How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

TANZARELLI

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I agree with this point that customers are to blame for failing to have sufficient funds in their accounts however the level of the charges is the point here and they are disproportionate to the level of losses the banks face making them a profit making vehicle and nothing more so they are unlawful.

Tanz

TANZARELLI

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Owned? I am not for sale. Nobody owns me.:rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

TANZARELLI wrote: »

I agree with this point that customers are to blame for failing to have sufficient funds in their accounts however the level of the charges is the point here and they are disproportionate to the level of losses the banks face making them a profit making vehicle and nothing more so they are unlawful.

Tanz

Look, there is one way to escape ALL charges. You also get longer to pay your bills, you get reminders if you do not pay them in the 28 days allowed, you have time to source money from elsewhere, pay that into your account and THEN pay your bills and you STILL wont get charged.

So please stop going on about how it's the banks fault. Its YOURS. Soley yours. You signed firstly the account T&C's and then secondly the direct debit T&C's. Twice you signed that you accept the charges and you agree to the agreements.

If your not interested in protecting yourself, then don't try and preach to us about how unfair it all is. Thats all im saying and so far, like I said earlier, not one reclaimer have I seen that will actively protect themselves.

If we try to help you and tell you how to do it, or say 'well I do this, so I have never had a charge' we get the good old 'Oh it must be so nice to be so perfect....stop patronising us' line every single time.

Ivan took the time to explain, so you give a sarcastic line about it.

TANZARELLI

He didn't expain it he made comparisons that of no comparision.

I also fail to see why you bother subscribing to threads like this anyway as you obviously cant grasp the point.

I understand you point about people taking responsibility for their finances/accounts but this does not mean that I have to accept that the banks are profitting from penalties which makes it unlawful.

You may be a little more finacially secure tha other members but it does not make you better than them and all you seem intent on doing is seeking a bargain, keeping free banking and argueing for the sake of argueing.

If free banking comes to an end as a result of the charges issue then so be it. At least the banks wont be fleecing often vulnerable people who may be on limited incomes as they see them as easy prey.

Tanz

TANZARELLI

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bank errors are quite slim.

Not referring to bank errors I was talking about the banks purposely taking out debits hours before a regular monthly payment is recieved as a credit purely to return this and apply charges. Unbeleivable behaviuor aimed purely at profit making.

IvanOpinion

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Pretty unrealistic post, but thanks anyway for the attempt.

It is hard to deal with someone who makes up things in their own minds when they do not actually know what reality is like and their own manufactured reality is born out of ignorance .. they will always see reality as unrealistic. it does however brightne up my morning by making me smile so I will take the time to try to respond in some detail.

The problem with your respsonses is that you obviously have absolutely no idea what is involved in producing even the most automated of letters. In 1998-2000 I was sub-contracted to one of the larger print rooms in the UK and, unlike your made up number of 'a probable cost of 50p or less' I can tell you factually it is much more ... inaccurate and (deliberately?) misleading sound bites do not help resolve any issue. Why not ask your solicitor for a letter I am sure you will not get anything for under £25-30.

While I worked in the print room my cost alone to the company worked out at 1.84p per piece of paper that went out the door (assuming full volume runs every night)

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.

I think your problem is trying to get your head around the printers involved ... I am not talking of a £200 laser printer, I am talking of printing equipment costing millions to buy and more millions to run and maintain annually. Printers that can not be fed from little stacks of paper because they use up a ream in a matter of a few seconds so they get fed from massive rolls of paper.

The 'answer' to your question though, in my book, is why should they, do you think you have a right to know ... in return why don't you tell everybody how much you spent on stamps in 2005 (no guesses allowed) ... banks are not the civil service where they employ thousands for no other reason than to collect numbers to handle inane 'freedom of information requests' from a bored public willing to waste money by demanding to see how money is watsed (ironic isn't it?) .. banks are businesses.

I am not even sure that a true cost could be generated. As the most simplest of examples (which barely scrapes the surface of the complexity involved) do we include the software development or just the costs of the print room ... if we include the development then can we include the costs of adding 'history' records since they are not directly involved as part of the letter production but a necessary part of the 'audit' trail ... what about the costs of the disaster recovery site which needs to be stocked and manned .. should they also be included?

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?

Why not? Organisations have to send out hundreds of ad-hoc letters daily .. you can't just say it is irrelevant because it doesn't fit in eith the picture you want to portray ... it is all part of the process. In one case I watched a team of 3 people (and calling in others) carry out an investigation over several days to figure out what the problem was before the letter got issued. Given the fee rates and assuming companies can charge 'actual' costs then I am pretty sure that customer would have been somewhat miffed to receive a bill in the region of £2500-3000 for their letter (which basically informed them their statement was correct and that Wee Jimmy from the pub was not a god when it came to finding mistakes).

