Free banking 'will be axed'

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

...and what would I fund this contingency plan with? Buttons, peanuts? You assume that there would be money left over after paying all the bills.

I for one am SO happy for you to have said this.

On the other thread, you have said that you are on a 'high' wage and you were going out to buy £40 shoes for yrou daughter, but again, the bank stopped you from doing so.

So, heres a thought, like many many people in the UK have to, don't spend £40 on shoes for your daughter, I know you love her to pieces and will do anything for her, but spend £20 on shoes for her and put £20 into a rainy day account.

I did actually go over this with you, but you chose to ignore it.

Hereward

dchurch24 wrote:

So, I should have anticipated the lie in my contract of employment that I was to be paid on a given date by direct transfer, when it was really always at least a few days late and by cheque, not by direct transfer.

You seem very versed in contract law and are determined to use it against the banks, but seem reluctant to invoke it against your employer.

...and what would I fund this contingency plan with? Buttons, peanuts? You assume that there would be money left over after paying all the bills.

When establishing a contingency fund it is wise to take the money for it first, before paying any bill. If you are spending all of your income in any given month, then you are not managing your money effectively.

dchurch24

It's the very reason that I do know a little about contract law that I didn't go after my employer.

If my employer had refused to pay the charges (which they did) there is very little you can do about it.

You could take them to court to force complience, but that wouldn't get you very far. The employer would claim that penalties for breach of contract are unenforcable at law, and they would be right. I would be in a position where I would have to prove the opposite. And we all know that it couldn't be proven.

As to the £40 on the shoes, I'm not sure I know where the figure came from, but even if that were the figure, should my daughters feet not come before saving to compensate for the unlawful activities of a third party?

I did actually go over this with you, but you chose to ignore it.

I ignored it because I had no idea where the arbetry figure came from.

If you are spending all of your income in any given month, then you are not managing your money effectively.

Or perhaps my wages haven't risen at the same rate as everything else. It mow costs me about £15 extra each week to get the petrol to get to work.

My mortgage rate has risen - which, yes I did anticipate. My council tax has risen the highest over any other in the country for 3 years running - no I didn't anticipate that one.

Gas bills have risen, despite being promised just a few months ago that they would not rise until 2008. I didn't anticipate that one either.

There are many other things that could be mentioned, but there is no point. You all have rising costs I'm sure. Somehow you manage to withstand the ones that you couldn't possibly have foreseen - and good for you. Not everyone is so lucky.

I too run my own business, so I know all about cash-flow thank you very much.

Hereward

dchurch24 wrote:

It's the very reason that I do know a little about contract law that I didn't go after my employer.If my employer had refused to pay the charges (which they did) there is very little you can do about it.You could take them to court to force compliance, but that wouldn't get you very far. The employer would claim that penalties for breach of contract are unenforcable |(sic) at law, and they would be right. I would be in a position where I would have to prove the opposite. And we all know that it couldn't be proven.

As I have mentioned before, you do not need to prove that the level of charges reflects a third parties costs, only that they are a cost to you; therefore, you are not penalising your employer, but recovering your costs: if your employer decides to sue the bank for its costs, to pay you, than it is up to the bank to justify its charges.

As to the £40 on the shoes, I'm not sure I know where the figure came from, but even if that were the figure, should my daughters feet not come before saving to compensate for the unlawful activities of a third party?

The remark about only spending £20 on your daughter’s shoes was made in regards to build a contingency fund, not about paying allegedly unlawful charges (I have yet to see that this has been proved, but suspect they probably are)

Or perhaps my wages haven't risen at the same rate as everything else. It mow costs me about £15 extra each week to get the petrol to get to work. My mortgage rate has risen - which, yes I did anticipate. My council tax has risen the highest over any other in the country for 3 years running - no I didn't anticipate that one. Gas bills have risen, despite being promised just a few months ago that they would not rise until 2008. I didn't anticipate that one either. There are many other things that could be mentioned, but there is no point. You all have rising costs I'm sure. Somehow you manage to withstand the ones that you couldn't possibly have foreseen - and good for you. Not everyone is so lucky. I too run my own business, so I know all about cash-flow thank you very much.

