Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

dchurch24

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

Up yours!

That actually did make me chuckle!! ;-)

and this:

in breach of Bachman Vs Turner Overdrive 1829

I've always abided by that bit of case law!

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

Yep, and the first letter from the bank when threatened with legal action says "here's 50% of what you're asking for", and the third usually says "ok, here it all is, but we want confidentiality", and the fourth usually goes along the lines of "ok, we can't enforce confidentiality".

They may well claim that you are bound by their T&C's (which you had no part in drawing up I might add), but the law supercedes their contract, and it is an implied term in all contracts that they will abide by English contract law (if they are written up and distributed in England).

Big deal, so the bank deny everything. What did you expect, for them to roll over straight away (and I have actually had that happen)?

dchurch24

camelopardis wrote:

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Prosaic For This Useful Post:


What .. in the same way that your reply shows your lack of supportive "thanks" replies, in contrast to Prosaics?

I also have 881 thanks. I think Prosaics was around 60 ish - and I don't even come to this site that much any more - too busy helping people get their money back from their banks.

Shall we say, there are 65,077 views of the 'Claim back any unfair bank charges! Article Discussion Area' thread and 1,176 posts.

I wrote the 'Claim back any unfair bank charges' article.

I would say that it stands for itself.

I think the 'anti-getting-your-bank-charges-back' people are in the minority.

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

QUOTE]

Yes I have sympathy, but you have conviniently forgotten my whole very valid paragraph as an overdraft being there as a CUSHION. Something banks do not have to give you, but will because they make money out of the above scenario.

Also in your above example, again, is it the banks fault that her emplyer messed up or benefits messed up? Why should the bank pay for someone elses mistake?

I have debt, I make sure I service it correctly to not have these charges imposed on me. If that means working an extra job so be it. If that means us not having kids until WE are financially stable to, then so be it.

Theres ALWAYS a reason behind all this. It's not as simple as 'the bank charged me for using more of their money than I agreed to use'....that's it, taking them to court, bar stewards, how dare they'.

Now, whats the reason I have debt? Is it because I had the choice to use money I had available to me and not very wisely...

...or is it the banks fault for offering me this money?

Simple. Mine. Therefore, any charges imposed on me, charges which WE ALL sign up to and AGREE to, I'll pay them.

An overdraft is a cushion. Nothing more. It is there for these times when things DO go wrong. The bank cannot be held to blame for you using all your overdraft and then complaining because something which has nothing to do with the bank went wrong.

Prosaic

dchurch24 wrote:

I also have 881 thanks. I think Prosaics was around 60 ish - and I don't even come to this site that much any more - too busy helping people get their money back from their banks.

Shall we say, there are 65,077 views of the 'Claim back any unfair bank charges! Article Discussion Area' thread and 1,176 posts.

I wrote the 'Claim back any unfair bank charges' article.

I would say that it stands for itself.

I think the 'anti-getting-your-bank-charges-back' people are in the minority.

aww give me a chance, i haven't been here long. One-Upmanship on the 'thanks' button is it now? :rotfl:

This site is excellent, but I think some people start believing they should get EVERYTHING free! Businesses are there to make money. You mess up, theres a price to pay. You expect them to keep their side of the bargain, why doesn't the same apply to you?
If you don't like it, don't use banks and keep the money under your bed


Tell you what, so i don't incur any charges, nominate my post for the 50 quid a month prize and I'll donate 5% to the 'get back the overdue Blockbuster video fines' movement :T

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

I think the 'anti-getting-your-bank-charges-back' people are in the minority.

Now theres a proper sentence. We are in the minority. Were probably also the people who hate the 'sue you' culture which is making everything else more expensive.

Were probably those who hate with a passion those that decide to sponge off the government when they can go to work, just not willing to do so as they can have an adult life on vacation.

Were also those who probably read terms and conditions and understand the contract and will pay up if WE make a mistake.

As for the statistics, you have 304 thanks, not 881? Also, of course your 'claim back' thread is going to have more reads and replies, people are very very greedy, fact of life. It's also very difficult to live in this country with the tax man beating down your door for every penny you earn....to feed those who....oh well I shan't go on.

Graham_Devon

Prosaic wrote:

aww give me a chance, i haven't been here long. One-Upmanship on the 'thanks' button is it now? :rotfl:

This site is excellent, but I think some people start believing they should get EVERYTHING free! Businesses are there to make money. You mess up, theres a price to pay. You expect them to keep their side of the bargain, why doesn't the same apply to you?
If you don't like it, don't use banks and keep the money under your bed


Tell you what, so i don't incur any charges, nominate my post for the 50 quid a month prize and I'll donate 5% to the 'get back the overdue Blockbuster video fines' movement :T

I'm routing for you, given you another thanks to catch up!

Does the blockbuster fines thing cover Spar DVD's, as I just had to part with an extra £2 for being lazy last night and I think it's absolutely outrageous in this day and age!

Hell, they should just lend it me free in the first place!

