Call to boycott NATWEST

Hereward

ollyk wrote:

You are right, at 16 years old I did not know what T&C's were, let alone how to check them. I soon learnt though, and have AT LEAST skimmed through T&C's ever since. You might actually want to stop assuming things and READ threads because AT NO POINT DID I SAY I DON'T READ T&C's :mad: ?

Fair point, I may have read more in your post that what you intended.

Do you pay as much attention to your T&C's I wander [sic]?

I always read, very carefully, all of the contracts I am asked to sign. I want to make sure that I understand what I am agreeing to. If necessary I seek the appropriate advice.

As for your second point, what do you think arranged overdrafts are? I think you would have to agree that we all need a little flexability from time to time - could such arranged overdrafts not be considered an amendment to T&C's?

This is not alluded to in your post, you said:

When I am in trouble I TALK to my bank and we make arrangements.

This does not imply that you organised an overdraft, it implies that you went, cap in hand, to your bank manager and asked him to alter you T&Cs so you could overspend. Personally, I ensure than I have this facility available at all time just in case something unexpected happens; therefore, this is part of my T&Cs, and I do not have to go begging for them to be changed.

ollyk

southernscouser wrote:

I think you will find that it is you that is an a$$hole. And as you rightly say, mistakes!

Have you never made a mistake in your life a$$hole?

No. Well aren't you a perfect a$$hole! :rolleyes:

I suspect you are one of the growing number of people in this country who can't be held responsible for there actions?

Have you never made a mistake in your life a$$hole?

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.

And does putting the word idiot in caps make you feel better?

Not a great deal, but maybe I should try increasing font size and Bolding the letterage - it obviously works for you
Anyway I would suggest Mods lock this post before things real silly, I have obviously upset a lot of overdraft claiments here :rotfl:

southernscouser

ollyk wrote:

Anyway I would suggest Mods lock this post before things real silly, I have obviously upset a lot of overdraft claiments here :rotfl:

Another comedian in the house! Why do they always appear on Sundays?

Don't worry you haven't upset me too much. The thought of all that lovely money the bank are going to give me back makes me feel a hell of a lot better. Plus the hope that it costs you something!

Tim_L

ollyk wrote:

Do you believe everyone who has ever been 'overcharged' should get a refund? I would like to see that! Where would banks draw the line? What effect would this have on people who had some sort of ability to handle money responsably? The banks will loose a hell of a lot of money as a result of this ruling and I can't believe you think this will not have an effect elsewhere! They will get this money back, They sure as hell won't get it from the people who are claiming so I just can't helpp feel I will be contributing some of my savings toward these IDIOTS refunds :mad:

No, I believe that everyone who has been unlawfully charged should have their money refunded. This is surely pretty easy to understand?

This was never the banks money in the first place, and if you accept their argument that it was not a penalty charge but represented the cost of the unauthorised overdrafts to them then it cannot possibly have been used to subsidise your banking. If they were penalty charges they were unlawful under contract law and so should be repaid.

Either way they should not have been used to subsidise your rates, and in any case as I explained earlier the interest rates and current account facilities offered are designed to be just adequate to retain or attract customers so competition is the key, not gross profits.

Most of the best savings rates can be obtained from organisations that are not banks and who do not levy any penalty fees on any of their products. You might ask yourself how this is possible if charges are required to sustain them. I'd be interested to hear your explanation.

I regret to say that anyone who calls a group of people "IDIOTS" is just demonstrating ignorant prejudice. You will not "loose" (sic) anything other than pennies that were never yours in the first place, and if you want to claim that it is unfair that you bear the cost of your own banking, then I'm afraid I would suggest that it is morally repugnant to require those in marginal difficulties to subsidise it.

The banks would love to introduce charges for current accounts, and indeed this is one of the reasons they are producing "premium" accounts which offer some sort of "enhanced" service for a monthly charge. But the competitive conditions in this country (unusually) will not permit generalised charging for current accounts in the forseeable future. So use a top rated savings account, take out a top rated mortgage, and use a zero charge current account, and these "IDIOTS" will cost you nothing at all.

The only people who will suffer are the shareholders in the banks, but this is a consequence of employing directors prepared to take money unlawfully from their customers.

oldwiring

Tim_L wrote:

So let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true. Why the hell should it bother you or anyone else?

