Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

dchurch24

I am well aware of Godwin's Law, however, the last time a law was circumnavigated through public opinion resulted in WWII.

...and indeed, we're experiencing the same propaganda against the 'have-nots'.

It is indeed socialistic thinking - and a socialist society would not allow for this to have happened in the first place.

Capitilsm breeds greed - as can be proved by reading this thread. People want something for nothing. Surely "but many people will end up subsidising the !!!!less" is better than the poorest of society subsidising the wealthy.

That is tantamount to Fascism, which is considerably more damaging than socialism.

Graham_Devon

I really don't get what your all arguing about. Am I right in thinking that people have asked the bank for an overdraft (an overdraft being a cushion, to provide relief in circumstances where you have no money but a bill goe's out) and then live in their overdraft and then are claiming their charges back when they go over their overdraft limit which the bank, at their expense has issued you with (interest applicable).

It's only fair therefore, for banks to charge if you go over your overdraft limit. The large sum in my mind should be a deterant to doing so.

Sure, some people are going to fall foul of this and be forever at the end of their overdraft...but thats called living beyond your means.

If we lived without banks and all took cash around with us, there would be no overdraft and people would live completely differently, being responsible for their own finances.

An overdraft is just a cushion and it's perfectly fair in my eyes to charge someone for going over it. Those people need to take a good hard look at their situations.

Yes, I have been there, and I was there for about 2 months. I could have been there for a lot longer, but instead I took measures to get out of it. Sold stuff on ebay, sold my car and got a cheap banger, one overdraft gone. Sure, had a rubbish car, but had a balance in my account again. Therefore, was not charged every month.

I have the choice here. I could reclaim those charges. For about 60 quid it's not worth it, only pushing the banks further into charging me monthly. If I had 6k in charges, I'd probably jump on the bandwagon and reclaim those charges....however, would know full well, it was my fault I had those charges in the first place.

Now I'm off to spar to return the DVD thats a day overdue. Therefore, I will pay the fee.......(then write to the head of spar afterwards at my disgust in paying the overdue fee because I didn't organise myself in getting it back like I said I would.....and will fully expect them to come back and say 'well it cost us as we couldnt lend it to anyone else).....of course, I shouldnt pay their fee.

dchurch24

Graham_Devon wrote:

Now I'm off to spar to return the DVD thats a day overdue. Therefore, I will pay the fee.......(then write to the head of spar afterwards at my disgust in paying the overdue fee because I didn't organise myself in getting it back like I said I would.....and will fully expect them to come back and say 'well it cost us as we couldnt lend it to anyone else).....of course, I shouldnt pay their fee.

Oh, not another one who just doesn't understand the difference, surely?

It's not rocket science - it's basic contract law. Why do some people have such trouble understanding it?

Graham_Devon

I understand the difference yes.

But I also understand it's due to my actions that I have to pay the fee.

There lies the crutch of this whole argument that seems to go on. Understanding that it's not the banks fault for you going over your agreed 'cushion'.

The bank didnt say 'Mr bloggs, were making you leave your TV on standby so that your leccy bill is higher this month, therefore taking you over your agreed overdraft, so we can charge you'. No, it was your choice whether to turn it off or leave it on standby.

Just like it was my choice to be too lazy to take the DVD back last night. I knew full well I would have to pay the price for my laziness, so will do just that.

dchurch24

Haven't I?

You haven't read the threads on this issue where I have posted? Fair enough.

I suppose I started the CAG site without researching things properly as well.

But I also understand it's due to my actions that I have to pay the fee.

But it isn't the same as someone levying an unlawful charge upon you for your actions.

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

Haven't I?

You haven't read the threads on this issue where I have posted? Fair enough.

I suppose I started the CAG site without researching things properly as well.



But it isn't the same as someone levying an unlawful charge upon you for your actions.

How isn't it?

The same applies for many many things.

Broadband Usage, say your given 2gb a month, you go over it, they charge for it. So are those who went over their usage that month going to write and complain about it to get their money back, or are they going to look at their usage situation and carry on going over their usage every month, or change the way in which they surf?

The fee may be on the high side, I have never disputed that, BUT I cannot see how people have racked up 2k worth of fee's! I'd be thinking, 'ok, got to do something to get out of this silly situation'. Which is what i did. I didnt want to drive around in a banger, but to live within my means, at the time, I had to, otherwise I wouldnt have been able to get to work.

I'm not naive, I know some find it incredibly difficult to get out of that situation once they are in it, but that is life, gambling, smoking, drinking etc etc, are all the same, hard to get out of and will take you under if you don't. Bank charges are the same and there is a reason, through those persons actions which have got them to that point in the first place.

We all have choices. I would love to have a child. I cannot afford one (i.e. I would struggle and probably be eating the overdraft), so I don't have a child and use protection in order to stop me having that child. Some people have those children which cause them financial problems, which leads to this kind of thing.

It's all about choices and self control at the end of the day.

Where does the overdraft stop otherwise? Do they not charge and give you a bigger overdraft, paying for your life?!

dchurch24

It's not the same because in the broadband example you have given, you have used the service of extra traffic - which results in a cost to the ISP. You are also not in breach of the contract - you agreed to pay more per gb over a certain amount of usage.

