How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

lindilou39

Graham_Devon wrote: »

God point about the credit cards. Anyone with a Virgin card will know this and will know I am not making it up.

When the £12 charge came in (i.e. the lower one) all Virgin (or MBNA) customers recieved a letter. There was a mass thread about it on the credit cards board at the time. I will try to find it, I started it.

Anyway, it was about a month after the new, lower charges (which I had never been charged). My interest went from 15.9% to 24.9%.

Strange co-incidence? People on the same thread who had recieved the same letter didnt think so, and there were many of us.

Of course, card is ditched now, but some will be stuck with that 24.9% with an amount outstanding. Who are these people going to be? Yes, those who cannot balance transfer? Who are those people? Yes, the ones who most probably paid on time, but don't have much money, so can't just change as easy as someone else could.

It's a perfect example of what happened thanks to your reclaiming. I can't believe that it was pure co-incience it happened just 2 months after the ruling.

can I ask you to provide a true cost then?

natweststaffmember

Ivan, so has the overdraft rates with the rise in interest rates. It is alleged that banks are recouping lost revenue by increasing interest rates across the board. So how will they recoup the litigation costs? Also the banks have a dispensation from the FSA over charges cases which is saving them £400 per case or £800 if it is a business account for every case referred to the FOS. I know who is winning the argument at the moment because while the test case is going on the banks are cloaking the charges under service fees. We both know that the systems are automated and therefore the charge even for a milisecond is minute in comparison, ok, if a letter is sent out(and this is not the case in the majority of cases) then I would agree with a first charge being higher PROVIDED a letter is sent. Automation does reduce cost rather than increase it. Agreed that call centre staff have to be paid but even in this industry turnover is usually high with students working in them and temporary staff. We have an estimated 1 billion pounds reclaimed although estimates stated last year the banks made 4.6 billion pounds. As you can see it is still a drop in the ocean. Most people claimed over 6 years(highest payout that I was aware of was £35000+) so not really that much of an indent was made on total profits IMHO.

Dragonlady_2

I have to agree you on this one. We sent the new card back along with the T & C's with a letter to the CEO.

We did the same with Capital One.

I wont say it has to do with reclaiming, just a perfect excuse to hit everyone hard, but again some of us refused to accept what has been implemented and refuse to play their game.

lindilou39

Graham_Devon wrote: »

God point about the credit cards. Anyone with a Virgin card will know this and will know I am not making it up.

When the £12 charge came in (i.e. the lower one) all Virgin (or MBNA) customers recieved a letter. There was a mass thread about it on the credit cards board at the time. I will try to find it, I started it.

Anyway, it was about a month after the new, lower charges (which I had never been charged). My interest went from 15.9% to 24.9%.

Strange co-incidence? People on the same thread who had recieved the same letter didnt think so, and there were many of us.

Of course, card is ditched now, but some will be stuck with that 24.9% with an amount outstanding. Who are these people going to be? Yes, those who cannot balance transfer? Who are those people? Yes, the ones who most probably paid on time, but don't have much money, so can't just change as easy as someone else could.

It's a perfect example of what happened thanks to your reclaiming. I can't believe that it was pure co-incience it happened just 2 months after the ruling.[/quote

Dragonlady_2

GD

you state It really is not my fault or anyone elses if you cannot get any of those due to bad credit reports. I cannot do anything about that if you cannot get them. This is mean spirited and spiteful remark

Have you ever thought some of us choose NOT to go this way and for your information we can borrow if we want to, we choose NOT to. As I said before, we are fiscally responsible and our problem was because of the banking system not our stupidity<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Oh Ivan, I did email them and they did not reply. I have all of this in my file, so please stop trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

I just might be able to teach you a thing or two about fiscal responsibilityd and how to manage a bank account.

After all I used to control a budget of over 2 million dollars a year, before coming to England.

Until two years before I became self employed, I used to manage a Post Graduate Medical Education Centre with a substantial budget. Mine was the only budget in the Black

Graham_Devon

Dragon, !!!!!! are you on about. Your on the offensive for some reason and spouting a load of nonsense.

1. You ask me how your sposed to do it. I tell you how and you say you dont want to.

2. You take it as a spiteful comment if I say people might not be able to get them.

3. If you choose not to take loans or anything else to help yourself out of charges, then dont moan!!!! Take the charges for all I care, just don't moan and spout they are unfair when you wont do anything to stop recieving them. Thats all my point is.

IvanOpinion

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Ivan, so has the overdraft rates with the rise in interest rates. It is alleged that banks are recouping lost revenue by increasing interest rates across the board. So how will they recoup the litigation costs? Also the banks have a dispensation from the FSA over charges cases which is saving them £400 per case or £800 if it is a business account for every case referred to the FOS. I know who is winning the argument at the moment because while the test case is going on the banks are cloaking the charges under service fees.

