Let's find a way to take action ourselves

natweststaffmember

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Well...........obviously a case of having one's cake and eating it.

Lol! I knew I should have had some caffeine this morning before coming on here. I generally don't in the mornings. I DON'T support the idea of costing banks money. Just so that we are clear

natweststaffmember

ILW wrote: »

I know how to make them suffer.
If everybody stayed within the terms of their agreements, the banks would not be able to make any charges. Also we could try not borrowing any money for a while. That would give them the jitters.

They would gain more money from interest forgone on credit balances(read OFT1005c which clearly shows that interest forgone makes them more money that the bank charges that they charge ).

ashyou

dunstonh wrote: »

As it should be really.



oh great. So, the minority that cant run their bank accounts correctly try and disrupt services and incur charges for those that do.


If only you had put as much effort into not incurring the charges in the first place.

The "minority" are in most cases people on low incomes. The reality of the situation is that the vast magority of people on low incomes (loan parents, sick and disabled) have to scrupulously monitor their bank accounts (often on a daily basis) in order to not go overdrawn whereas the fortunate only have to check their accounts for errors on a monthly or quarterly basis. It takes little effort in running a bank account "correctly" when you have money in it - the problems arise when you are poor, and the banks have been taking advantage of this. In some cases, banks systems are set-up to confuse and they charge extortionate amounts that kickstart ongoing charges for a minor mistake such as going overdrawn by 6 pence!

I am not saying that banks should not charge when their services are abused - of course they should. But when it is obvious that a person cannot afford to pay these charges and when the circumstances to causing these charges are minor, the banks should drop their pig-headedness and the charges - and they should make their systems fairer and easier to understand.

the_insider

ashyou wrote: »

The "minority" are in most cases people on low incomes. The reality of the situation is that the vast magority of people on low incomes (loan parents, sick and disabled) have to scrupulously monitor their bank accounts (often on a daily basis) in order to not go overdrawn whereas the fortunate only have to check their accounts for errors on a monthly or quarterly basis. It takes little effort in running a bank account "correctly" when you have money in it - the problems arise when you are poor, and the banks have been taking advantage of this. In some cases, banks systems are set-up to confuse and they charge extortionate amounts that kickstart ongoing charges for a minor mistake such as going overdrawn by 6 pence!

The problems do not arise when you are 'poor', they arise when you live beyond your means. Sometimes this is due to essential expenditures and sometimes it's not, but surely this is a problem with the benefits system, not banking practice. If you don't spend more than you have, you don't get charged. You could get £1000.00 into your account, spend £1010.00 and get charged. Low income has nothing to do with it.

dunstonh

The problems do not arise when you are 'poor', they arise when you live beyond your means.

That matches my experience. The poor do tend to find ways to live within their means. The problems tend to occur when people have got used to one level of living standard and then move backwards. There are also plenty who feel it is the bank's job to control their spending on not their own responsibility.

jamesd

ashyou, it's possible to use accounts like the standard NatWest current account that if an overdraft facility is agreed charges no interest on the first £100 of overdraft. I agree that it can be tough to manage to a zero balance without going overdrawn sometimes, a small arranged overdraft facility or trying to accumulate a £50 or £100 balance that you can use as a fake zero balance to protect yourself are a couple of the ways that can reduce the problem, though they can't completely eliminate it.

the_insider, quite a few people who aren't poor would have trouble if there was a glitch in their employer's systems that caused their pay to be delayed for a week. Or if a cheque was paid after six months instead of six days and they hadn't noticed that it wasn't presented for payment quickly.

Alpine_Star

the_insider wrote: »

The problems do not arise when you are 'poor', they arise when you live beyond your means. Sometimes this is due to essential expenditures and sometimes it's not, but surely this is a problem with the benefits system.......... .

