How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

IvanOpinion

Morglin, what you are highlighting is the thin end of the wedge. There are much more subtle things going on. In the last year or so we have had 5 0.25% rises in interest rate ... oddly enough many loan rates have gone up by more than 1.25%, especially credit cards were some rates have gone up by 7-8%. On the other hand many savings accounts have not gone up by the full 1.25% ... one I have has only gone up by 1.1% ... so where is that other 0.15% gone. I also wonder what has happened to many of the 'end of term bonuses' on various 'with profits' accounts. It used to be 'free' to take out a new mortgage but now we are seeing fees of £199, £399, 499, £799 or in some cases up to £3500 (in one case it is 7% of the amount borrowed) just for some clerk to change which product you are on (a job that takes a few minutes).

In fact proportionally savers are getting a raw deal compared to a few years back .. savings rates proportionally dropped quicker than the base rate throughout the 90's and now they are rising slower again.

There is more in the pipeline.

Ivan

TANZARELLI

Brilliantly put DL.

I have to say having read some of the posts on the link you provided Graham, that I find some of the post made there quite patronising to say the least.

It must be so nice to be perfect eh?

Nobody I know of over the six site which I post deliberately sets out to get charges, but often charges will lead to other charges and the situation quickly escalates. You can end up with the banks deliberately returning payments prior to payday causing you to then be overdrawn more than you would have been if the payment was actually made purely as a means to make unlawful profits.

If you are so naieve that you believe these charges are reasonable and fair then it really is not us that needs educating.

IvanOpinion

TANZARELLI wrote: »

If you are so naieve that you believe these charges are reasonable and fair then it really is not us that needs educating.

I think in an earlier post you suggested 50p for a bounced direct debit. To give you an idea of some of the charges I was recently involved in a non-banking project that cost almost £250,000 to send a letter out to 4000 customers. The customers did not ask for the letter, they did not want the letter, the majority of them probably didn't read the letter and in the majority of cases it probably wnet straight in the bin but some idiot regulator said the letters had to be sent. Do you think the company would have been justified in charging each customer £60+ for the pleasure of receiving that letter?

High volume print rooms are generally expensive to run .. there is the cost of stationary, envelopes, printing equipment (and I am not talking of naff little lasers here), staff, heating lighting, ink cartridges, maintenance, postage, specialised folding and enveloping equipment, the production of and stuffing of legislative/regulative/sales literature, stuffing equipment, paper reversers etc. .. now add in the cost of the development of the software, its maintenance and enhancement,regulatory change, legal change, business change, sort routines (to maximise walksort & mailsort discounts), data extraction and validation etc. The automated solution will cost significantly more than 50p.

Now what about the ad hoc letters. An operator takes maybe 20-30 minutes to discuss a problem with a customer type up a customised letter, get the letter verified with a supervisor, chase a manager up for a signature, add narratives to the account, print it out (on a basic laser printer requiring maintenance, toner, stationary etc.), put it in an envelope, address the envelope and get it stamped. This will be significantly higher than 50p.

I agree that £35 (which is naturally at the higher end of the charge scale but useful for sound bite purposes) is high and punitive, but then again, I would say the bank have only done what they said they would when the customer signed a form to say they would accept them doing so. What most people get annoyed about are people who do not learn the lesson and instead of clearing debt with their settlements fritter it away and continue with the wreckless mismanagement of thier money ... I firmly believe that as part of any settlement banks should withdraw all credit from people making claims and their credit history should be black marked until they prove that they can handle credit.

Ivan

Graham_Devon

krisskross wrote: »

A savings account used for paying money from salary or benefits in will never incur charges as it will be impossible to take out money you don't have.

These people still want Direct Debits, can you do that with a savings account!?

As for basic bank accounts. I may be wrong, but the whole point of them is it won't allow these things to happen.

krisskross

Graham_Devon wrote: »

These people still want Direct Debits, can you do that with a savings account!?

As for basic bank accounts. I may be wrong, but the whole point of them is it won't allow these things to happen.

No Graham there will be no direct debits from a savings account. However we have pointed out so many times between us that it is possible to run a financial life without DDs. Using a savings account to receive payments would necessitate drawing out the cash and then using it to pay bills, buy groceries etc. Almost exactly like being paid in cash. This would also negate the argument a lot of people use about being forced to have a bank account.

Graham_Devon

krisskross wrote: »

No Graham there will be no direct debits from a savings account. However we have pointed out so many times between us that it is possible to run a financial life without DDs. Using a savings account to receive payments would necessitate drawing out the cash and then using it to pay bills, buy groceries etc. Almost exactly like being paid in cash. This would also negate the argument a lot of people use about being forced to have a bank account.

