Call to boycott NATWEST

Tootsie_Roll

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.

Exactly - this is the point that sticks in most peoples craw !! Most of us have made sure we don't get charged and it really isn't that difficult - comments like that silly French whinger on the telly - 'It wasn't my fault, it's my money' etc etc - all rubbish. Everyone knows that credits have to be in the account the day before a debit, everyone knows that you have to have funds in an account before writing a cheque/debit card payment, everyone knows that if expected money doesn't turn up then DD's etc aren't going to get paid - SO CANCEL THEM !!!! It really is not hard.

It may be easier to swallow if there was a 'Deserving Ombudsman' who looked at how the accounts were run and decided who really deserved to get charged for their gross negligence and who deserved to get a refund. I wonder how many 'reclaimers' are going to be in exactly the same situation in another couple of years.

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Everyone knows that credits have to be in the account the day before a debit, everyone knows that you have to have funds in an account before writing a cheque/debit card payment, everyone knows that if expected money doesn't turn up then DD's etc aren't going to get paid - SO CANCEL THEM !!!!

Really? Do you have any evidence to back up that everybody knows to have the money in their account the day before? How would you know if any expected income was not paid into your account before you had time to cancel your Direct Debits?

From your above statement you claim that the money to pay DDs must be in your account the day before it is due and that if it is not available you should cancel them. Most banks and building societies require three working days notice to cancel such transactions, so if you were expecting to be paid on Friday and your DD was due on Monday, you would need a crystal ball to know if you do not have the funds to pay the DD and cancel it in time.

Tootsie_Roll

Hereward wrote:

Really? Do you have any evidence to back up that everybody knows to have the money in their account the day before? How would you know if any expected income was not paid into your account before you had time to cancel your Direct Debits?

From your above statement you claim that the money to pay DDs must be in your account the day before it is due and that if it is not available you should cancel them. Most banks and building societies require three working days notice to cancel such transactions, so if you were expecting to be paid on Friday and your DD was due on Monday, you would need a crystal ball to know if you do not have the funds to pay the DD and cancel it in time.

Lets give you a real life example to simplify it:

You have a dd payment that goes through on the 10th of each month. The dd claim will start 3 days earlier than that on the 7th, if you don't have cleared funds in your account by the 9th you can still cancel the dd on that day either online (instant) or by going to the branch. If you can't do either of these then you need to accept the charge. Using your example the dd would come out on the Tuesday allowing you time to cancel it on the Monday.

Mark7799

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Lets give you a real life example to simplify it:

You have a dd payment that goes through on the 10th of each month. The dd claim will start 3 days earlier than that on the 7th, if you don't have cleared funds in your account by the 9th you can still cancel the dd on that day either online (instant) or by going to the branch. If you can't do either of these then you need to accept the charge. Using your example the dd would come out on the Tuesday allowing you time to cancel it on the Monday.

Tootsie, I'm not sure if you have a banking background but you sound like you have - if not, you are one of the most knowledgeable customers I've communicated with:T From my days in banking I would have to agree that Hereward's take is more likely to be accurate. I kept wishing for a simple guide to managing accounts to be made available - when dealing with customers opening accounts (after having tried to flog them every product going:rolleyes: ) I always tried to spend a few minutes explaining some golden rules

- Don't assume credits are in your account until you've seen them on a statement/printout
- Always assume money spent leaves the account the day you spend it
- If you want to borrow money ask beforehand and always arrange an overdraft as an emergency cover in case of accidents
- Funds always need to be in account to meet payments the working day before that payment is due to be made
- If you can't trust yourself to manager money, don't use direct debits

(There were more as well but the memory is fading:o )

Unfortunately, many didn't listen....

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Lets give you a real life example to simplify it:

You have a dd payment that goes through on the 10th of each month. The dd claim will start 3 days earlier than that on the 7th, if you don't have cleared funds in your account by the 9th you can still cancel the dd on that day either online (instant) or by going to the branch. If you can't do either of these then you need to accept the charge. Using your example the dd would come out on the Tuesday allowing you time to cancel it on the Monday.

Have you tried this method? I think you will find that once the DD claim has been initiated (2 working days before your account is debited) it cannot be cancelled, even online, as the banks systems require updating; therefore, your "cancelled" DD, or for that matter Standing Order, will still paid as the banks systems will not recognise any amendments until the current transaction has been completed.

