Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Chrysalis

Morglin wrote: »

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

you haven't answered my question as I think you misunderstand what I am on about.

How is a bank blocking a direct debit (returned item) causing the account holder to spend other peoples money? The direct debit is not processed.

oldwiring

The bank is not causing the account holder to spend money he has not got (aka other people's money--- what else can it be, if it's not his?---I suggest that the charge relates to the customer's attempt to do something not allowed without prior agreement.

natweststaffmember

oldwiring wrote: »

The bank is not causing the account holder to spend money he has not got (aka other people's money--- what else can it be, if it's not his?---I suggest that the charge relates to the customer's attempt to do something not allowed without prior agreement.

I seem to be writing this again and again today. The charge is for consideration as to whether to pay or not pay. With regards to prior agreement, the bank should not allow things on the account if they do not agree to its useage, ie Direct Debits/Standing Orders/ Cheque Books/ Overdrafts/Cards, etc, etc,.
The agreement to allowing them on the account is as such giving agreement for their use.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I seem to be writing this again and again today. The charge is for consideration as to whether to pay or not pay. With regards to prior agreement, the bank should not allow things on the account if they do not agree to its useage, ie Direct Debits/Standing Orders/ Cheque Books/ Overdrafts/Cards, etc, etc,.
The agreement to allowing them on the account is as such giving agreement for their use.

If there is already an agreement in place, why are the bank spending their time and the customers money considering whether or not to pay???

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

If there is already an agreement in place, why are the bank spending their time and the customers money considering whether or not to pay???

Because they can get away with charging ridiculous fees for it. Why else?

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

If there is already an agreement in place, why are the bank spending their time and the customers money considering whether or not to pay???

You need to ask the banks that question, cos I have no idea why they do not seek consent to opt a customer into overdrafts that they claim are "unauthorised" or return items at "their discretion" and pay others.
When you find out can you post up the answer please

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

You need to ask the banks that question, cos I have no idea why they do not seek consent to opt a customer into overdrafts that they claim are "unauthorised" or return items at "their discretion" and pay others.
When you find out can you post up the answer please

When you accept the terms of (most) bank accounts, the agreement is that the bank will settle any transactions duly authorised by the payer where cleared funds exist or a previously agreed OD is arranged.

There is also an agreement, as you say, that where a transaction is duly approved by the payer but the above terms are not otherwise met, that the bank will consider whether or not to pay. There is a charge for this consideration as specified in their terms & conditions/tariff of charges.

But you knew this surely, having worked in a bank?

Smasher

Premier wrote: »

When you accept the terms of (most) bank accounts, the agreement is that the bank will settle any transactions duly authorised by the payer where cleared funds exist or a previously agreed OD is arranged.

There is also an agreement, as you say, that where a transaction is duly approved by the payer but the above terms are not otherwise met, that the bank will consider whether or not to pay. There is a charge for this consideration as specified in their terms & conditions/tariff of charges.

But you knew this surely, having worked in a bank?

If you opened your account before September 2007, there would have been no mention of the 'consideration' charge, so these would not have been the terms that were agreed to. This was only implemented once the test case was announced (hmm, wonder why?). It is effectively a new 'service' and nobody was given the option to opt in or out, it was just enforced on your account.

I wrote to HSBC to ask them why they would refuse a pre-arranged overdraft, but subsequently consider and approve an unarranged overdraft. Of course, I know the answer is £25, but they simply stated that accounts would be operated in accordance with the current terms & conditions - not the terms & conditions that were agreed to when the account was opened.

Ok, I could vote with my feet and go to another bank, but what do you know? They all changed their terms & conditions in exactly the same way, all at the same time too, hows that for a coincidence!!

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

When you accept the terms of (most) bank accounts, the agreement is that the bank will settle any transactions duly authorised by the payer where cleared funds exist or a previously agreed OD is arranged.

There is also an agreement, as you say, that where a transaction is duly approved by the payer but the above terms are not otherwise met, that the bank will consider whether or not to pay. There is a charge for this consideration as specified in their terms & conditions/tariff of charges.

But you knew this surely, having worked in a bank?

Then you have answered you're own question - ''If there is already an agreement in place, why are the bank spending their time and the customers money considering whether or not to pay???''

Chrysalis

my agreement which I have here states if insufficient funds are in my account then any direct debit and standing order agreements as well as transactions will be declined. So if the bank were to eg. clear a direct debit causing a unplanned overdraft then its them and not me who are breaking the agreement. Interesting isn't it. Legally I expect I could in that situation refuse to pay back the overdraft saying I didn't agree to it as I would have expected them in line with my agreement to decline such a payment. This then goes back to Alpine Star point, why are they considering such payments, a computer should just decline them and be done with it.

Of course modified t&c's on the web and given to 'new' customers have different terms, but my agreement was made in the 1990's not 2010.