If your costs have been rising faster than your income, then why haven’t you been trying to reduce your costs, or further increase your income? You could always try the DFW board for some ideas. As I see that this discussion is becoming circular I will withdraw from it for now.

dixie_dean_2

Can the pro bank people answer the following simple questions:

Do you think it is fair or reasonable to be charged £40 for going £1 over your limit and an automated system sending you a letter to give you the good news?

Do you think it is fair that the banks (collectively) make £4bn from charges that are illegal?

Do you think it is wrong to claim back money illegally taken?

Do you expect your free-banking to be subsidised by illegal and unfair practice?

Please do not write some long, boring diatribe that misses these points. I am interested to see what you think about these very simple questions.

student100

dixie_dean wrote:

Can the pro bank people answer the following simple questions:

Do you think it is fair or reasonable to be charged £40 for going £1 over your limit and an automated system sending you a letter to give you the good news?

Yes, provided the infraction could have reasonably been forseen and avoided by the customer.

dixie_dean wrote:

Do you think it is fair that the banks (collectively) make £4bn from charges that are illegal?

If they are illegal then no.

dixie_dean wrote:

Do you think it is wrong to claim back money illegally taken?

No

dixie_dean wrote:

Do you expect your free-banking to be subsidised by illegal and unfair practice?

No. But I don't see why "banking for those who are careful with their money" can't be subsidised by "banking for those who are not so careful".




Anyway... with all this discussion of free banking going out of the window...

"[HBOS had a] four per cent rise in profits to £1.13billion in High Street banking" (Metro, page 4, today).

Note: High Street banking means current accounts etc. Consumer banking, not businesses etc.

I'm sure a large proportion of this profit is from things other than penalty charges, and I'm sure the other banks make similar profits from their High Street activities. I don't think on the basis of this amount of profit they would need to charge customers a monthly fee...

dchurch24

Research by Group 1 Software showed banks made profits of £75 per account holder in 2005, compared with £66.20 in 2004. The 13% rise came from overdraft charges and penalty fees on bank accounts and credit cards, as well as better targeting of customers.

Mark7799

dixie_dean wrote:

Can the pro bank people answer the following simple questions:
I suppose I'm going to be regarded as 'pro Bank' (not sure why because I try and manage money as well as I can) so I'll pay you the courtesy of a reply
Do you think it is fair or reasonable to be charged £40 for going £1 over your limit and an automated system sending you a letter to give you the good news?
No - unequivocally.
Do you think it is fair that the banks (collectively) make £4bn from charges that are illegal?
Fair doesn't usually come into it when we're dealing with prices. At present, these charges haven't YET been proved to be illegal (unlawful yes) and no I don't think it's fair which is why I do my damndest to esnure I don't get charged
Do you think it is wrong to claim back money illegally taken?
Yes (subject to the caveats above)Do you expect your free-banking to be subsidised by illegal and unfair practice?
No but I am quite happy for it to be subsidised by others who aren't as good at managing money in these areas. In the same way that I'm probably subsidising others in some other products/services I use.Please do not write some long, boring diatribe that misses these points. I am interested to see what you think about these very simple questions.

I hope this was concise enough for you.

Mark7799

dchurch24 wrote:

So, I should have anticipated the lie in my contract of employment that I was to be paid on a given date by direct transfer, when it was really always at least a few days late and by cheque, not by direct transfer.

Yes. I'm trying to avoid personalising this but I'm regularly paid on dates not specified in my contract and check that money is there before spending it. What's the old joke about if you ASSUME;)

dixie_dean_2

There is no "if" in all this. They are illegal. Why else would the banks not choose to defend a case. Ok, they would have to pay to go to court but if it's so clear cut, like their hilarious letters when they pay up make out, surely they could pay some law graduate a tenner and a free I-pod, win the case and then have the precedent set. No more paying out millions. Ahem, I think there might be a reason they dont go to court. So, having established that you think it is unfair on grounds of illegality (I presume it is a typo that you have actually said the opposite of this) let us consider the other point: is it fair to charge £40? So, you say yes. Ok, so where would you stop? If it was £75? £200? If they were allowed to cut someones ear off? Or do you miraculously think that the banks have got it absolutley spot on and £40, no more, no less, is reasonable? I do not see how anyone can think this is fair, and so I ask the question, how much would these fees have to be before you would stand up and say they were too high and were unreasonable? (even though of course none of you amazingly astute, prudent and godly people are ever affected by them, maybe you could stand up for others?)