Yes, I agree 110%!! But, even though DD are the cause, they want them, they can't be bothered to pay manually.

I got called a luddite earlier by one of the reclaimers and they like them, so thats the way they will pay. It's easier as they don't have to do anything or take time out to do it.

Its a no win situation. You try to tell them the ways around it, and they just will not have it. I don't think you can have them with the basic bank accounts, which is why they wont have them, so continue to sign all the agreements and then go off on one about how the world ows them something.

TANZARELLI

Graham_Devon wrote: »

These people still want Direct Debits, can you do that with a savings account!?

As for basic bank accounts. I may be wrong, but the whole point of them is it won't allow these things to happen.

You are wrong Graham. All a basic bank account is, is a current account without an overdraft facility. I have a basic LTSB account which I have am able to apply SO and DD too. Charges are often caused by the way the banks operate their charging regime.

Graham_Devon

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Yopu are wrong Graham. All a basic bank account is, is a current account without an overdraft facility. I have a basic LTSB account which I have am able to apply SO and DD too. Charges are often caused by the way the banks operate their charging regime.

Just looked it up, basically some do, some dont allow them. Some just allow payments in, but no automated payments out, therefore, you cannot go overdrawn or get charged.

Charges are 95% of the time caused by the consumer. Bank errors are quite slim.

TANZARELLI

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I think in an earlier post you suggested 50p for a bounced direct debit. To give you an idea of some of the charges I was recently involved in a non-banking project that cost almost £250,000 to send a letter out to 4000 customers. The customers did not ask for the letter, they did not want the letter, the majority of them probably didn't read the letter and in the majority of cases it probably wnet straight in the bin but some idiot regulator said the letters had to be sent. Do you think the company would have been justified in charging each customer £60+ for the pleasure of receiving that letter? Yes and the point of this statement is? The banks automated systems in place issuing higher quantities of letters going out which reduces the cost per unit.

High volume print rooms are generally expensive to run .. there is the cost of stationary, envelopes, printing equipment (and I am not talking of naff little lasers here), staff, heating lighting, ink cartridges, maintenance, postage, specialised folding and enveloping equipment, the production of and stuffing of legislative/regulative/sales literature, stuffing equipment, paper reversers etc. .. now add in the cost of the development of the software, its maintenance and enhancement,regulatory change, legal change, business change, sort routines (to maximise walksort & mailsort discounts), data extraction and validation etc. The automated solution will cost significantly more than 50p. I fail to see what similarity this has on the debate. You can't realistically expect me to beleive that the A4 black and white automated templated letter I recieve from a bank regarding my account is anywhere near the same in comparision. :rotfl: So if thats the case why will the banks refuse to disclose their costs and put the whole thing to bed? Answer because we are right in our thoughts and they would not be able to prove otherwise without proving us right.

Now what about the ad hoc letters. An operator takes maybe 20-30 minutes to discuss a problem with a customer type up a customised letter, get the letter verified with a supervisor, chase a manager up for a signature, add narratives to the account, print it out (on a basic laser printer requiring maintenance, toner, stationary etc.), put it in an envelope, address the envelope and get it stamped. This will be significantly higher than 50p. I am not talking about this type of scenario so why discuss this further other that say it is not a templated automated situation is it?

I agree that £35 Which is more like the norm and is what I get chagred from LTSB check their website if you don't beleive me.(which is naturally at the higher end of the charge scale but useful for sound bite purposes) is high and punitive (exactly), but then again, I would say the bank have only done what they said they would when the customer signed a form to say they would accept them doing so (did they though? Can you tell me why the banks are now re-wording their T&Cs to disguise the nature of their penalties its called cloaking or veiling of penalties?). What most people get annoyed about are people who do not learn the lesson and instead of clearing debt with their settlements fritter it away and continue with the wreckless mismanagement of thier money ... I firmly believe that as part of any settlement banks should withdraw all credit from people making claims and their credit history should be black marked until they prove that they can handle credit. They do credit card accounts are closed down and bank accounts also, but this is not the point here the point is that the banks are penalty charging customers to much and profitting from the penalties and it is unlawful.


Ivan

Pretty unrealistic post, but thanks anyway for the attempt.

Tanz

Graham_Devon

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Pretty unrealistic post, but thanks anyway for the attempt.

Tanz

LOL, your gonna get owned by Ivan for that statement! :T