Blame whom for getting in to trouble with the bankl

oldwiring

Please leave aside the matter of unfair charges on accounts. When people get in to continous trouble with their banking affairs who do you think genrally is to blame. Is it always the bank? Are they too liberal with their lending, setting limits too high? Should they make it clear from the outset, that cheques etc. will be refused if the limit is breached rather than allow overdrafts to edge up?

Customers should have a right to draw cheques as they like and the bank should pay whther or not funds are available or customers have to take responsibilty for their actions and then take the consequences. Thse are some of the ideas that seem ro be about. So who is rellay to blame for customer misfortunea with banks?

Mark7799

I don't think there is one clear answer to this and the choices aren't only the Banks or the Customers either.

Banks have (in some cases) irresponsibly offered and encouraged credit without due checks on customers. The level of fees (ignoring the legality issue) has increased way beyond inflation.

Society (whatever that is) has created a 'must have it now' culture allowing the Banks to promote credit as a quick fix and sub lenders to offer even more credit creating a demand society from consumers. As Ivan Opinion has said on other posts, 'credit is a privilege, not a right'. This also leads to the customer who will demand a credit/debit card then complain when they have run up a debt on it (I have seen this happen)

Customers have (in some cases) demonstrated a lack of responsibility in managing finances- why isn't money management taught in schools, surely it could be adapted as a part of the maths curriculum? Hearing tales of customers amassing hundreds of pounds in charges over 6/12 months, how on earth is it let to get that long? If (as the situation has been likened to) you were burgled and the burglar took £100 every month for a year wouldn't you have tried to do something about it very quickly?

And finally, the government. The decision to abolish cash payment of benefits and then the card accounts offered by the Post Office is stupid. It means people who can't manage accounts are being forced to open accounts - the Banks aren't going to pay too much attention to them (unlikely to be any profitable sales) until the accounts go bad when they'll start whacking charges and here we go again.

oldwiring

Mark7799 I think you have made valid points, but we have to avoid too much complexity;)

Sillychuckie

100% customers I reckon.
A bank could write to me tomorrow and offer me a credit card that I could spend £10 million pounds on.
I'd even accept it, because thats rather useful...
BUT, I'd never then go and buy something worth £10 million as I know I couldn't afford to pay it back.

I don't resent the bank for offering it nor should I blame them if I choose (repeat: I CHOOSE) to use it.

Unfortunately, you are asking this question in a forum full of money savers where on the whole, people here have common sense thus biasing your data.
Ask it in a "chav" forum (do such things exist?) and assuming people understand the question, I imagine they'd blame the banks.
Not everyone has vasts amounts of common sense or self control and they would argue that the bank is wrong for offering the money and 'tempting' them into overspending.
As I have no money issues or addictions, it is hard for me to relate and appreciate their point of view, but I see where they are coming from. I'd still say it was their responsibility to manage their problem, not the banks fault for offering it.
The same principle goes for lots of other addictions.

Would you accept it if:
- You were fat and a shop refused to sell you chocolate?
- You had a smokers cough and a shop refused to sell you cigarettes?
The answer is no.

A shop isn't in the wrong for selling fat people chocolate.
A bank isn't in the wrong for giving over spenders more credit than they can handle.

oldwiring

Sillychuckie wrote:

.....Would you accept it if:
- You were fat and a shop refused to sell you chocolate?
- You had a smokers cough and a shop refused to sell you cigarettes?
The answer is no.

A shop isn't in the wrong for selling fat people chocolate.
A bank isn't in the wrong for giving over spenders more credit than they can handle.

fat...can the shopkeeper prove it is for the fatty himslef?
ciggies...likewise, but I wonder about the morality of selling something so connected with cancer.

bank...I think there is a moral dimension here, but more importantly, it is in the long run bad business; well that's my opinion! I have a nasty feling that on the back of excessive lending to overspenders there will be a lot of bad debts with all the spin offs like repossions.

icefall

oldwiring wrote:

Mark7799 I think you have made valid points, but we have to avoid too much complexity;)

Banks are there to make money, its a capitalist society, and people are human and complex - thats customers and fat cats so I would have thought that it is all about complexity...

ps meant to click quote and clicked thanks instead!

Paul_Herring

Sillychuckie wrote:

Ask it in a "chav" forum (do such things exist?)

Most certainly!

http://www.chavworld.co.uk/forum/

oldwiring

Thanks for contributing to the poll. Would anyone like to ake observations on the result? Iy would appear that the banks are wrong just because they are banks brigade have been given the thumbs down.

oldwiring

I have put this in to Money Sabers Arms as well.

Please ignore this thread and refer there.