Not claimed back bank fees - success thread

inmypocketnottheirs

MORPH3US wrote:

Great thread OP, I am mainly No 1 but on some accounts have very rarely been No 2.

I could understand if people were reclaiming £40 worth of bank charges but when its £hundreds, do people not learn their lesson, obviously not, they must be stupid, harsh but true.

What difference is there than being conned out of money by a con man and then the next being conned the same way by the same person?

M

Circumstances can have an effect. Death, seperation, illness, loss job can all result in more than one charge you know.

The difference is it is the Banks playing the role of a con man, by pick-pocketing money from bank accounts on the basis of their unlawful and unrecoverable charges.

masonic

Mrs_Sparkle wrote:

I wanted to report it SS but couldn't see how to. Will try to work it out now. The poster obviously had second thoughts about it- I wonder if he realises just how offensive remarks like that are.

It was reported. Unfortunately your quote is still there, though (HINT, HINT).

itsarichmansworld

number8 wrote:

How anyone can spend money they do not earn is beyond me!

Number 8 ..... Do you have or had a mortgage??? Number 8 do you have car finance???

If you do and I suspect you do thats spending money you havent earned yet...

Dammam

Al_Mac wrote:

A number of people blame it all on the banks, accept no responsibility for their own actions. That's what annoys people the most, is my guess. I was in debt, caused by a car crash, well not really, it was caused by my own inability to adjust my lifestye until I'd sorted out my finances again, after the car crash.

It's a fair point. However, there must surely be some give and take. £30 plus is too much in charges. There is no manual input into the decision as can be seen by the amount of times a payment is bounced the day before a regular payday over the last 5 years because you are £10 over the overdraft. In this case, a fee at a higher interest rate would not be unreasonable in my eyes, but not that plus £30 + AND not making the payment anyway.

Incidentally, when I was suing, I was told that if I planned properly and could see there may be a problem coming up, I should call the bank and raise my overdraft limit. Tried that - got switched back and forth between UK and a couple of departments in India and spent the best part of 5 hours asking to increase my £400 OD to £600 for THREE DAYS ONLY - before being refused.
Also, before I sued, I explained that I would be prepared to pay £3 to £5 for each of the charges I was not claiming back and would be happy to settle for £35 - £27 per charge refund without having to resort to court action. They refused. The principle of a charge I can just about handle, being financially punished is just plain wrong. Sadly, it happens to those most in need and exacerbates what can already be a very difficult time.

My debts were all my own work - there were personal situations which contributed but it was me who screwed up at the end of the day. I accept full responsibility and blame no one else for the situation I found myself in. However, some people seem to think that this is the very best time to hit someone for as much money as they can get. I'm pretty much sorted now, and have learned a lot from the experience - but I look at my free banking nowadays and think of the poor SAP who thinks he has got himself/herself straight at last only to receive a letter detailing £300 Bank charges to be deducted in 7 days. That's who is paying for my free banking now, and I'd personally sleep a little better knowing that I wasn't benefitting through their hardship.

westernpromise

As a matter of interest, are those who have avoided charges mainly in salaried employment, on the whole? If so, avoiding charges is easy; you know what is coming in, and more importantly, when.

My OH and her sister have both been clobbered for huge sums in bank charges - £700 in the one case and probably around £5,000 in the other - and what they have in common is that they do contract work for TV production companies. These have a habit of being slack about when they pay, so their pay cheque could be a week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks late - during which time it is entirely feasible to incur hundreds of pounds in charges, and of course charges on the charges, without ever actually spending more than you earn.

This is exactly what happened to me about 20 years ago, in my case because my expenses were paid late. I am delighted to be using them as proxies for my own revenge. I can't sue HSBC for the £400 Midland took off me 20 years ago, but I can egg them on to sue HSBC for £5,000 now, and that's what they are doing.

I haven't paid charges since because I'm salaried but it is a lot harder for those who are not.

westernpromise

Mrs_Sparkle wrote:

I wanted to report it SS but couldn't see how to. Will try to work it out now. The poster obviously had second thoughts about it- I wonder if he realises just how offensive remarks like that are.

Surely it is blindingly obvious, even to the most terminally literal, that the poster was being sarcastic.

newlywed

westernpromise wrote:

As a matter of interest, are those who have avoided charges mainly in salaried employment, on the whole? If so, avoiding charges is easy; you know what is coming in, and more importantly, when.

I think this is very likely. I've always been in salaried employment and only got one charge when I wasn't keeping track, but OH is self employed and so he is always getting charged when people pay him late :mad: or work dries up and there is no money to put in the bank to cover debits.

kathfisch

westernpromise wrote:

Surely it is blindingly obvious, even to the most terminally literal, that the poster was being sarcastic.

Well clearly it wasn't clear enough as Mrs Sparkle and others were offended. Its the effect on others, not the intent, that matters IYSWIM.

westernpromise

There should be an intelligence test before some people are allowed to own a computer. Or vote. Or procreate.

MPH80

so the revenue structure of the banks and credit cards are based on the expectation that people are not paying attention.

does that sound reasonable to you ?

Sorry - I've just got to this - the thread kind of exploded on me ...

Yes I think that's absolutely reasonable.

In fact - the general premise of this site is to find the deals that other people miss because they aren't paying attention.

Think about it ... this site encourages the use of the mobile contracts which give you money back ... not paying attention and you won't see them - and as a consequence you subsidse those of us who do.

Further to that - not paying attention in the supermarket means you miss those 3 for 2 deals which those of us who are paying attention see. Result: you subsidse me because I take the loss leader deal and you pay extra on your other items.

The idea that revenue structures are based on people not paying attention is so common you wouldn't believe. Look at car insurance. How many people actually look at their renewal form when it comes through? How many just accept that the amount is 'roughly' the same as last year so it might be alright - ignoring that it's now £330 instead of £300 - an increase of 10%?

As far as I'm concerned the same is true in banking and, while I have a lot of sympathy for those caught in a vicious cycle with these charges, the general populous can avoid these charges if they want.

(It's worth noting that if you are very poor and really in debt trouble that setting yourself up with Payplan or CCCS or even under an IVA will stop these charges and normally interest charging too).

M.