This doesn't make sense. By definition, those in the benefits system are the poor. You say that ''Low income has nothing to do with it'' but this is completely factually incorrect. The two biggest studies on the issue - the Cruickshank Report and the OFT PCA Market Study - both found that those on low income pay the lion's share of insufficient funds charges.

squeak24

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Are people still banging on about this? Reclaiming bank charges is soooo last year's thing.

Check this article out

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100409/tuk-clegg-vows-to-curb-unfair-charges-6323e80.html

I know it is the lib dems, but at least some politicians still want to stop these unfair charges,

lordash

Hmmm I wonder if a lot of the people on here who are so wonderful at 'managing their finances' perhaps have never been charged because they can afford to have a spare £500 or so in their accounts to cover for any unexpected withdrawals.

Unfortunately, for a lot of us, we are not so lucky. Back a few years when I was charged, I got charged around £115.00 initially for using my card three times when, believe it or not, I had sufficient finds in my account according to the ATM. (I didn't realise at the time that a large debit would be placed on my account at around midnight, and the bank would then re-order my transactions largest-first so they could take as many charges as they could.) I know that may not sound like a lot to some people on here, but at the time that was more than what I earned in a week. So the lovely bank charged me again £28 for the privilege of allowing them to let me borrow their money to pay their charges.

No matter how much I tried, I did all the overtime I could, got a second job, but it still wasn't enough to stop all the charges. Some weeks I would be left with as little as £5 to live on. In the end the whole thing pushed me in depression and I ended up not going to work and staying in bed every day (not having enough money to buy food also contributed to my lack of energy). In the end I just gave up and used another bank for my wages etc. and left the old one. I think the charges totalled around £1500 over limit before they finally closed my account.

I think the problem is that we as a country are too dependant on our banks. Virtually no employer will pay in cash now, the utilities are encouraging us to use direct debits instead of cash or cheque, and to buy anything online (where a lot of prices are considerably cheaper) you need a bank account or credit card. It simply is not an option these days to not have a bank account, and as a result the banks have us where they want us.

I think the thing that would scare them the most is if everyone were to pick a date and time, and then withdraw all their money in cash and then deposit it in a post office account or something. Kind of like what happened to Northern Rock but on a smaller scale.

custardy

lordash wrote: »

Hmmm I wonder if a lot of the people on here who are so wonderful at 'managing their finances' perhaps have never been charged because they can afford to have a spare £500 or so in their accounts to cover for any unexpected withdrawals.

Unfortunately, for a lot of us, we are not so lucky. Back a few years when I was charged, I got charged around £115.00 initially for using my card three times when, believe it or not, I had sufficient finds in my account according to the ATM. (I didn't realise at the time that a large debit would be placed on my account at around midnight, and the bank would then re-order my transactions largest-first so they could take as many charges as they could.) I know that may not sound like a lot to some people on here, but at the time that was more than what I earned in a week. So the lovely bank charged me again £28 for the privilege of allowing them to let me borrow their money to pay their charges.

No matter how much I tried, I did all the overtime I could, got a second job, but it still wasn't enough to stop all the charges. Some weeks I would be left with as little as £5 to live on. In the end the whole thing pushed me in depression and I ended up not going to work and staying in bed every day (not having enough money to buy food also contributed to my lack of energy). In the end I just gave up and used another bank for my wages etc. and left the old one. I think the charges totalled around £1500 over limit before they finally closed my account.

I think the problem is that we as a country are too dependant on our banks. Virtually no employer will pay in cash now, the utilities are encouraging us to use direct debits instead of cash or cheque, and to buy anything online (where a lot of prices are considerably cheaper) you need a bank account or credit card. It simply is not an option these days to not have a bank account, and as a result the banks have us where they want us.

I think the thing that would scare them the most is if everyone were to pick a date and time, and then withdraw all their money in cash and then deposit it in a post office account or something. Kind of like what happened to Northern Rock but on a smaller scale.

but theres the issue,the debit didnt just appear at midnight on its own?
believe me ive paid my share of bank charges but even with extenuating circumstances,you cant wash your hands of all blame