We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy
Comments
-
I'm off to the library to claim back my overdue books fee!
The b*stards charged me 18p on a book that i couldn't be bothered to take back
Why didn't they come round to my house? Why didn't they help me to manage my book lending habit
None of this my fault..I live a life with absolutely NO consequences!0 -
Another point would be, if it really cost £39 not to pay an item, it surely must cost £39 to pay it. Looks like we could all be in for some extortionate bank charges then!Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.
The Lord Giveth and the Government Taketh Away.
I'm sorry, I don't apologise. That's just the way I am. Homer (Simpson)0 -
Paul_Herring wrote:Of course it doesn't. If you remove the scare quotes.
If you haven't signed anything to say that the bank understands you have that overdraft and are allowed to use it in normal day to day banking, it is unauthorised. Just because the bank authorised the *transaction* doesn't give any authenticity to the state of your negative bank balance.
I totally agree with you on why they do authorise the transactions however.
So that would make not having enough money to pay a DD etc... a breach of the contract terms then?0 -
Prosaic wrote:I'm off to the library to claim back my overdue books fee!
The b*stards charged me 18p on a book that i couldn't be bothered to take back
Why didn't they come round to my house? Why didn't they help me to manage my book lending habit
None of this my fault..I live a life with absolutely NO consequences!
Try and keep up. You are not being fined for a breach of contract.
Also, Libraries and Govt. bodies enjoy an exemption from the laws governing contacts, of sorts.
Of course, having done some research on the subject before making a frivoulous comment designed to annoy, you would have known this already presumably?
Would the 18p (if the story were not a deliberate wind-up attempt) force you into further debt, and stop you from returning the book? No.
The comparison is laughable and shows your lack of understanding and ignorance of the issue being discussed.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and allow large organisations to rip you off, then you carry on. There is a growing number of people who DO NOT want to be ripped off anymore.
To sit back and do nothing but make fun of people who are striving for a fairer place to live is tantamount to cowardice in my opinion.
It really does get some peoples backs up that they haven't got the balls to stand up for themselves, doesn't it?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.0 -
and that it was entirely in your power not to have stuck your heads in that noose in the first place and that the fault rests squarely with you. I think that's what a lot of us on the other side have difficulty with. I really wish you the very best of luck in getting your money back but this wrong-headed campaign is also giving some people the impression that they are in some sense "victims" which I find regrettable, and as has also been noted, all that's happening is that T's&C's are being amended in such a way that those in debt will be in debt for longer.
It was not totally within my power to avoid the charges. My cases are document on this forum. When I did get my money back (a long time ago now), I posted on here and was inundated with people going through a similar time.
One girl had a tumour and was very, very ill. After a while her sick-pay turned to SSP and quite understanderbly had other things to worry about than if there was enough money to cover a DD payment - the payments WERE NOT paid, so she DID NOT borrow or spend money she didn't have.
The banks answer was to charge her more, despite their knowledge of her troubles.
We (She) sued, and got her money back.
Another woman, who was receiving benefits that were paid directly into her bank had a payment not arrive on time (for reasons still unknown to her), and the bank took MORE than the benefit that week in charges. That woman had to feed her two kids and herself on one box of breakfast cerial for over 2 weeks.
Yes, banks have to make a profit - and they do - a very, very healthy profit (some would say morbid profit, myself included).
This is not the middle ages. People should not be exploited to keep the wealthy (and very rich) wealthier still.
Shareholding was not meant to be about profit-making. The whole idea was to provide an income. Now it seems that the brainwashed public think that a shareholders holding should increase year on year way above the rate of inflation.
Am I the only one here that can see the dangers of this?
Part of the repercussions are starting already. People who are seriously ill with life-threatening conditions are being ripped off unlwafully, people who cannot afford to eat (in a supposed civilised society) are being forced further down the line - after all, I suppose she could still afford one box of cerial - perhaps the bank should have taken that too?
I would like to know why you think the campaign is "wrong headed".
Money has been taken from accounts unlawfully - as has been publically admitted by LloydsTSB and more recently, Nationwide and HSBC - if you had someone hold a knife to your throat and demand you take out £30 from your account and hand it to them, would you not be a victim of a crime?OFT ruling has definitely aided your case there (as much as I think the OFT is an almost entirely pointless quango that does nothing very useful at all).
I agree. We had to protest outside their office in Fleet Street to get them to do anything at all. And even then, they really didn't want to, and since have backtracked over the Current account 'section' (more like an afterthought) in their white paper.
---
In most T&C's from banks it clearly states that to not have enough money in the account to cover outgoings is a breach of the T&C's.
Therefore to charge more than the breach to the second party actually cost is unlawful and will not be upheld by a court - and the banks know this.0 -
Prosaic wrote:I'm off to the library to claim back my overdue books fee!