With bank charges, you are being penalised for a breach of contract. A penalty, at law, is a sum that is higher than a) the amount that was caused by the breach, or b) greater than the sum causing the breach.

In your example, you had the choice of selling a car for profit - you are lucky. Do you think the woman eating cereal for 2 weeks would have sold a car if she'd had one to sell?

She was getting (for arguments sake) £50 per week. Her benefits were late - she was charged a total of £54 for 2 bounced DDs. This left her £4 overdrawn. Guess what? She got charged an extra £35. The following month she was £39 down. Leaving £11 to pay the 2 dds. Guess what, they both bounced. Charges - £54. Leaving her 4 quid overdrawn - guess what? Charged £35 - leaving her £43 overdrawn. So the next time the money comes in she only has £7 left to pay the direct debits and 'unauthorised' overdraft interest. This doesn't even take into account of DDs that are represented.

Is it that hard to see why people have over £2k in charges?

In the example given there were only 2 DDs. What about a normal household - I would guess at between 5 and 10 DDs.

I personally was charged over 400 quid in one month due to a less than scrupilous employer. The following month - guess what, late wages, plus 400 quid down already due to charges - oh - you guessed it - £500 taken in charges. It takes no time at all to rack up £2k.

It's not always about choices. What choice did I have. The only 'extravagence' I had was my train ticket to work. When I couldn't afford that due to the charges, I had no choice but to overdraw and incur more charges, or not go to work and incur a whole lot more.

When my daughter needed shoes and there was no money left to get them with, despite being a high(ish) wage earner - I looked into the legalities of what they were doing and took my own action to stop it.

That was my choice - allow myself to get ripped off and screwed into the ground OR fight back. I fought back - and won. I did the same as you, "ok, got to do something to get out of this silly situation" - I did what I could - which was to stop the cause of the problem - and as you put it - take control - not just circumnavigate it by selling the things that I had earned to pay a rip-off merchant who had done nothing to earn those things at all.

Your argument sounds very much like "let them eat cake".

I've heard many people say "why didn't they just put some money in the account, or move some from a savings account?"

These people must be very far removed from the reality of living from day to day trying to keep your head above water - just like Marie Antoinette.

Paul_Herring

dchurch24 wrote:

I fail to see why you all think you should get something for nothing - at the expense of others.
[...]
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.

Banking, as it stands, is most certainly not free. Do you really think that those of us in credit are getting sufficient interest on our accounts?

Is 0.1% a reasonable amount of interest? Is 4% a reasonable amount of interest?

Do you really think that the banks pass on all of the interest they make out of the money they hold for us?

Consider an oversimplified situation:

Bank holds £100,000 from savers.
Bank lends out £100,000 for a mortgage.

Consider the difference between what the bank is charging on the mortgage and what the bank is handing back to the savers.

Extrapolate to include all the money they hold, and the fact that through gearing they can actually lend out multiples of what they 'hold'.
Extrapolate to include the overnight money markets where they can get even more money.
Extrapolate to include the 3+ day delay between removing payment from one account to crediting another account.

We are being short changed here, and the banks are making a profit from all this.

And on top of this, apparently due to people claiming back their 'unlawful level of charges', the banks are now attempting to actually charge for a service from which they are making a canny little profit.

I see no scape goat. I see the greedy banks reclaiming their 'lost profits' from a minority of customers by charging the majority.

Prosaic

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

As you're obviously a great consumer champion :rotfl: you will have seen the letters that banks send out when those poor unfortunate souls who've racked up 8 grand in debt going off to Ibiza try to sue them

The first line of the letters say, and I quote' when you open an account with us you agree to abide by its terms and conditions. These include fees for unauthorised OD ' etc etc etc

The people who are genuinely in finanicial trouble through illness etc have my sympathy.

The rest of the freeloaders might want to consider foregoing this weeks electronic fad and live within their means

Anyway, I'm starting a 'reclaim your library book fees back' - who's with me? I've been stung for £3.70 this year and they are in breach of Bachman Vs Turner Overdrive 1829. All you do is fill out 5 forms, then get indignant if they close your account & want to go to court. A friend of mine did it & he made 200 grand. Course now the library is charging me 8 quid to get in, but its worth it right?


Course I could have always took the books back, but then who could I blame my lack of foresight on?

and sarcasm is not the lowest form of wit. Rude insults are like this one..

Up yours!

dchurch24

I agree with everything you just said, apart from

I see no scape goat. I see the greedy banks reclaiming their 'lost profits' from a minority of customers by charging the majority.

I still believe that they are feeding the media the line "well if we can't charge irrespisible people for going over their limit or not having enough to pay DDs, then we'll have to charge a monthly fee", wheras, they would STILL have made a monthly fee but wouldn't have been able to blame it on the bank charge reclaimers, had no-one ever claimed their money back.

Remember - about 5 years ago, the 'fine' for not having enough money was between 8-10 quid. Not many people got upset about that - it was only when they got greedy and *really* started hurting people that the tide started to turn.

I believe that they were making a profit 5 years ago, but saw an oppertunity to milk it some more, in this case it has back-fired somewhat.