Call to boycott NATWEST

kenshaz

The_Boss wrote:

Really? Hence the number of thanked posts in relation to total posts I have? Now dont embarass yourself further.

I'm sick of all these people celebrating when really they should be totally EMBARRASSED, if not totally credit blacklisted, for account mismanagement. You can understand a late payment. Possibly two. But anymore than that is a total joke. People seem to think that getting £1000 back in late payment fees etc is a cause for celebration, when really they should hang their heads in shame and be encouraging others to bother to abide by their terms and conditions, which they clearly seem to think are optional. If it were me, I'd be too ashamed to claim them back and would instead learn my lesson in future. But then these people will forever deny they have done anything wrong.

I never pay bank charges,my accounts are in order,but I am pleased to see the return of punitive charges applied by the banks.We all need to stand in others shoes ,they are greedy and need to be brought to task,who are you defending the share -holders

oldwiring

kenshaz wrote:

,who are you defending the share -holders

Dear me, we talk of shareholders as if they are all money grubbers.If one thinks further than in N of W speak, we should realise that most of us are at least indirect sharehol;ders in many industries through things like pension funds. So by snide remarks about shreholders, we may effectively being snide about ourselves. Me thinks an interesting psychological phenomenum:rotfl:

MSE_ForumTeam1

Please leave the personal comments out of the thread. Last warning before it is shut I'm afraid.

dchurch24

Maybe I should not bother making any more payments or be totally crap with my money and not pay on time. What do you think?

Regardess of the attempt to be funny at the expense of people who are worse off than yourself, the above comment is fair.

You could choose not to pay on time, or make anymore payments and to do so would be a breach of the conditions (regardless of wether you read them or not). All above the law to do so (unless you deleberatly take steps to avoid the debt).

It is not, however, lawful to penalise you for those breaches.

End of story. Quite simple. Try and understand it.

chipmunk

M_Thomson wrote:

In theory yes, in practice you can already see credit card rates rising to cover banks losses. And I predict within the next 2 to 3 years we will be charged for current accounts, and services like writing a cheque and direct debits just like they are in America and Europe.

And what's wrong with that? Why do you think that you should get free banking off the backs of other people who pay bank charges

I really feel like trying to get the point across is like banging your head against a brick wall. I have not been able to find a thread anywhere where a claimant has said that they should pay nothing at all for going over their agreed overdraft etc. The point is that the charges the bank make, i.e. £35.00 for not paying a DD are disproportionate to the cost to the bank to process the discression. How can they charge so much for something they didn't do.

I am more than happy to pay a nominal monthly fee for my bank account and to pay a small fee if I should make an error in my calculations of how much money is in my bank which results in a payment being refused. 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. Guess some people are just more selfish with a ME, ME, ME attitude.:rolleyes:

Aark

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.

Person A will have paid the bank interest on the authorised and unauthorised overdraft. What are the bank's costs for the breach of contract? Probably very little.

The Bank could opt to defend in Court to establish the allowable part of the liquidated damages, but decides not to. This is the Bank's decision, and is not the fault of person A.

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).

Person B should have understood the risks involved in investment in shares before making the investment. The value of shares can go down as well as up, sometimes for no particular specific reason.

A company's results and share price can decline as a result of many factors. It is not unfair that a Bank's shares fall, it is just the nature of investment.

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...

Person A has only benefited to the extent that they have not suffered a loss, they have not gained anything from being a "lazy spender" and will be worse off due to the payment of interest at unauthorised overdraft rates.

Person B is theoretically potentially worse off, but the effect of reclaiming bank charges on Bank share price performance over time would be impossible to measure.

Is this a good thing? That's up to an individual's opinion. However, it is the correct treatment under English law. If people have an issue with the situation, it should not be directed at those individuals who take proper action under the law. If you think that Banks should be allowed to take charges that amount to a punishment, then you need to campaign to have contract law changed to allow such terms.

Aark

And what's wrong with that? Why do you think that you should get free banking off the backs of other people who pay bank charges

If a Bank thought that they could make money by charging for ordinary current accounts then why are they not doing it already?

kenshaz

Aark wrote:

If a Bank thought that they could make money by charging for ordinary current accounts then why are they not doing it already?

Because of competition

M_Thomson

Phatmouse wrote:

Try walking a mile in my shoes!

Worked all our lives, lost jobs within two months of each other, can't find any work (we are trying). Told bank (actually went in) to cancel all DD's, they did not £630 worth of charges last month. We still have not had the money back. Cannot pay the rent and in danger of getting evicted.

Its a shame some people would rather be 'right' than good.

sanctimonious so and so's

I'm finished with this site!

I feel very sorry for you. You are exactly the type of people the banks should be sympathetic with when it comes to not charging on accounts. However the people that have claimed back charges that they have incurred due to their own financial mis management are making sure the banks will no longer be sympathetic in cases like yours.

M_Thomson

chipmunk wrote:

And what's wrong with that? Why do you think that you should get free banking off the backs of other people who pay bank charges

Why should poor people who don't incur charges, yet struggle to get by month to month face have to pay a fee for their current account or a higher APR on their credit card because of people who can't manage their finances properly?