I agree that £35 Which is more like the norm and is what I get charged from LTSB check their website if you don't believe me.(which is naturally at the higher end of the charge scale but useful for sound bite purposes) is high and punitive (exactly),

Is this the page you are talking about ... I see charges ranging from 'free' to £35 (which lets be honest shows what a crap account it is .. why would anybody , especially an MSEr, insist on sticking with this .. much better available) ..but it does highlight when it comes to fees £35 is at the TOP end of fees charged.

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?).

Like all businesses things evolve. The T&C were totally transparent to anybody who took the time to read them (I have no special training in understanding fees and understood them at first reading). However where there is any ambiguity or issues then would you not expect them to clear these up by amending the wording?. I like the phrase 'cloaking or veiling of penalties' another meaningless sound bite (more of this later though).

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.

I am glad to hear that they are closing accounts down unfortunately not often enough with some people opening other accounts before claiming 'just in case' ... another bit of 'cloaking and veiling' maybe?

Your point like the reclaim charges bandwagon that Martin and others have jumped on is a snapshot of a bigger picture ... in the bigger picture the overall point is that some people are simply too stupid or irresponsible to be allowed credit. Also in the bigger picture a few people will win their little battles but ultimately the banks will win the war.

To try to use a little analogy that will explain what is actually happening. Previously a speeding fine was £60 ... following a campign it is only going to be £20 .. however everybody, irrespective of whether you drive within the speed limits or not, will be penalised by having to make up the £40 shortfall .. also instead of roads being free they may charge you a toll (unless of course you have a really big car, in which case it will remain free). Also because the fine has reduced there will be a lot more people willing to take the chance (after all it is only £20) .. however that just means there will be a lot more £40 shortfalls to be made up (by everybody). We are ALL losers in this .. and what journalists fighting for their 'cause' have not yet woken up to or are maybe trying to hide (cloaking and veiling?) is that the biggest losers are going to be those that can least afford it ( I think we can pretty much predict the next media 'cause').

I believe that the time and effort would be better spent on educating people on how to manage their finances respomsibly, even if they fall on hard times.

Ivan

TANZARELLI

Ok Ivan you really cant grasp this can you. Perhaps I should make it a bit clearer.

Have a read of the link below and you may, just may, grasp it. The BBC Whistleblower programme highlighted a system used by Yorkshire bank called CYNthesys - Clydesdale Yorkshire Northern the system. It showed the true costs of the bank to be less than £2.00.


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/78681-clydesdale-yorkshire-northern-system.html

This was on the assumption that the process was done manually which we all know it is not.

All the major banks would have a similar system in place if not the same one. So how can you realy beleive it can be any more than this to send out a standard black and white templated automated letter.

You are really dreaming in an attempt to convince others that recaliming UNLAWFUL bank charges is selfish.

Your comparisons are nowhere near a true reflection of the process involved in bank charge letters as you and your previous project was nothing like a huge multi national organisation like the banks are so your whole arguement is flawed.

You made a good attempt to nail this but failed.

Tanz

Graham_Devon

Tanz, he works in banking, he knows his stuff. Your arguing with someone with a wealth of intellect about the system.

Your also talking to someone who protects himself from such charges very very easily. It's just you don't care to do the same thing.

That in itself is selfish, as your dragging him, and myself down with you for your own selfish causes, because you do not want to actively help yourself.

He will never nail it. All he can do is put across valid, intelligent points. He can't change some self minded individuals into seeing that they can only help themselves, or get us all paying for you.

lindilou39

Thing is...IF banks say they are charging fairly then why does each bank differ??? i.e it costs a customer £25 say for a returned DD then a diff bank for the same reason charges £39??? If charges are fair then why do they differ from bank to bank? The true cost ...is the price it actually costs to print that letter and send it off amongst an admin charge and as we all know the banks use minimum wage earners to spew these things out...just because one bank uses basic equipement and another uses the top range of product should not reflect back on the customer.

TANZARELLI

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tanz, he works in banking, he knows his stuff. Your arguing with someone with a wealth of intellect about the system.

Your also talking to someone who protects himself from such charges very very easily. It's just you don't care to do the same thing.

That in itself is selfish, as your dragging him, and myself down with you for your own selfish causes, because you do not want to actively help yourself.

I actually do wish to protect myself from charges and had a very good period without any but due to one little slip up again I end up having to go through the process to reclaim them, which to be honest takes a lot of my time. I work full time in a reasonably secure position with a salary which is not bad, however we all make mistakes and the banks end up fleecing us for it which is wrong.

I am proud to be a part of this consumer fight against the banks as I truly beleive they have acted unreasonably by profitting from penalties. You will not convince me otherwise.

My aim is to recover what has been taken from me and then this will enable me to remove some of the debts I have which in itself will place me in a better financial position.

I will not stop until I have achieved this.

Tanz