MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

gobbo

moo_cow wrote: »

natweststaffmember wrote: »

This is the difficulty I have posting on here because there is the financially astute posting up here about the morality of the charges rather than the lawfulness of the charges. Maybe morality is not the right word but about how easy it is to be able to control your finances. To a point, I can see your point of view but without seeing someone's financial statement at the time that they specifically was charged or the circumstances of their life, for example, birth of a child, loss of a partner, separation from a partner etc,etc then it is difficult to necessarily agree on how easy it is given all the circumstances since each person reacts to life's stresses and strains in different ways. One person will get on track in an orderly way and others will kill themselves over it.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

In theory, I totally agree that it is straight forward to run a bank account. In practice, each individuals circumstances may not be the same. There have been people on the boards who had thousands of pounds worth of charges over the last 8 years. Internet access was not always widespread as it is today, people are still wary of it due to internet security and phishing(yes I know you should delete those emails ).





Agree wholeheartedly. And for the few that go on and on about people keeping on top of things, it's just not that simple. Everyone has a different set of circumstances. Up until a couple of years ago I didn't have access to internet banking as most people didn't. Yes, these charges for a lot of people are spread over X amount of years. Whilst there are people that have been sloppy with their finances ( he who is without sin and all that) there are thousands and thousands of people who have been cruelly and unfairly hit. People who have begged for a chance not to be hit with any more so as they can find a way out. Why is it these banks claim to listen, phone them up so as they can help. They rarely do. And yes, there are people who have been suicidal over charges. As I have said in one of my earlier posts, I personally am looking for a way forward for ALL customers because boy oh boy, when you get the rug pulled out from under you it's shocking and can lead to financial destruction. As we live in a day and age now where everything is paid into an account it's an absolute MUST that customers are treated fairly and not exploited.

Agreed , charges must be fair , and in return customers have to be fair , so banks don't overcharge , and customers don't overdraw , help for people in real need who have done all they can to manage their money , and high charges for those who can't be bothered.

moo_cow

I also feel I have to add that there have been a few that have really ranted over people's ability to avoid charges and being totally against reclaiming etc as they see it as an eventual loss of 'free banking'. What really gives me a giggle is that if everyone suddenly stopped getting charges as the self righteous insist we should, then where the hell is the 'free banking' going to come from then. I'm not neccessarily convinced of the arguement with 'free banking versus charges' anyway but just stating the obvious.

moo_cow

'Agreed , charges must be fair , and in return customers have to be fair , so banks don't overcharge , and customers don't overdraw , help for people in real need who have done all they can to manage their money , and high charges for those who can't be bothered.'

A fair comment!

jkc_2

Thanks for the post office account link, this account is for people who are claiming benefit who dont have a bank account, it does not offer an atm cash card, debit card and I dont think you can link DD to it. I am looking in to credit union banking at the moment however I like the freedom of atm cards which these dont have.i cant get over the audacity that we should pay for banking services when the banks are making on all sides, GP get paid lower interest on deposits than the base rate and charged over extortionate amounts on lending. bring back life before bacs and plastic when you got wages in a little brown envelope via a wages clerk. reg jkcps mrry chrstms and hppy nw yr to all

BOB_A_H

noh wrote: »

BOB_A_H wrote: »

One check a day is sufficient.
Easily done in 5 minutes.

Are you saying that people who keep control of their finances are "sad"
And people who are unwilling to take control of their own finances are somehow more exciting?

Not really saying that keeping control of your finances is sad per se, but being obsesive about it is.

BOB_A_H

gobbo wrote: »

Amazing that some people have to resort to swearing to try and make their point , I was always taught that this is a sign of low intellect.

How long does it take me to keep track of finances - 3 minutes a day as a guess , leaves me plenty of tome for real ale and other more exciting persuits

Do you never tire of being correct all the time?

natweststaffmember

gobbo wrote: »

moo_cow wrote: »

Agreed , charges must be fair , and in return customers have to be fair , so banks don't overcharge , and customers don't overdraw , help for people in real need who have done all they can to manage their money , and high charges for those who can't be bothered.

I don't agree with you. I think we should have a system in which you have to either opt in or opt out of overdraft services. If that means that payments are declined at a supermarket in front of busy shoppers then so be it but if you want to opt into overdraft services then you are charged for it. You cannot have high charges for consideration of whether to pay or not pay an item. I think a lot of posters are looking at the wrong issue, ie the amount of the charges or what the charges have resulted from. The charges are levied for consideration of whether to pay, not pay or grant an excess on the account. One consideration not to pay could lead to another consideration as to whether to grant an excess on the account which could render the contractual provision unlawful because there is no choice for the consumer themselves. Personally, I think any overdraft perhaps could or should be costed ie similar to a business account, an overdraft arrangement fee paid annually or a set fee per month for "overdraft services".

gobbo

I thought it was you that thought they were right all the time

BOB_A_H wrote: »

gobbo wrote: »

Amazing that some people have to resort to swearing to try and make their point , I was always taught that this is a sign of low intellect.

How long does it take me to keep track of finances - 3 minutes a day as a guess , leaves me plenty of tome for real ale and other more exciting persuits

Do you never tire of being correct all the time?

gobbo

natweststaffmember wrote: »

gobbo wrote: »

I don't agree with you. I think we should have a system in which you have to either opt in or opt out of overdraft services. If that means that payments are declined at a supermarket in front of busy shoppers then so be it but if you want to opt into overdraft services then you are charged for it. You cannot have high charges for consideration of whether to pay or not pay an item. I think a lot of posters are looking at the wrong issue, ie the amount of the charges or what the charges have resulted from. The charges are levied for consideration of whether to pay, not pay or grant an excess on the account. One consideration not to pay could lead to another consideration as to whether to grant an excess on the account which could render the contractual provision unlawful because there is no choice for the consumer themselves. Personally, I think any overdraft perhaps could or should be costed ie similar to a business account, an overdraft arrangement fee paid annually or a set fee per month for "overdraft services".

I have never said that people should not have the option to opt in or out of overdrafts , in fact I have suggested solo and electron which are not supposed to let you overdraw , so I am fully in favour of an opt out of overdrafts. But I still think that people who take the mickey by continuing to increase their overdrafts for non essential rerasons ( football , fags , beer , satellite tv etc etc ) should have high charges , and people who are unlucky or due to a change in circumstances face a problem should get a sympathetic response and help.

moo_cow

My personal arguement has not been the unauthorised overdraft part of the topic (as i've not fallen in to that catagory) but has always been the 'bounced' payments part. £35 a pop to return unpaid? come on!

And as for bringing back the little brown wage packet? A HUGE YES YES YES to that one. I didn't bother with a bank account years ago. We were paid in cash and paid everything else in cash. During those times we didn't have credit either. It wasn't until we had to open a bank account that we got sucked into the credit cycle. The old way was a better way for many. The trouble is that the system now requires most things to be paid into the banks. A nuisance.