The b*stards charged me 18p on a book that i couldn't be bothered to take back
Why didn't they come round to my house? Why didn't they help me to manage my book lending habit
None of this my fault..I live a life with absolutely NO consequences!
Whilst claiming money back is certainly in the spirit of money saving, organising finances where possible to avoid charges is (in my opinion) even more so - especially in the situation where when the charges were being incurred there was no knowledge that they might be reclaimable at some future date.
Having organised finances includes making sure that there is a financial cushion available should the unexpected happen. The reason the 'reclaim brigade' get such a negative response on this forum is the implicit message they give out that the issue is the banks unlawful charges wheras to many money savers the key issue should be in avoiding the charges in the first place rather than in finding a way to avoid the consequences of failure to manage finances properly.
No one on here will argue one can be aware of all future circumstances but there are discussion about the best places to save, the best insurance products to have etc and I think it would not be possible to argue that everyone who has incurred charges has done so despite managing their money in a prudent manner and only spending what is available after buiding up a savings pot and buying suitable insurance.I think....0 -
Once again dchurch you pick out the headline grabbing cases to try and make your point. As I have posted over and over again, the bulk of charges are incurred by people who make no effort to manage their finances properly and I firmly believe (whether it's lawful or not) that these people deserve to get charged else how will they learn not to do it again and start to take responsibility for their own lives ? We hear time and time again; 'It's not my fault, they shouldn't have lent me the money' or 'I tripped over a paving slab, it's the Councils fault' or schools stopping kids playing conkers on health and safety grounds. If people continue to abdicate responsibility in this way we are heading for a nanny state where we will be unable to make any decisions for ourselves - YOU are contributing to this.0
-
Prosaic wrote:I'm off to the library to claim back my overdue books fee!
The b*stards charged me 18p on a book that i couldn't be bothered to take back
Why didn't they come round to my house? Why didn't they help me to manage my book lending habit
None of this my fault..I live a life with absolutely NO consequences!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Prosaic For This Useful Post:dchurch24 wrote:The comparison is laughable and shows your lack of understanding and ignorance of the issue being discussed.
What .. in the same way that your reply shows your lack of supportive "thanks" replies, in contrast to Prosaics?0 -
might have been mentioned? But who read the Evening Standard last night, front page headline of the West End Final edition was Banks to introduce charges across all current accounts by end of year. Yep theyve all got together and will be looking to introduce a yearly fee to keep your account open - which is apparently standard in many other countries.
I think there are many arguments for and against large fees for going overdrawn etc - but at least you had an element of choice. Now free banking is coming to an end and we'll ALL have to pay a fee ALL the time.
Good work guys, that really helps people struggling for cash?! At least before it taught people a lesson, in the real world there are rules and boundries. Life is tough. Now people like me, who have no easy ride, but got off our asrses and played the game in the first place will suffer - thanks!
Heres hoping it doesnt happen, and I for one will be chasing any free current account that doesnt introduce fees.Debt: a bloomin big mortgage
all posts are made for entertainment value only, nothing I say should be taken as making any sense and should really be ignored0 -
Then more people are ignorant of the issues than perhaps I first thought.If people continue to abdicate responsibility in this way we are heading for a nanny state where we will be unable to make any decisions for ourselves - YOU are contributing to this.
I think you are wrong. The country is heading for nanny-stateism in any case. Fighting back against seemingly impossibly large organisations empowers people and encourages them to NOT stand for nannystatism.Once again dchurch you pick out the headline grabbing cases to try and make your point.
Even if that were the only 'headline grabbing' case, which is most certainly not, then that one person should never have been in that position. If that one person could have been able to eat properly because we were all charged a fair price for a fair service, then I think this country would be a much fairer and nicer (and perhaps more charitable place - clearly lacking in this thread).
I fail to see why you all think you should get something for nothing - at the expense of others.
So, in essence you are saying that because you *may* have to pay a fee (and let us remember that the bank are showing no signs of stopping the unlwaful charging at all, you are just sucking up the propaganda - and to be forced into buying a third-party service through legislation (1984 Emploment Act - regarding wage payments) is a direct breach of the ECHR act, that huge monolithic, rich companies - that indirectly affect Govt. policy - should be allowed to continue to act outside of the law?
Nice!
Anyone remember 1939 (the last time that sort of thing was allowed to happen)?
If you let them get away with breaching the law on this one, then what next?
Shame on your shortsighted, uncharitable views.
As a side point:
Does anyone really believe that the banks wouldn't have intorduced charges on current accounts in any case?
They are not the charitable organisations that you think they are - if they can screw someone into the ground for their last pennies, then they will do so.
The bank charges issue has given them a nice little scapegoat - and you are all sucking it up.
They WILL NOT be allowed to charge across the board. With benifits being paid directly to bank accounts, they will not be allowed to scrape off of the top.
If they are (in the absence of a true, non-guttless Govt.), then I can feel another campaign coming on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards