We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
HELP! Standign Ordering sent me over overdraft! charged £70
Comments
-
There speaks Judge Marsdencuckoo, lol.
Sorry, but your post comes across as extremely condescending.
I have yet to come across a set of PCA terms and conditions that state you should pay a charge for being 'careless'. Not that its remotely relevant in this instance anyway.
The OP believes he actually cancelled the standing order in question and it's therefore equally possible and arguable that Natwest were delinquant in failing to carry out his / her instruction.
Not wishing to be too pedantic about this but the OP says they:
1. 'thought' (not believed) they had cancelled the SO;
2. have been faced with various bank charges before for whatever reason and have been lucky enough to have those costs reimbursed.
Heard of 'once bitten, twice shy'?
How many times does the OP think their bank owes them to reimburse him for their carelessness? And yes, I stand by my comment about 'carelessness'. If you can't keep simple track on your money/bank account then why should you expect someone else to pay for your mistakes? Would you i.e. if positions were reversed??
Make the most of everything in life (especially Avon
)0 -
MarsdenCuckoo wrote: »Not wishing to be too pedantic about this but the OP says they:
1. 'thought' (not believed) they had cancelled the SO;
2. have been faced with various bank charges before for whatever reason and have been lucky enough to have those costs reimbursed.
Heard of 'once bitten, twice shy'?
How many times does the OP think their bank owes them to reimburse him for their carelessness? And yes, I stand by my comment about 'carelessness'. If you can't keep simple track on your money/bank account then why should you expect someone else to pay for your mistakes? Would you i.e. if positions were reversed??
They also stated Financial Difficulties as well and the bank must treat customers sympathetically in those instances and refunds CAN be given for the period of financial difficulties. He can ask the bank on that basis and with evidence of this. What they did was an oversight on their part due to their financial worries(post 1). Do you that the OP should be punished for an oversight on his part caused by his financial difficulties? If you do then you need to read the Lending Code section 9 and BCOBS section 5.0 -
MarsdenCuckoo wrote: »Not wishing to be too pedantic about this but the OP says they:
1. 'thought' (not believed) they had cancelled the SO;
2. have been faced with various bank charges before for whatever reason and have been lucky enough to have those costs reimbursed.
Heard of 'once bitten, twice shy'?
How many times does the OP think their bank owes them to reimburse him for their carelessness? And yes, I stand by my comment about 'carelessness'. If you can't keep simple track on your money/bank account then why should you expect someone else to pay for your mistakes? Would you i.e. if positions were reversed??
In reply to this....guy...
Well on the online banking i went to scheduled payment and deleted the £25 payment from my account and i later went back and it said that there were no monthly payments so i thought that cancelled the order but obviously i have been charged so somehow something went wrong...
I dont see how you can say 'If you can't keep simple track on your money/bank account then why should you expect someone else to pay for your mistakes? '
Its the morality fo the charge and even so are you saying that everyone that gets charged deserves to get charged an extortionate amount? with a reply like the one you have given i am wondering why you are even here? Your clearly not here to help...
And the first time i got charged it was a bank mistake as they had it down that i was a normal account holder when i was a student at the time so dont try and hold that against me.
I went instore and they told me that when a standing order goes out that a 'computer' makes a decision whether to commit the request...but i mean i dont why they would think I would take £25 out of my account with £0 (putting me in debt..and allowing them to charge) just to put into a savings account which also has nothing in it...and then to charge £70 its so criminal and they are taking advantage!
I have decided to write a letter to the bank and also the banking ombudsman0 -
natweststaffmember wrote: »...Do you that the OP should be punished for an oversight on his part caused by his financial difficulties?...
No one is suggesting anyone whould be 'punished', merely that they should pay the charges they agreed to in the terms & conditions when they opened the account
If they objected to the charges in the terms & conditions, they shouldn't have opened the account."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
No one is suggesting anyone whould be 'punished', merely that they should pay the charges they agreed to in the terms & conditions when they opened the account
If they objected to the charges in the terms & conditions, they shouldn't have opened the account.
So what exactly were the terms that you agreed to when you opened your account (s) Premier?
They certainly were not described to me in the period 2001 to 2007 in the way in which they are now being described by the Banks. If the charges really are in respect of a complete package of services then that is fundamentally different to how charges were described by the Banks before the test case.
The Supreme Court decision only precludes an assessment of the charging terms under price / service issues. The Supreme Court decision certainly doesn't preclude an assessment of fairness on other grounds, in fact it appears to postively encourage such a challenge.
Are you saying that you believe it is acceptable for banks to adopt and use potentially unfair practices in order to provide so called free banking for you. It sounds as if you are? in which case you are not worthy of the privildige of bieng able to offer your so called advice and opinion to anyone on these threads.0 -
Good move on the letter CozBoz, feel free to post up a draft and most of us will try to offer some help and guidance !!0
-
I have decided to write a letter to the bank and also the banking ombudsman
By all means write to your bank, I'm sure people here will be happy to help you if needs be.
But there is no point writing to the Ombudsman. They will not even entertain your complaint until you have exhausted the Natwest complaints procedure. It will be a waste of your time.
KiKi' <-- See that? It's called an apostrophe. It does not mean "hey, look out, here comes an S".0 -
I have cancelled standing orders online only for them to be still active when I've double checked a week or so later. I thought I was going gaga but I'm reasonably confident that I did cancel them.
GGThere are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.0 -
No one is suggesting anyone whould be 'punished', merely that they should pay the charges they agreed to in the terms & conditions when they opened the account
I don't think I have ever suggested both prior or post Supreme Court decision that charges should not be levied for what is now called "overdraft services", what I have argued was price and then imbalance and certainly fairness of the contract that binds one party to the contract and allows the bank as dominant party to use their discretion with the payments. They can use their discretion by the way which is the point I have stated ie that they have the discretion to pay and levy charges and the discretion to refund based on the customer's circumstances.
If they objected to the charges in the terms & conditions, they shouldn't have opened the account.
The last statement you make I think is really quite silly. If I go into a bank, my intention is to open a bank account which I can use for credits and debits, perhaps a cheque book and card, and perhaps an overdraft. Do you specifically go into a bank with the intention of either defaulting on your payments or not following the terms and conditions?
Does the branches NOW go through that element of it? They didn't when I opened my account and I doubt they do that now. Please be reasonable 0 -
So what exactly were the terms that you agreed to when you opened your account (s) Premier? ....
You'll usually find them on the appropriate website. "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards