Free banking 'will be axed'

dchurch24

Personally, I don't think it is lawful to impose a monthly charge on an account under the ECHR laws.

We no longer have the choice of how we are paid by our employer through Govt. legislation.

We would effectively be forced into buying a third-party product by way of legislation - a direct breach of the ECHR.

Couple that with the competition in the market, and we might actually be better off. We may actually receive some service from these organisations in the long run, rather than being treated as cash-cows and a bl**dy nuisence when we want to manage our own money.

Tomorrow, I have to withdraw a large amount of cash from my account - I asked at the time I put the cheque in a) when it would clear, and b) what I had to do to withdraw the amount of cash over the counter.

I was told just to bring my chequebook, and I could withdraw as much as I liked.

Do you think that when I get there tomorrow lunchtime that I actually will be able to withdraw what I need to?

I doubt it somehow. There will be a 'complication' as there always is.

dchurch24

M_Thomson wrote:

Rubbish, a lot of people who run up charges, tend to be quite well off. That is a very guardianista point of view and very offensive to the majority of people on low incomes who do not get charged, yet face having to pay for their current account.

But not offensive to those sitting hiding from the postman because they are afraid to open the post for fear of more charges.

To the people you suggest would be offended, I would suggest either not using a bank (not a real option I grant you, but one that I dearly would love to have) or opening a basic bank account - the banks are not allowed to charge a fee for running those accounts by existing law as it is.

Problem solved, and we all end up with a fairer banking system.

CopperPlate_2

dchurch24 wrote:

Far better that than people on a very low income having to pay huge fees to subsidise you, wouldn't you agree?

Well, why don't we make it so that everyone on a low income has free banking? In fact, why not make it so it's free everything?! Good God, what next?! Means testing for everything!!??

I'm not getting into this debate - again - as it is not disimilar to :wall:, only less productive.

One less thread to contribute to now. Thanks dchurch24! Is it your intention to take over every thread on this site and make it a subsidiary of CAG? Just wondered. Please don't deign to reply, as I really don't think I could take another condescending and patronising put-down post from you, and I'll not be checking to see.

Bye.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Personally, I don't think it is lawful to impose a monthly charge on an account under the ECHR laws.

Here we go! I wondered how long it would take to bring up the European Human Rights laws designed for people who take the mickey.

CopperPlate_2

dchurch24 wrote:

Clearly you missed the reports in the media.

The reasons HSBC claimed to be ditching 'free' banking was because of the level of people reclaiming their unlawful bank charges.

No, clearly you have no concept of sarcasm.

Absoloutely last post this time.

dchurch24

Have you actually read the ECHR act?

Initially I posted saying that I had a hatred for the media posting incorrect facts regarding the OFT statement.

OFT wrote:

A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12.

The link posted by M Thomson, to which my reply was aimed, quoted:

The OFT believes that a charge of around £12 per slip-up is reasonable

Is it too much to expect that the media in this country do some reasearch and publish the news accurately?

Apparently so. I have been flamed for suggesting that very thing.

NEWS means facts from the North, East, West and South. Facts. Not a reiteration of somthing the banks would like you to believe.

dchurch24

CopperPlate wrote:

No, clearly you have no concept of sarcasm.

Absoloutely last post this time.

So HSBC were being sarcastic? Nice take on it.

YorkshireBoy

You seem to have an answer for everything. Fortunately, I believe, so do I...

dchurch24 wrote:

It was 'would clear' and not 'should clear', just to be clear on the matter.

I chose my words carefully, as you'll see below...

Our local cashpoint is one where you cannot get a balance...

Could she have called into branch, made a telephone call, or checked online?

She had nothing but their word to go on...

Oh, but she did...

"The timescales given in this (cheque clearance) table are for guidance purposes only and illustrate when we aim to make funds available to you."

Source: Abbey Current Account T&C's (you're right, research is the key!)

...or did they re-write them after your partner's transgression/subsequent threat of legal action?

dchurch24

She did not look in a table, but simply asked the teller when the cheque would clear. She believed her reply.

Abbey's on-line banking, by their own admission does not update at weekends, and only shows cleared cheque amounts at midnight on the same day they clear.

Perhaps she should have waited until midnight to see it the teller was telling the truth?

Our "local" branch is 14 miles away. A round trip of 28 miles. I suppose if she had done that, you would all start bleating on about how environmentally unfriendly she was.

It's time to wake up and smell the bacon. It's in the banks favour to make it difficult for you to get an accurate balance on your account. It's in the banks favour to close before most people get out of work. It's in the banks favour to have every one of their staff go to lunch at the same time that most of the working population do.

That way they can hold on to our money for longer.

Banks have become so untrustworthy that you are actually defending their untrustworthyness and actually saying that people shouldn't believe what the banks tell them, but in the same breath saying that we should believe that it actually costs £35 to bounce a direct debit.

It still does not excuse the fact that their solicitor sent a letter stating a date upon which the account would be closed, and yet failed to actually close the account does it?

Perhaps that was her fault too?

The reason I have an answer for everything is quite simply because on this, I am right. You are trying to defend the indefencible.

Could it be that the law, dating back to 1896, me and the OFT and the FSA are wrong, maybe, but then I have powerful allies it would seem.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Have you actually read the ECHR act?

No, I can almost guarantee that you haven't either. Although I see every day the people on the news that use it to their full advantage as an excuse and are basically sticking two fingers up to the decent honest people in this country.

dchurch24 wrote:

Initially I posted saying that I had a hatred for the media posting incorrect facts regarding the OFT statement.
The link posted by M Thomson, to which my reply was aimed, quoted:

I have not posted any links to the OFT on any of my posts. I am not sure where you got that from?

Is it too much to expect DChurch24 to do some research and publish the news accurately?