HELP! Standign Ordering sent me over overdraft! charged £70

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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

What, agreeing to a contract that you have no intention of abiding by?

Now who is being "really quite silly"?

You buy a complete service - you can't pick and choose bits of the contractual service you want and reject the bits you don't want.
That would be like buying a tin of Quality Street from Tescos but expecting to only pay 1/8 of the stated price because you only want the green triangle ones. :rolleyes:

MarsdenCuckoo

See I'm not totally on my own albeit in a minority :cool: but just to clarify is the objection to the amount of the bank charges or that they were levied at all?

If the former, then yes I can see there may be a case to request a reduction, however, if the latter then no I still think if you expect free banking even when you contravene the T&C's then you're on a hiding to nothing.

In the UK we've become used to 'free banking'. It's not that long ago that banks charged a monthly fee across the board simply for having a cheque/current account. You also paid for cheque books and/or each cheque, statements and every standing order/direct debit on the account (as well as other charges that we are still used to like stopping cheques, going overdrawn, etc., etc.) Those charges obviously built up and - somehow - we had the happy transition into free banking. I, for one, wouldn't want to revert to 'the good old days' so am quite happy to keep a tight check on my finances to avoid paying bank charges. Hadn't realised I was in such a minority......

Good luck, OP, but in the long run keeping a closer eye on your finances is well worth the effort.

BigBudgie

Response in red

MarsdenCuckoo wrote: »

See I'm not totally on my own albeit in a minority :cool: but just to clarify is the objection to the amount of the bank charges or that they were levied at all?
Personally, I have no objection to there being a charge, but that charge should be a fair charge and truthfully explained to Consumers. What actually concerns me more is the overall intention and most importantly the resultant effects of the banks charging systems and also the lies which appear to dominate the strategic policies of these organisations.
If the former, then yes I can see there may be a case to request a reduction, however, if the latter then no I still think if you expect free banking even when you contravene the T&C's then you're on a hiding to nothing.
See, even you are confused now, what contravention of the terms and conditions are you referring to, I thought you agreed with the banks argument that their charges are fees for a service, not for a contravention of the terms and conditions ?????

In the UK we've become used to 'free banking'. It's not that long ago that banks charged a monthly fee across the board simply for having a cheque/current account. You also paid for cheque books and/or each cheque, statements and every standing order/direct debit on the account (as well as other charges that we are still used to like stopping cheques, going overdrawn, etc., etc.) Those charges obviously built up and - somehow - we had the happy transition into free banking. I, for one, wouldn't want to revert to 'the good old days' so am quite happy to keep a tight check on my finances to avoid paying bank charges. Hadn't realised I was in such a minority......
OK, let's try putting things another way, if every single consumer was fortunate enough and / or organised enough, for a period of time ( for sake of argument lets say 1 year ), to be able to operate their PCA's in a small credit balance situation, not a huge balance just a small one. As such the banks would generate no income from failed direct debit charges, unuathorised overdraft charges etc. How then do you suppose the banks would generate profits or even the money to fund the running of the PCA's? The banks have become used to relying on the fact that some people will leave large credit balances in their PCA's and in so doing lose out on possible interest gains by not regularly moving money to accounts or mediums offering higher returns, the banks also rely on people making small errors or being forgetful and then falling foul of the banks excessively penal charging systems. The Consumers who do manage their finances perfectly are in a very small minority, if everyone was able to manage to that level of efficiency then the banks would not be able to operate a PCA system. They would be forced to bring in charges for transactions and cheque books and statements etc. In any such system there needs to be some sort of balance so that all Consumers are treated fairly, the current situation is that those who are unlucky enough to fall foul of the charging system are not treated fairly in any way shape or form and that is what some us us are challenging.
Good luck, OP, but in the long run keeping a closer eye on your finances is well worth the effort.

BigBudgie

Premier wrote: »

That would be like buying a tin of Quality Street from Tescos but expecting to only pay 1/8 of the stated price because you only want the green triangle ones. :rolleyes:

However, the important point here is that if you only wanted the green triangle ones you could buy only the green triangle ones (albeit gigantic big green triangle ones). You have the choice of buying a tin full of all sorts or just the green triangle ones individually .

You do not have that choice with PCA's, the banks do not offer the choice of picking and choosing which services you wish to include in your contract.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

What, agreeing to a contract that you have no intention of abiding by?
Are you telling me that the intention of the person who is now claiming charges back is to specifically default on their agreement?
On this specific case, a suggestion has been made based on what they said, ie money troubles(could be financial hardship) and the basis of what they did.
Now who is being "really quite silly"?
I was very clear in what I was saying to you and I think repeating a thousand times the same thing means that you believe the contract signed is always fair and that you never trust a bank. 10 years ago, 5 years ago and even today, people have faith in their local branch to be fair with them. They have something called "trust", which I would add today the word "misplaced". Another example for you, people signed the terms and conditions on PPI because the bank said it was "fully protected" but they were missold it. Banks' told consumers that the cost was for their administrative costs for that specific breach and they then decided it was for a package of services. Which argument is right? Which term was for both? Where in the contract does it say it is for a package of services?
What is an unauthorised overdraft if it is not authorised? You cannot unauthorise me to get your shopping if you do not give me the money to begin with. That would be "quite silly".
You buy a complete service - you can't pick and choose bits of the contractual service you want and reject the bits you don't want.
In the US you can do that now since unless you opt into their banks' "overdraft services", all payments are rejected regardless of the embarrassment caused and not charge is levied. I think it would be reasonable for UK banks to do the same.
That would be like buying a tin of Quality Street from Tescos but expecting to only pay 1/8 of the stated price because you only want the green triangle ones. :rolleyes:

