Please give your feedback on personal current accounts

blueberrypie

typos1 wrote: »

Lol, what so you take your laptop shopping and if you see something you like you place it on the counter and check your spreadsheet?!

Its 2010, balances should be updated instantaineously, withdrawals and payments, it costs nothing save the cost of internet connection

Your supposition that all payments are made with instant internet connections isn't correct, and there are some payments which the bank won't even know about until they arrive (e.g. how, for example, is the bank supposed to know you wrote a cheque this morning?) - so it is not as simple as you seem to believe. And the whole "if the money isn't there the bank shouldn't pay it" brigade would soon be shouting if the bank refused their mortgage payment ("my wages are due in on Friday but the bank made me default on my mortgage on Thursday and now my credit rating's ruined!") or their grocery purchase ("my children have nothing to eat because the bank wouldn't authorise my Tesco shopping!")

But even if it was as simple as every single payment being checked on-line at the time it was made, why should it be the responsibility of your bank to make sure you don't spend more money than you have? It is *your* money, *your* life, *your* decision to spend or not, *your* awareness of what you expect to spend later this week - it is *your* responsibility. If you had £20 cash in your wallet and decided to spend £18 of it in the pub knowing that the train-fare home was £4, would you then blame the pub for "allowing" you to spend more money than you could afford? Of course not.

There are, I believe, some services which "manage" your money for you, always keeping an eye on what you need to pay in future, always telling you exactly what you can spend and what you can't. They do not, of course, do this for free (unless they are your parents). But if you are able to know that you need £4 for the train home, and able to stop yourself from spending it in the pub, you are surely capable of realising that your electricity provider will be taking money from your account on Thursday and that you therefore should not spend that money on Tuesday. This is basic money management, and in the 21st century, it's a basic life-skill.

jambosans

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You might be as slippery as a fish but you're not short on entertainment value!

Glad to be of some service Alpine Star.

leemack

blueberrypie wrote: »

Your supposition that all payments are made with instant internet connections isn't correct, and there are some payments which the bank won't even know about until they arrive (e.g. how, for example, is the bank supposed to know you wrote a cheque this morning?) - so it is not as simple as you seem to believe. And the whole "if the money isn't there the bank shouldn't pay it" brigade would soon be shouting if the bank refused their mortgage payment ("my wages are due in on Friday but the bank made me default on my mortgage on Thursday and now my credit rating's ruined!") or their grocery purchase ("my children have nothing to eat because the bank wouldn't authorise my Tesco shopping!")

But even if it was as simple as every single payment being checked on-line at the time it was made, why should it be the responsibility of your bank to make sure you don't spend more money than you have? It is *your* money, *your* life, *your* decision to spend or not, *your* awareness of what you expect to spend later this week - it is *your* responsibility. If you had £20 cash in your wallet and decided to spend £18 of it in the pub knowing that the train-fare home was £4, would you then blame the pub for "allowing" you to spend more money than you could afford? Of course not.

There are, I believe, some services which "manage" your money for you, always keeping an eye on what you need to pay in future, always telling you exactly what you can spend and what you can't. They do not, of course, do this for free (unless they are your parents). But if you are able to know that you need £4 for the train home, and able to stop yourself from spending it in the pub, you are surely capable of realising that your electricity provider will be taking money from your account on Thursday and that you therefore should not spend that money on Tuesday. This is basic money management, and in the 21st century, it's a basic life-skill.

In your scenario what we are asking is that we are refused the train ticket - the rail company wouldn't let you have a ticket and then say that because they let you have the ticket when you didn't have enough money they would charge you an additional £35. You would be expected to make other arrangements to get home - and in that situation I wouldn't blame the rail company for not selling me the ticket, just as I wouldn't blame the bank for not paying the mortgage or the food bill!

