Free banking 'will be axed'

jazzyjustlaw

I would rather people who could not manage their money were charged than myself who is good at managing money (and I do not go overdrawn) pay a monthly fee. Banks are offering us a percentage of interest to join their bank how would they entice us in the future as that interest would nowhere near cover the montly fee!

I have no idea what the banks can charge as it doesnt affect me. Used to when I was a student.

I think there should be a buffer of £50.00 i.e. you can go overdrawn by that before you get charged. I guess charges should be about £25.00.

Should be that high I think to deter the serial offender. If you do not agree dont berate me its just my opinion thats all.

dchurch24

M_Thomson wrote:

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.



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?

I can assure you that I have read the ECHR and the DPA inside and out.

It's what I do.

I would like to see an example of someone using it to stick two fingers up at decent, honest people though.

The ECHR is there to protect us from being 'run-over' and turned into a dictatorship.

I apologise for misquoting you (it was a link to a news article, not an OFT paper), upon reading back it was actually Paul_Herring who posted the link.

Sorry.

Should be that high I think to deter the serial offender.

That, of course would make it unlawful, as for a breach of contract, all that any one party to that contract can claim is their legitmate costs - or a fair representation of them in the event of multiple breaches that may be likely to occur.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

I would like to see an example of someone using it to stick two fingers up at decent, honest people though.

Just watch the news every day. There always stories about whenever someone does something wrong and they face a punishment, that will always say that's against my human rights.

dchurch24

Ok, fair enough. I won't press it.

It does state that any EC citizen cannot be forced into buying a third party product by legislation, which to my mind means that the 1984 Employement Act - in which the choice of how our wage payments are made were taken away from us - would be in breach, by way of our employers forcing us to 'buy' the service of a bank if and when they start charging for it.

YorkshireBoy

dchurch24 wrote:

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

My wife watched the weather tonight, and then laid some clothes out for tomorrow. She'd be pretty foolish not to look outside first before putting them on in the morning!

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?

*I* would have.

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.

Not worthy of comment (and ridiculous in the extreme).

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.

My bank doesn't close for lunch. There's always someone there (during normal hours, which includes a late night and Saturday morning).

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...

I wouldn't trust anything a 'teller' told me (if that's what you mean), and I'm not by myself on MSE in that regard. I have a written set of T&C's that tell me exactly how my account operates - it's Yorkshire Bank by the way, and I can highly recommend them.

...but in the same breath saying that we should believe that it actually costs £35 to bounce a direct debit.

FWIW, I don't believe it costs them £35. On that basis I suppose I believe that you're right to reclaim them if you can prove they're unlawful.

The reason I have an answer for everything is quite simply because on this, I am right.

By "on this", do you mean the issue of unlawful charges - or your partner's mis-management of her account? If the former, you may be. Whereas with the cheque issue, and her failing to ensure funds were there, you most certainly are not! (IMO).

dchurch24

FWIW, I don't believe it costs them £35. On that basis I suppose I believe that you're right to reclaim them if you can prove they're unlawful.

By being the claimant in a county court all I have to do is to prove beyond probabilty that it I am right. The bank would have to prove that I am wrong as they are the defendent.

Whereas with the cheque issue, and her failing to ensure funds were there, you most certainly are not! (IMO).

Ok, that's fair enough. It's your opinion. I believe she was lied to, and as a result she was charged again. She also was lied to by their solicitor informing her that the account was to be closed on a given date.

How is that going to look in a court room?

*I* would have.

Personally, I wouldn't wait up until midnight to verify what I'd been told in the day. We have two kids (who are not with me at this moment), and have to be up early for them. I would usually prefer to be sleeping at midnight.

YorkshireBoy

dchurch24 wrote:

We have two kids (who are not with me at this moment)...

I know (I saw the post you made before you edited it) and, bank issues aside, which we will probably always disagree on, I (genuinely) hope things work out for you.

oldwiring

dchurch24 wrote:

Have you actually read the ECHR act?



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

Where did you get that definition from? It's an interessting one, but \i've always thought it's etymology was from new things. The french word for news is similar, it being les nouvelles See the Online Etymological Ductionary
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=news

Paul_Herring

dchurch24 wrote:

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

I thought it had already been established that the vast majority of those on low incomes are quite happily budgeting their meagre income without being clobbered with charges for going overdrawn, and it is these people are the ones who will be disproportionatly hit? Must have been another bank charge thread I saw that on...

Edit - I see this has already been addressed on the next page after the quote.

Hereward

dchurch24 wrote:

...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...

If the banks are so bad, why haven't you moved your accounts to a Building Society? Could it be that the Societies operate in exactly the same way, but people believe they are friendlier because they are local and don't have shareholders?

I also noticed that you believe that the banks, and I assume Building societies, should be open when you want them to be; therefore, do you think that it is fair that staff in these branches should have to work unsociable hours, just because you cannot make time to visit them in sociable hours? For example, don’t you have a lunch break?