But if I buy a tin of Quality street that is exactly what I get. Let's try it this way, you buy a tin of Quality Street for the full price and the store at its discretion decides whether you can some of the chocolates or none of them and you are unable to object even if you meant to buy Celebrations instead or you were diabetic and it would cause you hardship.
The analogies that you are saying are not ones I haven't heard before. You can only stick to the line "read the terms and conditions" for so long before the argument does not add up.

natweststaffmember

MarsdenCuckoo wrote: »

See I'm not totally on my own albeit in a minority :cool: but just to clarify is the objection to the amount of the bank charges or that they were levied at all?
Anyone connected to the bank charges campaign(I have since 2006) would never argue on the basic right of a bank to levy charges. Initially their argument was it was to cover administrative costs so the argument was about penalties and the level of charges. The success of the campaign has been many banks HAVE lowered charges. However, when the High Court ruled out penalties then we were looking at the fairness of them, ie could the terms themselves cause the contract to be unfair. The Supreme Court did not say NO, they simply stated that the new bank argument that the amount was for services supplied to Personal Current Account customers. So the question is moving to whether the relationship between banker and customer is one that is on an even playing field. Yes, the bank should be able to charge for providing services, but is returning an item a service that benefits both parties? I would say No since the bank do so at their discretion. The Customer cannot opt out without completely nullifying the contract by cancelling it or closing the account.
If the former, then yes I can see there may be a case to request a reduction, however, if the latter then no I still think if you expect free banking even when you contravene the T&C's then you're on a hiding to nothing.
The question is not about whether the terms and conditions was agreed to but whether an imbalance occured within that relationship.
In the UK we've become used to 'free banking'. It's not that long ago that banks charged a monthly fee across the board simply for having a cheque/current account. You also paid for cheque books and/or each cheque, statements and every standing order/direct debit on the account (as well as other charges that we are still used to like stopping cheques, going overdrawn, etc., etc.) Those charges obviously built up and - somehow - we had the happy transition into free banking. I, for one, wouldn't want to revert to 'the good old days' so am quite happy to keep a tight check on my finances to avoid paying bank charges. Hadn't realised I was in such a minority......
I'm not sure that we cannot have the best of both worlds, ie fair charges, free if in credit banking and an opt into overdraft services that allows charges to be made. It would effectively mean that the advice given today on MSE would be different to the current one.
Good luck, OP, but in the long run keeping a closer eye on your finances is well worth the effort.

The OP made a mistake from their post and hopefully the bank will be reasonable with them on this occasion since they were having "money troubles". We will see but I hope your realise that no hardened campaigner on this topic will say that bank charges should never be levied for services given.

MarsdenCuckoo

Am going to bow out of this one now.... As said, it does seem that I've 'trespassed' into a part of the forum where there are underlying currents (hidden agendas maybe?) totally unknown to 'the layman'.

I still maintain, however, that it is not rocket science to keep track of your bank account and if you borrow money and/or exceed your overdraft limit then you should expect to pay for that 'privilege'. How much you should pay is, obviously, open to debate.

Everyone is entitled to charge for whatever service they offer and it's not unrealistic for people to be penalised when they abuse that offer.

Strange as it may seem to some, there are people who never pay bank charges...... (and, as I said, it's not rocket science! :rolleyes: )

natweststaffmember

MarsdenCuckoo wrote: »

Am going to bow out of this one now.... As said, it does seem that I've 'trespassed' into a part of the forum where there are underlying currents (hidden agendas maybe?) totally unknown to 'the layman'.
Big Budgie, myself and Alpine Star have been within the campaign for a long time and have read,attended and learnt the arguments which are legally being argued. Signing the terms and conditions is not legally as simple as many people think.
I still maintain, however, that it is not rocket science to keep track of your bank account and if you borrow money and/or exceed your overdraft limit then you should expect to pay for that 'privilege'. How much you should pay is, obviously, open to debate.
I would agree with you on this premise but life happens on the way to the ATM.
Everyone is entitled to charge for whatever service they offer and it's not unrealistic for people to be penalised when they abuse that offer.
If you are offering a service which you have a dominant position in then the customer isn't the one abusing it but they may be being abused.
Strange as it may seem to some, there are people who never pay bank charges...... (and, as I said, it's not rocket science! :rolleyes: )

Marsden, I don't pay bank charges and never have done.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

But if I buy a tin of Quality street that is exactly what I get. Let's try it this way, you buy a tin of Quality Street for the full price and the store at its discretion decides whether you can some of the chocolates or none of them and you are unable to object even if you meant to buy Celebrations instead or you were diabetic and it would cause you hardship.
The analogies that you are saying are not ones I haven't heard before. You can only stick to the line "read the terms and conditions" for so long before the argument does not add up.

I don't follow your arguement at all

You probably haven't heard the anaology before ... it was all my original work

Surely you are not suggesting that if I go to any reatiler and buy the tin of QS at the full price, I can then expect that reatiler to issue a refund, partial or otherwise, because I am diabetic?

Premier_2

BigBudgie wrote: »

However, the important point here is that if you only wanted the green triangle ones you could buy only the green triangle ones (albeit gigantic big green triangle ones). You have the choice of buying a tin full of all sorts or just the green triangle ones individually .

You do not have that choice with PCA's, the banks do not offer the choice of picking and choosing which services you wish to include in your contract.

So exactly the same situation. I only want the exact same small green ones (or any other individual sweet within the entire tin), yet my Tesco only sell them as a complete package.

The choice is to accept the bundle as offered or not accept it at all.