My bank says that I have to cancel a standing order at least 3 days before it is due. Imagine that one day before the standing order is due a pipe bursts and I need to pay the plumber to fix it. At the moment I can't cancel the standing order, but I have to pay the plumber. The bank is either going to pay or not pay the standing order, but there isn't enough money in my account. Either way the bank will charge me £35 if they pay it because the funds are not there, and £35 if they don't pay it. Either way I'm out an additional £35, and I haven't got a choice which option the bank takes. Personally, I would rather have any payments refused if the money is not in the account and not get charged for the bank doing nothing. I can negotiate with the mortgage company, or the water company to make payment at a later date - and they won't charge me! Its always better to have the choice. The bank currently takes this choice away and profits from it. my money, my life, my responsibility, should be my choice!

blueberrypie

leemack wrote: »

In your scenario what we are asking is that we are refused the train ticket - the rail company wouldn't let you have a ticket and then say that because they let you have the ticket when you didn't have enough money they would charge you an additional £35. You would be expected to make other arrangements to get home - and in that situation I wouldn't blame the rail company for not selling me the ticket, just as I wouldn't blame the bank for not paying the mortgage or the food bill!

There are regularly threads on this board with people blaming their banks for those kinds of scenarios. There is a thread today from someone who, knowing that if he writes a cheque it will not go through his account until at least Monday, wants to write and cash a cheque to himself so that he has cash over the weekend. Another thread from the same person about a week ago in which he wanted to know how he could write a "guaranteed" cheque - one that would be paid even if he didn't have money in his account to cover it. He is far from unique - similar questions are frequent. Often they boil down to the same thing: I failed to keep enough money aside for expenses I knew were going to happen, and now I'm trying to play the system to make up for it.

My bank says that I have to cancel a standing order at least 3 days before it is due. Imagine that one day before the standing order is due a pipe bursts and I need to pay the plumber to fix it. At the moment I can't cancel the standing order, but I have to pay the plumber. The bank is either going to pay or not pay the standing order, but there isn't enough money in my account. Either way the bank will charge me £35 if they pay it because the funds are not there, and £35 if they don't pay it. Either way I'm out an additional £35, and I haven't got a choice which option the bank takes. Personally, I would rather have any payments refused if the money is not in the account and not get charged for the bank doing nothing. I can negotiate with the mortgage company, or the water company to make payment at a later date - and they won't charge me! Its always better to have the choice. The bank currently takes this choice away and profits from it. my money, my life, my responsibility, should be my choice!

In your burst pipe example, you're talking about an exceptional situation - it's not something that happens frequently. Ideally, of course, you'd have taken the advice that's given over and over and over here (and which, again, is part of sensible money management) - to have money set aside for emergencies. But even if you hadn't done that, your bank would be quite likely to authorise an overdraft if your account is run responsibly the rest of the time. Even if they don't authorise an overdraft, any charges are quite likely to be refunded if you rarely go overdrawn. If your account isn't run well the rest of the time, that's the real problem - not the current burst pipe/mortgage due scenario, nor the fact that your bank will decide whether to allow you to go overdrawn.

And by the way, the water company or mortgage company could well charge you. The mortgage company will charge you interest at least, possibly a late payment charge, and might even register a late payment on your credit file.

Planning for emergencies is also part of basic money management. It's something that the vast majority of people can do, but many don't. I realise that not everyone can drop two or three months' salary into an easy-access savings accounts, but almost everyone *can* drop a fiver at a time in, and those fivers soon add up to be enough to pay the plumber to sort out that burst pipe.

opinions4u

blueberrypie wrote: »

Planning for emergencies is also part of basic money management. It's something that the vast majority of people can do, but many don't. I realise that not everyone can drop two or three months' salary into an easy-access savings accounts, but almost everyone *can* drop a fiver at a time in, and those fivers soon add up to be enough to pay the plumber to sort out that burst pipe.

Post of the week.

There is an inevitability in life that the unexpected will happen.

A tyre will burst, a pipe will leak, the hot girl (who's way beyond your class) from accounts asks you out or the plasma telly you want is on half price in Currys.

It might be an unpleasant thing, it might be a great thing.

But if you've tucked a few quid aside in anticipation fo the unexpected, you can deal with the situation so much more easily. And remember to top that emergency savings account up if you have to fall back on it ... over the next few pay days.

