Call to boycott NATWEST

michaels

dchurch24 wrote:

...which of course would make the charge unlawful. Penalties and fines cannot be issued without proper authority - an authority that the banks do not have.

Now we are getting closer - my understanding is that the whole issue (on the legal side ;-) ) is whether banks can impose a penalty for breach of contract (what you are doing if you spend the banks money without their prior agreement) above what the breach of contract costs them.

As far as I know we have not yet reached the point where the courts get involved in deciding what a company or individual can charge for a service - otherwise, for example, we could all take the builders to court after they did some work for us on the grounds that what they charged more than covered their costs...

M_Thomson

chipmunk wrote:

I don't for one minute expect some poor person who lives on benefits and can hardly afford to feed their kiddies to subsidise my bank account.

Neither do I, as I already said the banks should not charge people who are in genuine financial trouble. The trouble is that most people who run up charges and reclaim them back are people who choose not to manage their money properly. Why should I have to subsidise them through Higher APRS on credit cards and the potential for fees on current accounts?

chipmunk wrote:

Guess some people are just more selfish with a ME, ME, ME attitude.:rolleyes:

Yes, the people who are charged due to not managing their financial affairs properly and then claim the charges back are aren't they?

Hereward

M_Thomson wrote:

Neither do I, as I already said the banks should not charge people who are in genuine financial trouble. The trouble is that most people who run up charges and reclaim them back are people who choose not to manage their money properly. Why should I have to subsidise them through Higher APRS on credit cards and the potential for fees on current accounts?

How would you prove that they were in "genuine" financial trouble rather than bad at money management? As far as I can see these two positions are not necessarily exclusive.

Yes, the people who are charged due to not managing their financial affairs properly and then claim the charges back are aren't they?

Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making general assumptions?

Paul_Herring

Another thought to ponder. This time on the 'subsidy' issue - there appear to be two views which I shall summarise thusly:

People who manage their accounts without incurring financial distress due to (attempting to) go overdrawn don't want to subsidise those who do currently suffer by paying future unknown bank charges.

People who do suffer, don't see why they should subsidise 'free banking' for those who don't by being the only ones to get charged.

Both seem to me to be wholely one sided.

Surely there must be a third way?

M_Thomson

Hereward wrote:

How would you prove that they were in "genuine" financial trouble rather than bad at money management? As far as I can see these two positions are not necessarily exclusive.

It's safe to say that if someone has run up thousands of pounds of charges, and hasn't lost their job, is not sick or does not have a valid reason like they were not paid on time etc, then they are bad at managing money.

Hereward wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making general assumptions?

Pages and pages of discussion on this board. Some people have valid reasons and they should not be charged, the majority don't.

Hereward

M_Thomson wrote:

It's safe to say that if someone has run up thousands of pounds of charges, and hasn't lost their job, is not sick or does not have a valid reason like they were not paid on time etc, then they are bad at managing money.

Isn't bad money management a symptom of financial difficulty? From what you say, eventually the account holder will have someone, or something, to blame as they would need to devote more time to sort out their finances.

Pages and pages of discussion on this board. Some people have valid reasons and they should not be charged, the majority don't.

So the FSA declaring that charges are unlawful is not a valid reason to claim then? I admit that this declaration was in relation to credit card charges, but the FSA stated that banks charges were also likely to be unlawful.

virgin_moneysaver

if I had a £1 for every customer when asked about their bank statements responded with either 'I don't keep them' or 'I don't read them' or even 'I don't open them' I wouldn't have to work - there are plenty of genuine cases of 'fallen on hard times' but there are also plenty of people who want it all, want it now & go for it regardless of the consequences, until the !!!!!! hits the proverbial fan & all of a sudden its not their fault - unfortunately, the loser in this is the genuine, deserving customer who is tarred with the same brush as the 'Its not my fault, guv' crew

HeaddyMX

I'd definitely support a boycott of NatWest, who see fit to charge me £28 a month because there's very little money coming in and I'm repaying another bank. Ironically these recurring charges are occuring because of the charge for the previous month.

virgin_moneysaver

HeaddyMX wrote:

I'd definitely support a boycott of NatWest, who see fit to charge me £28 a month because there's very little money coming in and I'm repaying another bank. Ironically these recurring charges are occuring because of the charge for the previous month.

if you had left enough cash in the account for the charge the 1st time around as advised by statement (gives at least 3 weeks notice & tells you how much on what day) then the cycle would have been stopped in its tracks & job done - no more fees - then would be the time to go down the reclaim charges route if you so wished

Dr.Shoe_2

ollyk wrote:

I can, and continually do. IF AND WHEN I MAKE A MISTAKE where my bank is concerned, I PAY THE PRICE, AND DON'T COMPLAIN.

Even if the "price" is unlawful?