Whats the consensus here, halifax charges?

Jonni2bad

grumbler wrote:

This does not look like “refreshing” for me. To the best of my understanding this is very similar to an agreed £10 overdraft limit. What happens if your DD potentially brings you below £10 limit? I think you will have the same consequences as you had with Halifax. The DD will be rejected and you will be penalised I guess.

Actually no - they just don't pay it if it would make you more than £10 overdrawn - they don't charge you for failed one! So it is rather refreshing, me thinks!

It's not an overdraft facility, it's referred to as a Buffer Zone, and I believe was intended to allow anyone to withdraw any funds available in their account through a cash machine, since they tend not to pay out less than £10 (i.e. how do you withdraw your £7.23 at 10pm??)

They would, I recall, consider closing the account of anyone who regularly fails to meet DDs or similar - it may even be if you do this 3 times.

BUT, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ABOUT, and I would rather not get into a seperate debate on here. The point I'm making is that if HSBC can agree to pay out 'on your behalf' a very small amount, in the knowledge that you will soon be topping up your account, why is it not reasonable to suggest that all banks could show a little common sense in relation to charges and overdraft facilities etc?

Rather than responding to my own views, I'm sure that happymummy would rather read your views about the way in which banks charge....

happymummy wrote:

I'm sure you are all aware of the ludicrous (sp) way the halifax have of administering bank charges, I'd just like to ask your opinions about it.

Walletwatch

Jonni2bad,

Am afraid, buffer zone or whatever you call it, it is, in essence, nothing more than a pre-agreed £10 overdraft which HSBC has decided to tag to the basic account it offers. Now while I agree it would probably help in cases where you go over once in a while, I don't see why every bank has to extend such a service. You find this a plus, and so decided to bank with them, but there is no reason everyone will have a £10 overdraft facility on their checklist of required features when going about choosing a current account for themselves.

The same thing which you faced with going over by £1.99, if you were to face with HSBC, going over by a little more than £10 would result in a similar consequence, with the DD being returned unpaid, and charges being levied as laid down.

In absolute mercenary terms, HSBC have decided that on a worst case basis, they will have all accounts going overdrawn by £9.99 max, leading to a risk to the extent of that amount, and lost income by way of unauthorised OD rates on that amount. They have decided that this risk and lost interest is worth it, as it allows them to increase their customer base, by projecting this as a plus, and hence, have made this one of the features of their account offering.

As for your earlier post, the statement I had made (on funding your account promptly in anticipation of any debits due) was a general one, and I don't see anything wrong in it. My sincere commiserations for you having gone through a lean patch financially when you had the earlier debit returned as mentioned by you, and hope all is well now. That is not to mean however, that you can be exempted of charges that are applicable on account of you going overbalance on your account. Nor can you expect the bank to make these payments unless you have some prior arrangement (as indeed you do have now, for an amount of £10)

I have always maintained throughout all my posts in this chain that while the banks are right in levying the charges, the charge amounts themselves seem to be high.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the original post doesn’t highlight so much, the unreasonable charge amounts involved (speaking of the charges) as the main point of discussion, but instead questions the very act of charging, soliciting opinions on the same.

Quote

I'm sure you are all aware of the ludicrous (sp) way the halifax have of administering bank charges, I'd just like to ask your opinions about it.

Unquote

Jonni2bad

I would have to agree with just about everything in your last post, walle****ch, bar one small point. If I don't cover my DDs, then the HSBC will not make a charge for it failing - they simply wouldn't pay it.

I have no problem with them not paying on my behalf, but it must surely rasie the question of why other banks couldn't do the same..

No money = No pay it, rather than no money = no pay it and give us £30 for telling you

Fingers crossed I'll never need to find out again!

happymummy

Walle****ch wrote:

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the original post doesn’t highlight so much, the unreasonable charge amounts involved (speaking of the charges) as the main point of discussion, but instead questions the very act of charging,

Did you read my first post properly? and have you read subsequent ones?

What I was asking about is the way they DOUBLE CHARGE!!

*sigh*

Walletwatch

happymummy wrote:

I'm sure you are all aware of the ludicrous (sp) way the halifax have of administering bank charges, I'd just like to ask your opinions about it.

I have a cardcash account with them, I'm a single parent so on quite a tight budget, I had an unexpectedly high mobile bill to pay on mondy and I was £12 short so they didnt pay it, got my letter through today telling me the will charge me £35 in 7 days and if the charge makes me go overdrawn (unauthorised) they will charge me a further £28 and interest.

Why didnt they pay the Direct debit, then they would only have to charge me once for unauthoried OD (might I add I would've only been overdrawn 1 day) instead of twice for failed DD and unauthorised OD.

Fortunately (or is it unfortunatley) the day they apply the charge for the failed DD will be the day I get my benefit so I wont be charged twice, but I will be left extremely short of money next week as I still have the mobile bill to pay.

I hate the halifax!

Yes, I did read your post - they did not even charge you the second amount, they sent you an advance intimation that they were charging you £35, and if that debit made you go overdrawn, they would charge you the subsequent £28!!!

