Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

Graham_Devon

Yes, you are quite right, I CAN do something about it. I couldn't have done anything about not being paid on time, or by which method, but I sure as hell can stop banks from doing it to anyone ever again...

...and I AM stopping it.


You concede that I could not have done anything about my wages going in - should I have moved money from my non-existent savings account (the MA syndrome again)?

I went to the bank and asked for a temp overdraft - they refused on the grounds that I had incurred to many charges over the last month - go figure that one out!

I concur with the other posters, there really is no hope.

So, tell me this honestly. Is it the BANKS fault for your employer not giving you your wages on time?

Simple answer of yes or no will do.

And damn I'm having fun.

dchurch24

No, it was not the banks fault.

It was not my fault either, yet I was punished for it. Thankfully there are laws in this country that are supposed to prevent punishements being dished out for breaches of contract. I invoked them.

It is, however, the banks fault that I ended up in a spiral of debt for the ensuing 12 months.

If I hadn't been punished, the worst thing that would have happened was that my bills would have been a few days late. Instead, the bank tried to screw me into the ground, that is until I fought back.

You are correct about there being no hope.

Some people want 'free banking' and !!!!!! the concequences. Let some people starve to pay for it.

Hereward

dchurch24 wrote:

...My employer, whilst not being very ethical was not exactly criminal mastermind of the year, while the bank was acting deliberatly unlawfully - it was the bank charges that caused the spiral. Not the late wages ultimately.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If you then employer had paid you on time then you would not have incurred the first set of bank charges; therefore, the late wages were the start of the spiral. BTW, if you where earning a good wage (as you stated earlier in the thread) then why weren't you build up a rainy day fund to cover this sort of situation?

dchurch24

Classic 'victim' mentality

And in this case, quite rightly so. I WAS the victim of circumstance outside of my control, and then punished for it unlawfully.

dchurch24

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If you then employer had paid you on time then you would not have incurred the first set of bank charges

If the bank had been acting lawfully in the first place, then the charges wouldn't have been levied.

BTW, if you where earning a good wage (as you stated earlier in the thread) then why weren't you build up a rainy day fund to cover this sort of situation?

Because, I have a house and family to provide for. I had just started a new job, and my savings were used on a project (which has since proven very fruitful) before this event had happened. I shouldn't have to protect myself financially against unethical employers and/or unlaful tactics from banks.

You could argue that someone pointed a gun at you and forced you to take 500 quid out of your account - leaving you short of your mortgage payment the next day. Should you have money put aside in the event of that happening?

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

How does it not make sense. My lifestyle was such that I could easily have afforded shoes for my daughter - had my employer paid on time and by the means specified (direct transfer, not cheque). The bank then added charges to the account for not having funds to pay DDs etc... and then the following month the same happened again, but I was down the 400 quid or so that the bank had taken due to the charges.

Which bit don't you understand?

If my employer had simply not paid me on time, and the bank had not charged me unlawfully, then there would have been no mess. Just a few bills being paid a few days late. Why on earth would I take a case to court I could only lose? My employer, whilst not being very ethical was not exactly criminal mastermind of the year, while the bank was acting deliberatly unlawfully - it was the bank charges that caused the spiral. Not the late wages ultimately.

Listen, I'm gonna offer you some advise here. I'm not being funny, not getting one up on you or anything.

But, how about, you take control of your own finances instead of blaming everyone around you including your pet hamster.

Save yourself a bit of money each month and build up a buffer. Then, if anything goe's wrong, you simply use your buffer.

Do NOT tell me that you can't afford to build a buffer up. Your paying £40 for shoes for your daughter....

You ARE inevitably making it harder for the whole of the UK population. Those that are in the problem re-current overdraft problem will now only be made worse because your shouting out to everyone 'get your charges back'. Something is gonna give and it seems to in the end of free banking stuff. I know it's not only you who has been promoting this, but you seem very very proud to have shafted someone else for what is ultimately your lack of financial understanding and organisation.

Why are your DD so close to your wages date? Make them a week later so that if things do go wrong, you have time to sort it out and then again, you won't get charged.

It's simple to take control of your own financial planning. However, I don't think you will bother as its a LOT easier to blame everyone else instead of knuckling down and doing something about it.

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

No, it was not the banks fault.

And your quite happy to shaft them for something you openly admit is not their fault.

If you had financially planned, you would not have been in this mess.

So are you saying non of this in the slightest has anything to do with you and your spending or your lifestyle?

dchurch24

My finances were VERY well balanced - I was (and am) very much in control of them.

My DDs WERE about a week after payday - the contract said I would be paid by direct transfer on a given day. In reality that meant I would be paid the next Friday and by cheque. Cheques take 3-5 days to clear meaning that even in that situation most of my DDs would be bounced.

You seem to think I lack financial understanding and organisation. I do not. I have a very good grasp on my finances and could tell you to within about £5 exactly what is in my account at any given moment. This has always been this way, and I take offence to the fact that you assume that I have no grasp of financial management.

It's simple to take control of your own financial planning. However, I don't think you will bother as its a LOT easier to blame everyone else instead of knuckling down and doing something about it.

When someone else is to blame - then they get the blame - when I am to blame, then I blame myself.

I was not to blame.

Something is gonna give and it seems to in the end of free banking stuff.

...and do you really think that the 2-3 million quid a year that we've cost them so far is the catalist? Come on!! It's just another way for banks to line their already filled pockets.

They would have given another reason for doing it if this campaign hadn't been started, and I think we all know it.

Hereward

dchurch24 wrote:

If the bank had been acting lawfully in the first place, then the charges wouldn't have been levied.

This is incorrect: the bank would have still levied the charges, but they would not have been as large.

Because, I have a house and family to provide for. I had just started a new job, and my savings were used on a project (which has since proven very fruitful) before this event had happened. I shouldn't have to protect myself financially against unethical employers and/or unlaful tactics from banks.

You could argue that someone pointed a gun at you and forced you to take 500 quid out of your account - leaving you short of your mortgage payment the next day. Should you have money put aside in the event of that happening?

A rainy day fund is an insurance policy against any unforeseen actions that can be access very quickly: it should not be used to spend on any sort of investment/want, its there to cover emergencies.

dchurch24

And your quite happy to shaft them for something you openly admit is not their fault.

If you had financially planned, you would not have been in this mess.

So are you saying non of this in the slightest has anything to do with you and your spending or your lifestyle?

The question was "was it the banks fault that your employer did not pay on time?"

The answer is: no.

You claim that the charges wouldn't have been as much. Fine, brilliant in fact - that way I would not have been forced down a spiral of debt.

If you had financially planned, you would not have been in this mess.

I reitereate - I seem to lack the psychic ability to know when I'm going to be shafted over by my employer.

I have (and am) always been in control of my finances. When someone suddenly dips in over a period of 2 months and takes the best part of 1400 quid - I defy anyone to be able to withstand that.

As it happened, I had to cash my endowment policy to break the chain - that didn't happen quickly and it wasn't an easy decision to make, I lost a lot of money as the policy hadn't been in force for that long. Was that my fault too I suppose?

...and, yes. I am proud that I have started this campaign, and I am proud that whilst some people may have to find a few extra quid each month to pay for DDs (or choose to pay with a paying in book, as I do these days), that many people will not be screwed into the ground to make bank shareholders richer.