Tootsie_Roll

Hereward wrote:

Have you tried this method? I think you will find that once the DD claim has been initiated (2 working days before your account is debited) it cannot be cancelled, even online, as the banks systems require updating; therefore, your "cancelled" DD, or for that matter Standing Order, will still paid as the banks systems will not recognise any amendments until the current transaction has been completed.

Yes - that's why I outlined it for you here - as Mark7799 alluded, I used to work for a bank - you can cancel a dd anytime before the payment is due, just because the system starts the claim 3 days early does not prevent you from cancelling it, you can't be forced to honour a payment that isn't even due yet.

In any event, you are focussing on one small aspect of my post which only occurs rarely in the manner you are alluding to - in the vast majority of cases you would know reasonbly well in advance that you would not be receiving the credit you had hoped for. If as one poster mentioned their salary had not been paid in then your claim should be against your employer - not the bank.

michaels

Let's get all hypothetical

Suppose young person A on a big salary can't be bothered to check theirfinances and spend within their means and gets charged by thier back for unathorised over draft etc - not just once (so they could claim they were unaware of the charges) but for many months on end running up a bill of 1,100.

Suppose now this young person discovers that the size of the bank charges could be deemed unfair and so attempts to get back all their charges (not just any component that might exceed the banks costs). the young person has cost the bank money but has now not been charged at all for their 'can't be bothered to check' attitude.

Now consider pensioner B who has bene thrifty all their lives. They have invested their small lump sum in shares in the bank. These shares fall in value as the bank has had to pay back all the charges (not just the amount above what the customer's selfish actions have cost them). Thus the poor pensioner is worse off and the lazy spender has benefited.

The tone of a large number of the posters on this thread is that this is a good thing - or correct me if I am wrong...

If I lend the bank (or anyone else) some of my money to look after and then write iou's (ie cheques) against this money - and then write more iou's than there is actually money available (without getting a prior agreement to borrow) I would consider this equivalent to stealing - spending money that I do not have. If the person who I had given my money to to look after said that they would allow me to do this - but for a price that I had agreed to in advance, I would not later complain and say that although I was previously happy with this agreement I, having taken advantage was now changing my mind about the charges part.

Hereward

Thanks Tootise Roll for setting me straight on amendments to DDs, and I assume Standing Orders. Now if you could just inform my bank that I can amend payments that are due, in the near future, instead of them forcing me to pay them that would be good. I noticed that you conveniently ignored most of my questions, but chose to focus on a single aspect of your own argument (which I must admit allowed you to do).

M_Thomson

Tim_L wrote:

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.

Tim,
With respect, I think you are being a little Niave. I think we are heading down a charging route on current accounts and other products sooner rather than later if people are going to claim charges back.

We are already seeing increases in credit card purchase rates. The majority of people who are claming charges back from banks are people who couldn't be bothered to manage their finances properly. The fact that some people who have in some cases £4000 or more worth of charges proves this.

When people claim money back for charges that are incurred through their own mis management they are making it difficult for people who have genuine reasons to get charges reversed. Banks should of course work with people who have lost a loved one, or who have been made unemployed etc so they are not charged. They won't do this as much now.

Myself I am on a below average in London income and I manage not to incur charges. Why should I have to pay a higher interest rate on my credit card or perhaps in the future a fee for my current account? Just because people who run up to £4000 or more in charges decide to not take responsibility for their financial affairs. There are people that are even worse off than me that manage not to incur charges and also face having to pay higher rates.

There is to much of a blame everyone else but me culture in this country.

Hereward

M_Thomson wrote:

The majority of people who are claming charges back from banks are people who couldn't be bothered to manage their finances properly. The fact that some people who have in some cases £4000 or more worth of charges proves this.

Do you have any evidence of this, besides wild assumptions? The size of bank charges being reclaimed does not demonstrate that they are careless with money; they may have been a victim of circumstance (for example, the spiral of charges).

Why should I have to pay a higher interest rate on my credit card or perhaps in the future a fee for my current account? Just because people who run up to £4000 or more in charges decide to not take responsibility for their financial affairs. There are people that are even worse off than me that manage not to incur charges and also face having to pay higher rates.

Why should your banking be subsidised by others, should you not pay a fair price for what you receive and not expect others to contribute to your costs? In theory, if you are a low default risk the rates available for you will not change. If, however, you are a high default risk you can expect the rates offered to be substantial higher.