MSE News: OFT delivers 'flaccid' report on future of bank charges

ILW

confused90 wrote: »

ILW your comment above does make me laugh, it is such arrogant patronising and pompus bullsh1t it is actually funny.

For a start banks are in no position to preech to us taxpayers about handling our finances while at the same time taking our tax money to keep their arrogant and incompatent backsides off the dole cue due to their own financial "mistakes".

But what particularly makes me chuckle is the comment about not reading the "small print".

i'm assuming that if you are making such an arrogant statement that you are well versed on the details of your own banking agreement, so i'll ask you the same question i asked a rather pompus woman from my bank when she made a similar comment to me......

...... if you know your banking agreement from start to finish prove it, recite it from the top, page one to the end, word for word...NOW....she couldn't answer that....can you? or are you just another pompus old pr1ck who doesn't think before he speaks and casts judgement on other people??

In reply to your comments:

1. I never said the banks should be preaching, I merely commented that the millions spent on the OFT report could have been better spent on educating people about how to deal with money.

2. Regarding reading the small print, yes I do read it before entering into financial transactions, but can see no reason to try to memorise all of it, just the bits that may cost me.

If this makes me a pompous old git then so be it.

I assume you just sign anything that is put in front of you and then when you get ripped off blame everybody else.

I stand by my point and would say that anyone that enters into a contract without even bothering to spend 10 minutes reading it, is an idiot.

confused90

ILW wrote: »

In reply to your comments:



2. Regarding reading the small print, yes I do read it before entering into financial transactions, but can see no reason to try to memorise all of it, just the bits that may cost me.
it seems obvious to me that your "small print" comment is a snipe at those who say they did not know they would be charged or how much they would be charged, if you meant something else feel free to clarify, but when i last opened a bank account which wasn't long ago i was only presented with a full copy of my banking agreement after or at the time my account was opened, the paper i signed at the time did not contain much small print as it simply stated that i agreed to the banks terms which were supplied seperately. I have never said i did not know i would be charged or how much but i make no pretense that i have ever sat down and read my banking agreement from start to finish, i would suggest that unless you have read your agreement from start to finish and know it off by heart you are being hypocrytical to cast judgement on others for not doing so. To say you read the important bits or "the bits that might cost you" puzzles me, how do you know? if you did not read all of the banking agreement how can you say with authority that you have read and understood all of the bits which might cost you?



I assume you just sign anything that is put in front of you and then when you get ripped off blame everybody else.
you assume wrong, as where resonably possible i read agreements in full, not just the bits the lender wants me to read or that the law says they must highlight but all of the agreement, a standard credit agreement would be between 2 and four pages long where as a banking agreement is between 40 and 60 pages long, so it would take alot longer to read and be practically impossible to remember in full, meaning it is, in my opinion, perfectly feasable that someone might be unaware of the amount of charges they would incur for unarranged borrowing.

I stand by my point and would say that anyone that enters into a contract without even bothering to spend 10 minutes reading it, is an idiot.
i would bet my house on the fact that it would be impossible for you or any other human being to read 40 to 60 pages of a banking agreement in 10 minutes and even if you could skim read 4 to 6 pages a minute of a document like this such a brief read would be insufficient for someone to fully absorb the countless clauses within the agreement.

also if you had read "the bits of your agreement which might cost you" you would know that a standard banking agreement does not state how much the charges will be, at least Natwests does not, the section on charges states,

6.3 Unarranged overdrafts and unpaid items
6.3.1 If you issue instructions for a withdrawal or other payment which
would result in:
(a) your account becoming overdrawn, or further overdrawn,
without prior arrangement ; or
(b) your overdraft limit being exceeded,
we will treat your instructions as an informal request for an
9
unarranged overdraft. General Conditions 6.3.2 to 6.3.4 describe
how we process your request and the charges we make when we
do so.
6.3.2 If we decide we are willing to accept your request , we will make
a charge known as a Paid Referral Fee.
6.3.3 If we decide we are not willing to accept your request , but
nonetheless accept it because we find that you have guaranteed
payment by the use of a cheque guarantee card or debit card,
we will make a charge known as a Guaranteed Card Payment Fee.
6.3.4 If we reject your request , we will make a charge known as an
Unpaid Item Fee.
6.3.5 Where you have an unarranged overdraft , in addition to any
charge imposed under General Conditions 6.3.2 to 6.3.4,
we will:
(a) apply a monthly charge known as a Maintenance Charge; and
(b) charge interest (known as debit interest) on the unarranged
overdraft at the rate which applies to unarranged overdrafts.
6.3.6 You will find details of the interest and charges mentioned in this

General Condition 6.3 in

Personal and Private Banking – A Guide
to Fees and Interest

as you can see, even if you did read the agreement you would still need to refer to a further seperate document to fully understand the amount of charges that would be applied, therefore reading the agreement alone would not suffice to fully make you aware of exactly how much you might be charged.

But i'm sure when you opened your account you did sit and read the agreement in full, in ten minutes and managed to squeeze in reading the seperate document which explains exactly how much you would be charged, didn't you?....otherwise you would just be .....how did you put it again?....an idiot.

davidgmmafan

"Mikeandrach, you can't justify those charges, I for one never said you could, you, as I did on opening the bank account agreed to the T & C's of that particular bank."