(I'm still hoping the girl from accounts will notice me, but don't tell Mrs o4u ).

leemack

blueberrypie wrote: »

There are regularly threads on this board with people blaming their banks for those kinds of scenarios. There is a thread today from someone who, knowing that if he writes a cheque it will not go through his account until at least Monday, wants to write and cash a cheque to himself so that he has cash over the weekend. Another thread from the same person about a week ago in which he wanted to know how he could write a "guaranteed" cheque - one that would be paid even if he didn't have money in his account to cover it. He is far from unique - similar questions are frequent. Often they boil down to the same thing: I failed to keep enough money aside for expenses I knew were going to happen, and now I'm trying to play the system to make up for it.



In your burst pipe example, you're talking about an exceptional situation - it's not something that happens frequently. Ideally, of course, you'd have taken the advice that's given over and over and over here (and which, again, is part of sensible money management) - to have money set aside for emergencies. But even if you hadn't done that, your bank would be quite likely to authorise an overdraft if your account is run responsibly the rest of the time. Even if they don't authorise an overdraft, any charges are quite likely to be refunded if you rarely go overdrawn. If your account isn't run well the rest of the time, that's the real problem - not the current burst pipe/mortgage due scenario, nor the fact that your bank will decide whether to allow you to go overdrawn.

And by the way, the water company or mortgage company could well charge you. The mortgage company will charge you interest at least, possibly a late payment charge, and might even register a late payment on your credit file.

Planning for emergencies is also part of basic money management. It's something that the vast majority of people can do, but many don't. I realise that not everyone can drop two or three months' salary into an easy-access savings accounts, but almost everyone *can* drop a fiver at a time in, and those fivers soon add up to be enough to pay the plumber to sort out that burst pipe.

I think you're missing the point. the point isn't whether someone can or can't manage their money - if you save enough to have a residual amount in your account or manage your money well then you are unlikely to suffer from bank charges.

If everyone managed their money well and never fell on hard times then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the banks would never be able to take a charge from anyone - and i really truly wish that everyone could manage their money, and saved for emergencies and never fell on hard times. Arguing budgeting and money management here is like having a go at the drowning man for not having learnt to swim, while standing around congratulating yourselves for your own superior swimming ability!!

The banks are profiting from the difficulties of their customers, in fact the system is specifically designed to do that.

Red_sky

I think everybody is missing the point here. It's not whether the bank should charge for an unauthorsed overdraft, it's the huge amount they do charge when people go overdrawn. Personally I think you shouldn't be allowed to go beyond your authorised limit but if you do, then the banks should charge only a reasonable amount either in interest or a nominal amount to cover their costs. The situation at the moment is the bank charges are quite simply too greedy and unreasonable. I think that's what most people are unhappy about.

bunny71

jambosans wrote: »

You don't need the bank to keep track of your spending. Your bank may provide the tools to help, but no system is fool proof, so instead of soley relying on the bank you should be keeping track with your own records (I have a very simple spreadsheet for example).

I agree. It was easier in the cheque books days when cheque books included transaction balance pages, so you could write down how much you spent each time and keep track of the running balance. Banks don't do anything like that anymore.

So, what I've done ever since is create my own. Just buy a simple lined notebook (costs <£1), and divide each page into 5 columns (date, details, out, in, balance). Write transactions down as you do them, then when they actually debit your account, I tick them. So if they're ticked, they're off, and if there's no tick, I know it's still to come off. It's very simple.

Of course it would be even easier if banks provided pre-printed transaction/balance notebooks like these to customers.

Red_sky

Banks shouldn't be allowed to charge multiple fees ie. fees on top of fees. Once you've paid back the amount you were originally overdrawn by then the fees should stop and give you chance to pay back the original fee not keep charging fees on top of fees.

koyli55

Beware Alliance & Leicester's current account method of displaying your balance
is set as a trap to glean bank charges! If you make deposits into their accounts
The balance displayed is not always the "cleared" balance.

Should you spend against this without carefully checking and go overdrawn you will only know at month end when the overdraft usage fee is rolled out.
Its scandalous the way it operates deliberately designed to draw you into the fee trap

Koyli