Call to boycott NATWEST

virgin_moneysaver

yet still the OP has not clarified what charges he was trying to get back - or was he just being inflammatory to raise an aggressive thread for the entertainment!!

Tootsie_Roll

Hereward wrote:

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 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.

To answer your questions in order;
1) Yes - Personal experience, I have seen it over and over again, literally thousands of times.
2) Firstly subsidies are part of everyday society, we all subsidise something else to one degree or another - are you suggesting we completely change the way we govern the country (and world!) and do away with subsidies ? Secondly, like most other reclaimers you are stuck on this point and miss the real point, most people deserve these charges through their own mismanagement irrespective of the fact they may be subsidising the rest of us.

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

To answer your questions in order;
1) Yes - Personal experience, I have seen it over and over again, literally thousands of times.
2) Firstly subsidies are part of everyday society, we all subsidise something else to one degree or another - are you suggesting we completely change the way we govern the country (and world!) and do away with subsidies ? Secondly, like most other reclaimers you are stuck on this point and miss the real point, most people deserve these charges through their own mismanagement irrespective of the fact they may be subsidising the rest of us.

Personal experience is not emphatic evidence, like sampling, it will only show you the trend in your given sample and not the population as a whole. What sort of statistical analysis have you performed on your experience? Not much I assume.

In answer to your second point: I acknowledge that subsidies exist, but I still believe that I should pay a fair price for the services that I receive: the world does not owe me a living. If you re-read all of my posts in this thread, you will discover that I have not stated that I am claiming back any charges: in fact I have not outlined my position, or my opinion on claiming, at all. All I have done is pointed out the weaknesses in other posters arguments, but they have not tried to reinforce their points of view: so I reiterative that you are making wild assumptions.

Whilst I agree that some sort of penalty is due for exceeding the agreed limits on your current account/credit card, the banks charges are not the vehicle to do this: isn’t this the purpose of the unauthorised overdraft/credit charge, which is much higher that the agreed rate?

Tootsie_Roll

Hereward wrote:

Personal experience is not emphatic evidence, like sampling, it will only show you the trend in your given sample and not the population as a whole. What sort of statistical analysis have you performed on your experience? Not much I assume.

In answer to your second point: I acknowledge that subsidies exist, but I still believe that I should pay a fair price for the services that I receive: the world does not owe me a living. If you re-read all of my posts in this thread, you will discover that I have not stated that I am claiming back any charges: in fact I have not outlined my position, or my opinion on claiming, at all. All I have done is pointed out the weaknesses in other posters arguments, but they have not tried to reinforce their points of view: so I reiterative that you are making wild assumptions.

Whilst I agree that some sort of penalty is due for exceeding the agreed limits on your current account/credit card, the banks charges are not the vehicle to do this: isn’t this the purpose of the unauthorised overdraft/credit charge, which is much higher that the agreed rate?

Emphatic evidence, please don't make me laugh anymore !! So having worked in the banking sector for 15+ years, specialising in collections for nearly 10 of those years and I can only give you a sample and make wild assumptions !!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Also, this statement doesn't make sense 'Whilst I agree that some sort of penalty is due for exceeding the agreed limits on your current account/credit card, the banks charges are not the vehicle to do this: isn’t this the purpose of the unauthorised overdraft/credit charge, which is much higher that the agreed rate?'.

kuohu

virgin_moneysaver wrote:

yet still the OP has not clarified what charges he was trying to get back - or was he just being inflammatory to raise an aggressive thread for the entertainment!!

You might be onto something there virgin_moneysaver.

CTT_2

I was watching a problem last night called Spendaholics and this poor guy only went £20 over his agreed overdraft limit and they bounced all his dd's.
The total charges amounted to £450.00. In a situation like that the bank have not used any common sense.

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

Emphatic evidence, please don't make me laugh anymore !! So having worked in the banking sector for 15+ years, specialising in collections for nearly 10 of those years and I can only give you a sample and make wild assumptions !!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Exactly, you are drawing on your view of a portion of the whole population (those that need funds collected from them) and then assuming it applies to everyone.

Also, this statement doesn't make sense 'Whilst I agree that some sort of penalty is due for exceeding the agreed limits on your current account/credit card, the banks charges are not the vehicle to do this: isn’t this the purpose of the unauthorised overdraft/credit charge, which is much higher that the agreed rate?'.

When I was trying to get across is that account holders that exceed their agreed limints must have some sort of penalty applied to them to discourage repeat behaviour. The changes that people are trying to claim are not for this purpose, they were designed to cover the banks/building societies costs in admistrating the transgression. The unauthorised overdraft rate (APR) or the rate charged for exceeding your credit limit are higher than the pre-organisaied rates: these can be in excess of 30% of the addtional funds.

Tootsie_Roll

Hereward wrote:

Exactly, you are drawing on your view of a portion of the whole population (those that need funds collected from them) and then assuming it applies to everyone.



When I was trying to get across is that account holders that exceed their agreed limints must have some sort of penalty applied to them to discourage repeat behaviour. The changes that people are trying to claim are not for this purpose, they were designed to cover the banks/building societies costs in admistrating the transgression. The unauthorised overdraft rate (APR) or the rate charged for exceeding your credit limit are higher than the pre-organisaied rates: these can be in excess of 30% of the addtional funds.

So five years experience in the frontline of retail banking dealing with people from all walks of life, some in arrears/over their overdraft limit - most not, does not qualify me to make a statement about bank charges and the way that 'most' people incur them - emphatic evidence only for you !!!

So you agree that banks should penalise people for going over their overdraft - excellent, we agree. I have never tried to argue that the charges represent the actual costs involved (not these days anyway).

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

So five years experience in the frontline of retail banking dealing with people from all walks of life, some in arrears/over their overdraft limit - most not, does not qualify me to make a statement about bank charges and the way that 'most' people incur them - emphatic evidence only for you !!!

I never called into question if you were qualified to comment on bank charges, I was just asking M Thomson to back up his claims, which I notice he has yet to do. You even manage to contradict yourself in your post, if most people are not over their overdraft limit how do they incur punitive banks charges? Of course you could mean the majority of those who incur bank charges, but it is not clear in your post. (BTW emphatic means strong, I’m not sure what you mean in your post)

Yes I agree that people should be penalised for exceeding their limits, as I suspect would most people commenting here, what people object to is a charge to cover administration costs isn’t used for its intended purpose.

oldwiring

CTT wrote:

I was watching a problem last night called Spendaholics and this poor guy only went £20 over his agreed overdraft limit and they bounced all his dd's.
The total charges amounted to £450.00. In a situation like that the bank have not used any common sense.

My daughter works in the scoial services field. The BeeB ( local in that case) was running with a story how this elderly couple had been failed. Daughter told me that the truth was nothing like the BeeB were trying to tell. In short the TV producers are kike journalists; they never let the truth get in the way of a good storylne. Unless one knows the full history of that man's history and behaviour with the bank, one cannot judge why the bank acted as it did, To make a judgement without those facts is blindly prejudiced.