If you look back through my posting history, many months, you will see this is a point I made, and continue to make .. we will ALL be losers with this ... if the banks lose one source of revenue they will replace it with another that returns even more .. the difference is akin though to my speeding ticket analogy earlier in the thread.

I have pointed out before that many of the changes will be much more subtle than charging for current accounts .. they will involve loan rates rising faster than increases in the base rate, savings rates rising slower than increases in the base rate, more charges for obscure things, those 'with profit' policies not offering the sort of returns expected, annuity rates not being kept in line. There is a lot that can be done .. on one thread a while back I was told 'I was talking nonsense' .. the fact that I happened to be reading it from a banks strategy document that was sitting on my desk was apparently of no consequence .. the fact that we were developing the IT systems for some of the changes was also not relevant (some of these developments have been implemented but not yet put into use ... there is a bit of a wait and see game going on).

We both know that the systems are automated and therefore the charge even for a milisecond is minute in comparison, ok, if a letter is sent out(and this is not the case in the majority of cases) then I would agree with a first charge being higher PROVIDED a letter is sent. Automation does reduce cost rather than increase it.

This is the point I have been making. To some though they think this is zero cost because it is automated. They forget though that there is the development cost, hardware cost and maintenance costs involved. But naturally it is much more cost effective than a manual system.

Agreed that call centre staff have to be paid but even in this industry turnover is usually high with students working in them and temporary staff.

Which obviously increases training overhead etc. requiring trainers and additional supervisor/managerial time costs

We have an estimated 1 billion pounds reclaimed although estimates stated last year the banks made 4.6 billion pounds. As you can see it is still a drop in the ocean.

Without the figures to hand I assume the 4.6billion is for retail banking which isn't bad for the size of the industry. We also must remember that when banks make profits we ALL benefit.

I am sure that if the banks have paid out £1billion they have plans to win back £2billion. Just out of interest if someone asked you to take a 22% cut in pay would you consider that to be 'not really much of an indent on your total pay'

Ivan

TANZARELLI

Dragonlady wrote: »

I think you should check your facts regarding Tanz. I know differently to what you are implying and he/she is is very interested. Do not make a sweeping statement you cannot back with evidence.

lol I am a he and thanks.

lindilou39

IvanOpinion wrote: »

If you look back through my posting history, many months, you will see this is a point I made, and continue to make .. we will ALL be losers with this ... if the banks lose one source of revenue they will replace it with another that returns even more .. the difference is akin though to my speeding ticket analogy earlier in the thread.

I have pointed out before that many of the changes will be much more subtle than charging for current accounts .. they will involve loan rates rising faster than increases in the base rate, savings rates rising slower than increases in the base rate, more charges for obscure things, those 'with profit' policies not offering the sort of returns expected, annuity rates not being kept in line. There is a lot that can be done .. on one thread a while back I was told 'I was talking nonsense' .. the fact that I happened to be reading it from a banks strategy document that was sitting on my desk was apparently of no consequence .. the fact that we were developing the IT systems for some of the changes was also not relevant (some of these developments have been implemented but not yet put into use ... there is a bit of a wait and see game going on).

This is the point I have been making. To some though they think this is zero cost because it is automated. They forget though that there is the development cost, hardware cost and maintenance costs involved. But naturally it is much more cost effective than a manual system.

Which obviously increases training overhead etc. requiring trainers and additional supervisor/managerial time costs
Without the figures to hand I assume the 4.6billion is for retail banking which isn't bad for the size of the industry. We also must remember that when banks make profits we ALL benefit.

I am sure that if the banks have paid out £1billion they have plans to win back £2billion. Just out of interest if someone asked you to take a 22% cut in pay would you consider that to be 'not really much of an indent on your total pay'

Ivan

please point out the fact that we all benefit?

IvanOpinion

Dragonlady wrote: »

Oh Ivan, I did email them and they did not reply. I have all of this in my file, so please stop trying to teach me how to suck eggs.

I just might be able to teach you a thing or two about fiscal responsibilityd and how to manage a bank account.

After all I used to control a budget of over 2 million dollars a year, before coming to England.

Until two years before I became self employed, I used to manage a Post Graduate Medical Education Centre with a substantial budget. Mine was the only budget in the Black

Take a chill pill, I was not trying to patronise simply offer genuine advice in good faith which, while it may not have been useful for you, it may be useful for another casual reader of this thread. And it does not matter whether or not the bank replied, the fact something is sent and is in your email history provides the appropriate timestamps for disputing any charges.

I manage medium sized projects so regularly have to manage similar amounts ranging between £500K and £1million. I am sure we could offer each other reciprical advice on managing budgets (especially if you have any advice that allows me to bury some of it into a swiss bank account )

ivan

PS: ANother useful piece of advice .. if you put your false teeth in you will not have to suck the eggs but can chew them instead