Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

ironic

I do not have much sympathy in relation to account charges in particular overdraft ones.

Firstly all charges are detailed in t+cs of accounts so its makes sense a, to be aware what they are and b, to have an account with the cheapest charges.

Secondly, by going over your allowed limit you are using the banks money and costing them. Even being in an overdraft in the first place is silly as it is *not* your money. Lots of my friends seem to think an overdraft is free money.

Thirdly, the fact a bank will honour payments is important. For example would you rather the bank did not pay your mortgage?

If you don't have it, don't spend it! Is it just me that thinks this?

SuperBOB

Take it to the extreme though, somebody who struggles every day of the month to feed their kids let alone themselves, goes 1p over their budget for that week and gets charged £50. Is that moral? Is that fair? Clearly it doesn't cost the banks that much.

Because of the banks greed in matters such as this, they have brought it on themselves.

Keith

Yes it is.

Do you also believe its fair the bank charges £25 for honouring the payment and then £25 for you going over your overdraft?

Your also happy your bank conducts its business in an unlawful manner, will you be bothered when it effects you?

You have been lucky not to have your planned financial situation change in the space of a few minutes, we've been there recently and if it wasn't due to putting aside 3 months of Mortgage and bill payments we'd be bouncing payments all over the place, we are lucky, theres others who aren't, get your head out of your !!!!!! and see how these charges effect others. Think of parents with little or no income, how they survive each month with £50 docked from the little money they have.

asharon

It isn't about that though is it ?

All people are saying is that if you go over your overdraft or whatever and it costs the banks money then it should be a fair amount they cahrge ? Don't you agree. Just because you go over your limit, not something people want to do generally doesnt mean it gives them the right to make up a figure and charge it ?

"If you don't have it don't spend it."

until you find yourself in the position of not having enough money, spare me the Oh Ibut I do rubbish then you cannot judge another person at all. Not all people find it easy and they would like to. An overdraft is at times essential when payments are late or for various reasons.

There are people who abuse the system and people that need it and you can't lump them all together.

As for the banks charging, yes they should, but it should be a fair amount that reflects the actual costs Not a massively inflated figure just to make profits.

You go 2p over your limit, then you get a £25 charge because of there not b eing enough for the direct debit, then you get charged interest on this amount. Then you get charged £35 for exceeding your overdraft limit.

Some people have some horrible experiences like this and that is not fair.

Wyndham

ironic wrote:

If you don't have it, don't spend it! Is it just me that thinks this?

No, it's not just you. And part of money management is being ready for horrible things to happen, and having savings / previously arranged overdraft / previously arranged credit card etc. to fall back on.

Of course things go wrong, and of course some people are very unlucky and really struggle, and I sympathise with them. But I have no sympathy with those who live on the edge of their finances but still spend lots of money on luxaries, then complain they never have any money and the bank have charged them.

Though I am one of those who keeps track of money on at least a weekly basis with Money Manager, always know what bills are due, and would not go 2p over any limits as I know to the penny how much they are! :rolleyes:

michaels

I am genrally in the 'let the market decide' camp - as long as the banks say what they will charge and stick to it then why should anyone interfere?

However I am not sure there may not be a market failure in banking as there is no sign of banks competing in respect to these charges - I wonder why this is the case? For many poeple they are obviously a big issue so why is it the bank ads all stress their in credit interest rates rather than focussing on these charges?

I am speculating that there are two types of people who pay these charges - those with free disposalble income who choose not to bother to run their finances more efficiently and those with very tight income/expenditure balances who would like to shop around for acccounts with low fees but are not the sort of customers who offer much attraction to the banks in terms of cheap positive balances or cross-selling opportunities.

I know the above does not present any solutions but if there is a market failure there is scope for goverment intervention, which seems to be what the capping penalty charge to loss incurred for breach of contract legislation acheives. However what we will now see is the banks charging more explicitly - after all instead of having a penalty for breach of contract they could just explicitly include extra borrowing as being allowable under their standard terms subject to expllcit charges.

ironic

I do understand the hardship is causes for some people and I do feel sorry for them, I'm not exactly rich myself but a lot of these situations are down to bad management. I've been burned too so I do get that people can fall on hard times but theres no excuse for poor management and then blaming it on the bank.

Tim_L

Fundamentally it matters not a jot whether you have any sympathy at all - fact is that everyone including the banks seems to accept the charges were and are unlawful. And they are being repaid.

So really you can huff and puff all you like, but it's not going to change much.

Keith

Al_Mac wrote:

It'll be interesting when one of the banks put their foot down

They will lose and charges will be reduced. But will a government body or watch dog have to be the ones that force it?

I cant see them carrying on to pay out, if/when many many more people claim. As everyone keeps pointing out, it is the profits they are giving back

I'm not so sure, the banks surely make a hell of a lot through investment and business banking, the charges probably do amount to a large chunk of their profits, but it makes no difference to them after all the majority is not yet claiming back their charges, it may seem a lot of people are claiming back their charges but when you consider how many people are charged every now and then, never mind each month, this is the tip of the iceberg.

CopperPlate_2

Tim_L wrote:

Fundamentally it matters not a jot whether you have any sympathy at all - fact is that everyone including the banks seems to accept the charges were and are unlawful. And they are being repaid.

So really you can huff and puff all you like, but it's not going to change much.

The charges themselves weren't unlawful - just the level that they were set at. Things have changed - the banks have cut them to the recommended levels - have they disappeared? No, they're still there so lets not get too excited about the fact that they seem to have gone, because they haven't.

flossy_splodge

I was in Nationwide recently paying a long overdue amount for my elderly father who writes the cheques to cover his debts but simply forgets to then do something with the cheque! The staff in Nationwide were rude and belligerent and said their charges were NOT unlawful(!) but in any case have now been reduced to £12.00 for a late payment charge. I went home and telephoned Nationwide to confirm what had happened (as they had suspended my Dad's card) and to confirm the monies had been paid at a branch. What a difference. The supervisor I spoke to was extremely understanding (helped I think that I have 3rd party authority on my Dads accounts for just such an eventuality so this could confirm to them what had happened) and VOLUNTARILY removed not only the late payment charge but also the small amount of interest accrued between the statement date and the date of payment. I reckon that's more than fair. Not sure why face to face staff in branches are so very often lacking in any sort of customer service skills but on the telephone it goes fine. Have had this with a number of financial institutions and always the same. Guess who sticks to the telephone! Maybe I put people off face to face :rotfl: