How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

blue_meany

Well said and Good luck!!
Keep right on!!

Kurt_Hamster

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

You are right - £75 is a completely ridiculously high charge. Nevertheless, you agreed to it. And you didn't choose to move to another bank with lower charges, nor ask them in advance if you could go super-overdrawn. (this may not exactly apply to you personally, but there a certainly many cases like it).

It seems you aren't too well up on the statutes in the UK.

Contract law is based on the premise that contracts have to be fair to both parties. They also have to comply with UK law.

Culturally the British people are accustomed to the belief that big corporations, especially national institutions like banks, stick to the letter of the law. Therefore it's custom and practice that we believe that the banks T&C are legal and therefore binding. We aren't legal experts we don't read the small print, we take it on faith that the bank is complying to the law.

Therefore we agree to something we think is lawful. When we later find out that the T&C were both unlawful and unfair (remember the 2nd paragraph above?) it is fair to assume that we want what was taken from us. It is both moral and lawful for us to request that money back and if it isn't forthcoming it is both moral and lawful for us to use all legal means at our disposal.

I think the "more than what it costs them" is a complete red herring, particularly if they are in fact legitimate service fees. In what other industry do people demand the right to retrospectively "claim back" charges that they agreed to in advance, because they later decide they're "excessive"?

rubuhoe

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that they aren't just excessive, they are unlawful.

As for the "service charge", to be charged for a service means you receive something in return. If the bank bounces a cheque or a direct debit, then charges you for that bounce what "service" have you received? Perhaps you should look up the definition of "service" and "charge" in the dictionary.

jdeagles

recyclingbox wrote: »

when i joined Barclays seven years ago and accepted the terms and conditions, the charge for going OD was a tenner. now it is £35! the bank now reckons it costs 150% more to process the charge than it did 7 years ago. Strikes me the charges keep going up to boost the profits. If the charge was reflecting the actual cost at £10, why when they have less staff now and more computers than 7 years ago has the charge gone up by £25?

Couldn't agree more. When I joined Barclays nearly 11 years ago as a student, up until 6 years ago with a graduate account it cost £5 if I went over my limit. I received new sets of T&Cs as time goes on but, this is the rub, if you're the better part of a couple of grand overdrawn it's at best tricky to switch your account to someone else if you don't like the new T&Cs.

The other thing that hacks me off is that back in the good old student days, if you went to withdraw money and didn't have enough, the ATM simply wouldn't give you any money, stating 'insufficient funds'. Now, it gives you the cash and charges you instead. Much more profitable, I'm sure!:eek:

missprint

I have been following the bank charges debate over the weeks (rather smugly as I've never had a bank charge applied, mainly due to the fact that I was able to arrange a large overdraft facility and then rarely dip into it so I always had a big fat cushion; and my local branch seems happy to let the arrangement stand. I'm not well off but I do have a good relationship with my bank).

However, I was bitten by the bank charge beast at the weekend and I was astonished at its deadly speed and ruthlessness. I had deposited a chunk of money in the account earlier in the week, intending to move it over to my offset account (with another bank). Come Friday evening I checked the account and the chunk was there, so I attempted to transfer it to the offset online. Up came a notice saying there was not enough money in the account. This was 9.30pm Friday evening. Around 9am Saturday morning the post arrived, and with it a letter stating that I had attempted to exceed my available funds and a fee of £35 would be applied. :eek: !!!!!!! How did they DO that? I have NEVER seen mail move so fast! The chunk hadn't cleared yet but there was no way of telling that from the online statement. Quite took my breathe away! It seems you can't take your eye off the ball for an instant, it's easy to condemn people for sloppy accounting but life isn't that simple.

ManAtHome

missprint wrote: »

a letter stating that I had attempted to exceed my available funds and a fee of £35 would be applied.

If it was me, it'd be my ex-bank by now... That really is taking the p1$$ - must cost them at least 4p in processing (and that's being generous). Which bank are you with - I've had this with HSBC, but they just pop an "insufficient funds" message up, free-of-charge (so far..).

missprint

It was Lloyds, I get on well with the local branch but this was generated from some faceless central persecution unit.

ManAtHome

missprint wrote: »

central persecution unit.

lol - always wondered what CPU stood for...

peter191260

nobody is saying banks shouldnt charge a fee but the fees they charge at the moment are seriously high.I am certainly not a lazy person having worked all my life and struggled but when the charges the banks impose are so high it causes a snowball affect if it was in moderation people could cope my bank due to the snowball effect nearly broke me and i intend to fight them all the way thanks to the help and encouragement from this website.

Compensationitis

I would like to know why anyone should expect a refund of charges they knew would be applied if certain things happened within an account which would have been in the terms and conditions the holder had signed up for when he/she applied for that account.

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

nickmack

Compensationitis wrote: »

I would like to know why anyone should expect a refund of charges they knew would be applied if certain things happened within an account which would have been in the terms and conditions the holder had signed up for when he/she applied for that account.

Because they believe the charges are unlawful and this takes precedence over any Terms and Conditions.