very well, i would be very annoyed indeed, and I simply couldnt afford it. thats why I wont let it happen!



well here's my reply to that:

firstly there's no evidence that that's true,
Unfortunately there is evidence that it is true.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft1005c.pdfFurthermore, the banks' argued that point in the House of Lords appeal.

but that doesnt matter because even if it is true thats just tough for those people that incur charges and if they dont want to incur them then they should take more care.
I think the cross subsidy issue is irrelevant to the debate not because of the charges issue but because the contract itself and any charges incurred is related to the whole contract signed between YOU and the BANK.
We keep coming back to this issue of "it's your fault for charges" rather than the real issue which is (a) What is the cause of the charges? Answer: less income to cover outgoings.
(b) Why are you overspending?
Answer: is it overspending or is it an unexpected event occurring ie partner separates, partner involved in accident meaning they cannot work for a number of months putting a strain on the finances, children being born which again puts a burden of the finances.

I would throw this into the mix. If there is overspending then how is it occurring since no overspend on a card can be given without the consent of the bank.

people pay to subsidise others in most, if not all, business models. the price very rarely reflects the cost of production and more often than not reflects the price that the business can get for it, which is where competition comes in. just look at the offers on this website for exmple. there are people paying premuim prices who are ignorant of these deals who are subsidising those coming on here and getting the offers. is there a campaign to balance this off on the grounds of "fairness". my god no.
To clarify this, if you pay for goods and services then you should have the option to opt out of that service which is not something that you get with bank fees. What I mean is that a service is given without real consent. With regards to cross subsidy, I personally do not think that is really a great argument for anyone to claim bank charges back with.
then if what youre saying isnt true then you're wrong :P
Then the banks have been lying all along and have done so in court which I believe is a criminal issue rather than civil one.


do you see that? learnt. no matter what. listen!

People who come on the boards are usually at the point in which they are being clobbered so let's try and teach them how the charges work, when they go out, what they can do to cut back if any and therefore be able to stop the continuing cycle happen. That is about financial education.

natweststaffmember

And BTW, with regards to the wager, I was serious because I am very positive to be able to win any wager for a specific charity

orc_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

And BTW, with regards to the wager, I was serious because I am very positive to be able to win any wager for a specific charity

I too would wager £10 on the same outcome as Nattie and likewise feel positive.

Again, for charity.