Are you going to tell me they cost you a significant amount of money? In which case you are going to have to back this up with some actual figures, because I don't believe you have any.

This whole line of attack stinks of self righteousness. People are seeing others apparently breaking the rules and being rewarded, and it sticks in their craw.The truth of the matter is that the people breaking the rules are the banks, and they are now being forced to return money unlawfully taken from their customers. I really would like to know why this is a problem to anyone else? It's really no-ones business but the banks and the customers involved.

It doesn't matter if it costs me money or not. OK, folk who conduct the finances and banking properly do not at the moment incur charges but that is because the profits from elsewhere offset the costs of free personal banking, but if the banks cannnot make profits from the delinquent then they are going to look elsewhere for them- higher debit interest, lower cresit interest, account maintenance charges etc.

Finally two wrongs do not make a right. If it is wrong for the banks to act as they have, it is just as wrong to do what the folk I castigate do.

virgin_moneysaver

oldwiring wrote:

virgin_moneysaver Every account costs something to run, your well organised ones as well. Or hadn't you realised that?

the OP wasn't clear on what grounds he was claiming for - if it was just the interest on any unpaid balance at the end of the month then that's not a penalty under the legislation that the action group are using - at the moment Natwest credit card do not charge an account management fee to cover their running costs, but the finance industry will change this to recover income from reduced penalty charges - unlike you I just like to be clear in my posts & try to help not just use it as a mouthpiece for being rude

oldwiring

virgin_moneysaver wrote:

the OP wasn't clear on what grounds he was claiming for - if it was just the interest on any unpaid balance at the end of the month then that's not a penalty under the legislation that the action group are using - at the moment Natwest credit card do not charge an account management fee to cover their running costs, but the finance industry will change this to recover income from reduced penalty charges - unlike you I just like to be clear in my posts & try to help not just use it as a mouthpiece for being rude

I take your point; the last few words should habe been omitted as too personally directed.

Hereward

oldwiring wrote:

It doesn't matter if it costs me money or not. OK, folk who conduct the finances and banking properly do not at the moment incur charges but that is because the profits from elsewhere offset the costs of free personal banking, but if the banks cannnot make profits from the delinquent then they are going to look elsewhere for them- higher debit interest, lower cresit interest, account maintenance charges etc.

Finally two wrongs do not make a right. If it is wrong for the banks to act as they have, it is just as wrong to do what the folk I castigate do.

How is claiming unfair charges back wrong (please note that these charges have yet to be proven illegal)? If you when to a shop and bought something and were either overcharged or short changed, would you ask the shop assistant for your money back, or are you happy to be ripped off by the shop? It is not the claimants’; fault that the banks are paying back all of their bank charges, the blame lies firmly with the banks: if they could justify the high charges they would within their rights not to repay them. From what I understand the banks have not yet formulated a defence in law for these charges.

Banks bank very litttle, if any, profit from current account, and small savings account, holders. The majority of a banks profits are driven by the very high savers and the services that can be sold to them.

oldwiring

Hereward I have not or have not intended to say that claiming back is wromg! Wgat is wrong is not conducting your banking properly e.g. going over limits in the first place, without agreement, and then expecting not to pay. I may be wrong but that is how some come over to me.

Hereward

oldwiring wrote:

Hereward I have not or have not intended to say that claiming back is wromg! Wgat is wrong is not conducting your banking properly e.g. going over limits in the first place, without agreement, and then expecting not to pay. I may be wrong but that is how some come over to me.

Sorry, if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but you stated:

Finally two wrongs do not make a right. If it is wrong for the banks to act as they have, it is just as wrong to do what the folk I castigate do.

I, and probably others, took this, in the context of your enire post, to mean that individuals who claim back the unfair charges to be in the wrong. There was nothing in this sentence to suggest you were commenting on the way people manage their finances.

Most people who exceed their limits expect to pay something for this, what they object to is punitive charges that do not reflect the actual costs incurred by the bank/building society: the punishment is the unauthorised overdraft rate, not the charge for administration costs. This is what the FSA has suggested is unfair, and possibly illegal, but this has yet to be tested in a court of law.