Tootsie_Roll

This post really highlights why I have so little sympathy and respect for the 'caggers'.

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

I just can't see any difference - You sign an agreement to say you will keep to within a certain limit and that if you go over you will incur the charges that are very clearly laid out. Incidentally the bank will end up paying more as a result of you using an unauthorised OD. Where do you think they get the money from ?

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

Whilst she certainly has my sympathy it cannot possibly be the banks fault, in this instance it is the DSS for not paying on time and her for not cancelling the DD before they tried to claim for the second month.

dchurch24 wrote:

I personally was charged over 400 quid in one month due to a less than scrupilous employer.

But it was the bank that ended up subsidising your lifestyle and then you refused to pay for the privilege - why didn't you claim the charges back from your employer ?

dchurch24 wrote:

It's not always about choices. What choice did I have.

How about
a) Cancelling all your direct debits and paying manually until the problem had been resolved - then re-starting the dd's once it had ?
b) If 'a' was too much trouble what about speaking to your bank and arranging an overdraft ?
A brilliant example of how you have completely abdicated responsibility like most I have seen.

dchurch24 wrote:

When my daughter needed shoes and there was no money left to get them with, despite being a high(ish) wage earner.

Oh the old tug on the heartstrings apporach !! As a high(ish) wage earner perhaps you should have managed your finances better - absolutely no excuse.

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

No we're just ordinary people who learnt from our mistakes and moved on - now it seems we are having to pay for yours as well.

Graham_Devon

Yup, Hope the poster is just as proud of getting the ball rolling of making charged bank accounts as they are of writing a 'how to claim your charges back because I have found a loophole and I'm gonna exploit it, woohoo' post.

dchurch24

Oops - quite right - 881 was my post count ;-)

Anyway, I didn't start the one-upmanship thanks thing!

Also in your above example, again, is it the banks fault that her emplyer messed up or benefits messed up? Why should the bank pay for someone elses mistake?

I fail to see how the bank has paid - as far as I can see it's been very profitable for the bank. The woman on benifits has paid - no-one else, and it wasn't her fault either.

You expect them to keep their side of the bargain, why doesn't the same apply to you?
If you don't like it, don't use banks and keep the money under your bed

It does apply to me - and it applies to the bank. We all agree to keep within the laws of the country in which we operate - the bank hasn't - now why shouldn't they pay for their mistake? Instead they are (proposing) passing it on to it's customers.

I didn't make them act outside of the law - all I did was start a movement to have them brought to order as the Govt. of this country is far too soft and bank-friendly to do it for us, despite having an obligation to do so.

Were probably also the people who hate the 'sue you' culture which is making everything else more expensive.

Why does it make everything more expensive - can you give me some figures?

This is not creating a 'sue-you- culture - it's merely standing up for our legal rights (which have long been forgotten and exploited in this country) - using the means that were put before us to allow us to do just that - the county courts.

If I didn't do what the bank asked of me, do you think they would hesitate to use the courts? No. Well, and in danger of sounding like a child - they started it, not me.

Were also those who probably read terms and conditions and understand the contract and will pay up if WE make a mistake.

Trust me - I read the t&cs of everything - the difference is, now I understand a lot more about which parts are lawful and which parts are not. It matters not if there is a clause in a contract if it is in breach of the law - it cannot be enforced.

You mess up, theres a price to pay

But that's the point - that makes it a penalty. Banks are not in a position to be able to levy penalties - only courts are allowed to do that. The banks have messed up by flouting that law - now they have to pay - sadly though, they won't, they will just pass it down the line.

Yes I have sympathy, but you have conviniently forgotten my whole very valid paragraph as an overdraft being there as a CUSHION. Something banks do not have to give you, but will because they make money out of the above scenario.

Indeed. So, because she's on benifits, the bank are going to give her an overdraft are they? Unlikely, and nor should they - to do so would be irresponsible lending IMO. Why should she have a cushion? She was living within her, somewhat megre means, yet due to someone else making a mistake that was outside of her control she has to eat nothing but cereal and feed her kids on that for 2 weeks? In the meantime, the bank has gotten richer at her expense. How anyone can possibly justify that, I have no idea.

At least I can sleep at night, knowing that I have been responsible for many people not having to go through that again.

Prosaic

Graham_Devon wrote:

I'm routing for you, given you another thanks to catch up!

Does the blockbuster fines thing cover Spar DVD's, as I just had to part with an extra £2 for being lazy last night and I think it's absolutely outrageous in this day and age!

Hell, they should just lend it me free in the first place!

I agree...better than that, why don't they fetch it round to your house for you? After all there is a case of Ant Vs Dec where it was clearly proved that we have !!!!!! all to do with anything bad that happens to us

A few years ago Gary Jacobs ( RIP) used to do a great phone in on Talk radio ( now talksport) - when someone phoned in with a gripe he would shout 'SUE!' and the sound of a cash register would ring- reminds me a bit of the Claim back charges brigade