Even if for the sake of argument we accept what you say as gospel there are still objections which can be made. Firstly as it stands now there is NOTHING expect public opinion to stop banks increasing the charges in the future. This is exactly what happened in the past. Even people who studiously studied the argeement at the outset would've had charges increased for discernable reason (at least to do with increased admin or costs). All banks did this to the best of my knowledge, I even have a document from my time at Nationwide which explains to staff we are doing this to bring us into line with our competitors. Good to see the free market working well...

I really wish people would stop using the analogy of buying stuff or stealing, its way of the mark since the price is set and doesn't change whenever the shop feels like it without you consent.

Also they need your authorisation to take the funds, banks do not.

The OFT is a joke at this point and I honestly believe the changes which have occured came about as a result of the campaign NOT thier actions. I will be taking this up with my new MP or the candidates if I get chance. What an abosulte fudge this was!!!:eek:

confused90

mikeandrach wrote: »

why should we all expect free banking? we dont expect free phone calls, or tv, or postage, or holidays, so why banking? its simply because we are used to it that we dont want it to change. imagine this though, a bank who had branches in every major town, good online banking, a uk 24/7 call centre that you didnt have to press 19 options for, a bank that gave you live real time balances, and that didnt charge anyhting other than interest for borrowing, authorised or not. are you honestly telling me you wouldnt be prepared to pay £10 or even £20 a month for this? you are no more entitled to free banking than th ebanks are entitled to screw me and other like me for hundreds of pounds in charges.

it's not so much about people expecting free banking, free banking is a result of competition in the market between banks not unreasonable expectations from bank customers.

free personal banking is much the same a virgin and sky competing with each other for customers by giving away their digital tv boxes which they once charged for, sky have now told us that these boxes should be free, therefore if they sudenly changed their minds tomorrow and said, sorry we now charge £50 for them new customers would feel agreived that they were not getting the same deal as others, in turn this would make them more likely to go to their competitor should they hold their original offer.

so in response to your asking, why should we expect free banking i would say because that is the value that banks have put on personal current accounts, why would we accept a sudden increase in cost for a service without any increase in the level of that service?

that is the right of consumers, to demand an equal increase in service to justify an increase in price, otherwise we will go elsewhere that is the beauty of an open market and why competition between banks, who make more from cross selling customers financial products than they ever will from charging £10 a month for personal bank accounts will keep banking free in this country.

esmerellda

Personally I think that people who are in hardship would rather pay £10-£15 a month than £200 in bank charges. Obviously they'd rather pay nothing.

I'm quite happy with my Post Office Card account, prepay Debit Card and paypoint cards for utilitys. I have no risk and am in absolute complete utter control of every penny.

esmerellda

Re confused90 - I completely agree - have just been working on a Claim against Yorkshire Bank and in it we have outlined the T&C's -

The conditions that govern the operation of Clydesdale’s current accounts (including Current Account Plus) are set out in a folding leaflet. Condition 2 explains that the conditions are split between “Product Specific Conditions”, which apply only to the particular account that the customer has, and “Universal Conditions”, which apply to all relevant types of current accounts. There is also a tariff leaflet, entitled “Current Account tariff for personal customers”, which contains contractual provisions. If the customer has a bank card there is a third relevant contractual document called “Account card”.


How easy is that to work out what the account might cost you ?

confused90

esmerellda wrote: »

Re confused90 - I completely agree - have just been working on a Claim against Yorkshire Bank and in it we have outlined the T&C's -

The conditions that govern the operation of Clydesdale’s current accounts (including Current Account Plus) are set out in a folding leaflet. Condition 2 explains that the conditions are split between “Product Specific Conditions”, which apply only to the particular account that the customer has, and “Universal Conditions”, which apply to all relevant types of current accounts. There is also a tariff leaflet, entitled “Current Account tariff for personal customers”, which contains contractual provisions. If the customer has a bank card there is a third relevant contractual document called “Account card”.


How easy is that to work out what the account might cost you ?

apparently it's simple enough to be read and understood in 10 minutes prior to opening your bank account according to the almighty, judgemental ILW who obviously did this prior to opening his account otherwise he wouldn't possibly presume to judge others and brand them "idiots" for not doing so.....Right ILW? :rotfl:

(confused90 sniffs the air) ......there is a distinct aroma of pompus, self rightious bull poo in this thread and it appears to be coming from the direction of ILW...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Real_WTF?

BORING - If all the idiots complaining didn't go overdrawn and use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY without authority, they wouldn't get charged!!!!

confused90

Real_!!!!!!? wrote: »

BORING - If all the idiots complaining didn't go overdrawn and use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY without authority, they wouldn't get charged!!!!

lol, pathetic!! if your going to be a troll and attempt to post deliberately provocative comments for gods sake put some effort into it....:rotfl:

the comment above is just laughable and makes you look stupid...:rotfl::rotfl:

ILW

confused90 wrote: »

apparently it's simple enough to be read and understood in 10 minutes prior to opening your bank account according to the almighty, judgemental ILW who obviously did this prior to opening his account otherwise he wouldn't possibly presume to judge others and brand them "idiots" for not doing so.....Right ILW? :rotfl:

(confused90 sniffs the air) ......there is a distinct aroma of pompus, self rightious bull poo in this thread and it appears to be coming from the direction of ILW...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Not sure what you are getting at.

When you are presented with a contract, do you read it before signing or not?

If it is too complicated or long, do you sign it anyway?

Again, anybody who signs a contarct without reading it is either an idiot , or needs educating in how to deal with money.

PS. this is not a personal insult to yourself, but more a comment on the general attitude of "who bothers to read the small print",. If more people did and refused to sign then the whole system would improve no end.