You have questioned why they did not pay the direct debit, and directly charge you the £28 for the unauth OD - well, there you go - you are questioning the way they charge, which I and some other posters out here have been maintaining is not incorrect, and not the charge amounts. This may be a double charge to you, but it is for two separate 'irregularities', and as such, I don't see how it is 'ludicrous' as you call it - every bank would have such charges. (Of course we learn from Jonni2bad that HSBC doesn't, so maybe that is a pointer for you, if you expect such a situation to arise again)

The amounts could have been more reasonable - maybe £5-10 each, but then, you don't raise that as an issue, you raise the 'double-charging' as you call it as your main issue, and have sought opinions on it, which is what you've got (at least from me).

jackywhizz

Happymummy whatever you do don't swap to RBS (or NatWest who they own). They would have charged you the £35 immediately and if that took you overdrawn without arrangement you'd also clock up a £28 excess fee which would be taken out of your account at the end of the following month. That would have made the cost of 1 unpaid DD £63. At least with the Halifax you've been able to avoid the £28.

I agree it's unfair but unfortunately you agree to these sort of charges when you sign the T&C for opening the account. For alot of people this isn't an issue because their budgets are not so tight that they have to concern themselves with unpaid items which basically means that the people who end up paying these charges are those who can least afford them and ultimately have less bargaining power with the banks to get them waived.

happymummy

Thanks for pointing that out to me, that seems even more unfair than the way the halifax do it!

Can you recommend a "proper" (as someone put it) bank account for me then? are lloyds TSB any good?

Cheers :-)

MarkyMarkD

Jonni2bad wrote:

I would have to agree with just about everything in your last post, walle****ch, bar one small point. If I don't cover my DDs, then the HSBC will not make a charge for it failing - they simply wouldn't pay it.

I have no problem with them not paying on my behalf, but it must surely rasie the question of why other banks couldn't do the same..

No money = No pay it, rather than no money = no pay it and give us £30 for telling you

Fingers crossed I'll never need to find out again!

Of course all the banks COULD do that. But they COULD all pay 100% credit interest on current accounts, and charge 0% on overdrafts forever. But they'd go out of business.

If HSBC choose to structure their charges in one way, to gain competitive advantage, that's up to them. And if other banks choose to make charges in those circumstances, that's up to them too. Neither is "right" or "wrong" or "fair" or "unfair". They are all part of the package you or I choose to sign up to when you or I open an account.

The fact is that the improved benefits for "compliant" customers (e.g. lower overdraft interest rates (from some banks), higher credit interest, free banking) have been funded by increased charges for "non-compliant" customers. Most people choose the accounts on the basis that they will be compliant, and therefore don't look very hard at the charges for non-compliance ... but then they complain like anything when they fall foul of those charges.

I'll reiterate - it still doesn't make the basis or the value of those charges inherently unfair.

Jonni2bad

Just wondered if anyone actually knows the answer to this point - in relation to charges - but I assume that when a company attempts to withdraw money from your bank account through a DD, the bank's computer will simply check available funds against the amount requested... at which point it will either pay or decline.

Surely there is no human element involved in a decision - so why is it necessary to levy a charge when "computer says noooooooo"?

YES - I do know they state that they will
YES - I do know it's legal
YES - I do know it's my fault if the funds are not there
YES - I do know that a 1-1 draw at Spurs will now cost me another £25
(ooops, sorry, that's for another post)

But I would be 'happier' if the company requesting the money charged me something for not paying them when I should have, rather than my bank charging me becasue their computer knows how to work out a simple mathematical equation.

I appreciate that banks have to make money, it's a business and all that, and that they may not be able to work around the principal of individual circumstances - but I know for sure that the Halifax would have been better off financially had they not treated me so badly or made rediculous requests for payments as previously stated.

I'm done, finally

davidcampbell

Jonni2bad wrote:

Just wondered if anyone actually knows the answer to this point - in relation to charges - but I assume that when a company attempts to withdraw money from your bank account through a DD, the bank's computer will simply check available funds against the amount requested... at which point it will either pay or decline.

a direct debit is an agreement you have with a company, not your bank, and as such when it falls due the company concerned will take the money from your account (as against the bank sending it out). if that money is not there to be taken your bank have to make that company aware they cannot have the money.

so if the payment has to be declined ...

the funds need to be recalled from the clearing system, the company concerned need to be informed and (more often than not) a letter needs to be produced and sent out to you - the customer.

not quite a simple as pay or decline.

some banks (not sure which) also have two "runs" in the day which gives you an opportunity to credit the account that day to cover the shortfall and get the dd paid. in this instance the account needs to be checked at a later stage in the day to determine if it now has sufficient funds to allow the dd to be paid or not.

all things which cost money - maybe the amount of the charges is higher than the costs for the banks but there are many industries where this is the case. and i cant think of any other industry where people think its ok to spend money that isnt theirs to spend

DC


p.s. if it helps you arent the only one who lost money on the spurs game today :eek: ....... it probably doesnt :eek: