How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

lindilou39

sinizterguy wrote: »

I am not just waltzing in to kick up a storm. I believe the charges are justified and I have said so in many other threads.

Just because I dont agree with you doesnt mean that I am stubborn, stupid or a troll.

well if you think they are justified....then please do give us all a breakdown of the true cost, we,re all sitting here waiting in anticipation!

CHRISL_3

I actually think that in the long run everyone reclaiming charges and Martin's high profile campaign (should they be successful) will actually turn out not to be a "money saving" proposition at all. Whilst initially all those people who get charges back will have saved money, the longer term outcome will be the end of free personal bank accounts. This is will be a simple case of the banks needing to make up the loss of income from charging in other ways. The same has happened with credit cards in the sense that since the £12 maximum charge was introduced, banks have instead brought in balance transfer fees to make up for lost income. As a result all those people who get there charges back will end up paying a monthly fee for the use of a bank account or will have to have a pay-as-you-go service for an account. Meanwhile all the other people who have never exceeded their overdraft limits and never been whacked with charges will also have to suffer as a result. I am fairly certain that this second group actually outweigh those who are reclaiming. Can someone explain to me why the banks won't start charging if the test case goes against them?

sinizterguy

lindilou39 wrote: »

well if you think they are justified....then please do give us all a breakdown of the true cost, we,re all sitting here waiting in anticipation!

Banks are a business and not a charity. There is no requirement for them to charge you only what it costs them. All businesses put a markup on their services. And I see no need to justify the true cost and what is charged.

Fair enough, some changes would be beneficial to the customer. But nothing like saying they are all universally unfair.

Now lets sit back and wait for monthly fees to come in and people like you to come and explain to me why they would be unfair too. Oh right, that would be because it doesnt cost the banks as much as they charge you to administer your account. If you didnt like it, why did you sign up in the first place ? Or why don't you leave your bank if you are so against their clearly set policies ?

I signed up to my bank knowing that I will be paying charges if I went over my agreed limits. It happened once, I got hit with a charge. I accepted it and moved on - and have kept my account in order since then. I am not going to go around shouting out about the unfairness of the charge or whatever.

TANZARELLI

sinizterguy wrote: »

Banks are a business and not a charity. There is no requirement for them to charge you only what it costs them. All businesses put a markup on their services. And I see no need to justify the true cost and what is charged.

Fair enough, some changes would be beneficial to the customer. But nothing like saying they are all universally unfair.

Now lets sit back and wait for monthly fees to come in and people like you to come and explain to me why they would be unfair too. Oh right, that would be because it doesnt cost the banks as much as they charge you to administer your account. If you didnt like it, why did you sign up in the first place ? Or why don't you leave your bank if you are so against their clearly set policies ?

I signed up to my bank knowing that I will be paying charges if I went over my agreed limits. It happened once, I got hit with a charge. I accepted it and moved on - and have kept my account in order since then. I am not going to go around shouting out about the unfairness of the charge or whatever.

Theres more charity shops on your local high street than banks. :rolleyes:

I am not saying that banks are charities made out of LEGO bricks, of course they are out to make money, talk about stating the obvious.

You have obviously been sucked into the Service Arguement used by the banks in an attempt to restructure accounts and re-word T&Cs to suit this arguement.

Example Barclaycard 1999 T&Cs

wrote:

We will charge you for any losses or costs we have to pay if you break this agreement

Key words in the term are 'losses or costs' not service provided. This makes it a penalty.

I could go onto other banks as I have access to a large number of T&Cs

lindilou39

sinizterguy wrote: »

Banks are a business and not a charity. There is no requirement for them to charge you only what it costs them. All businesses put a markup on their services. And I see no need to justify the true cost and what is charged.

Fair enough, some changes would be beneficial to the customer. But nothing like saying they are all universally unfair.

Now lets sit back and wait for monthly fees to come in and people like you to come and explain to me why they would be unfair too. Oh right, that would be because it doesnt cost the banks as much as they charge you to administer your account. If you didnt like it, why did you sign up in the first place ? Or why don't you leave your bank if you are so against their clearly set policies ?

I signed up to my bank knowing that I will be paying charges if I went over my agreed limits. It happened once, I got hit with a charge. I accepted it and moved on - and have kept my account in order since then. I am not going to go around shouting out about the unfairness of the charge or whatever.

Well for your info I already did and I signed to TSB and not LLoyds, and if it hasnt occurred to you ..banks already charge a monthly fee on some accounts, now rather than sit there and bleat like a sheep on heat, go fact find before you come on these threads baaaaaing like an aging yew, cos you sound more like larry the lamb!

sinizterguy

lindilou39 wrote: »

Well for your info I already did and I signed to TSB and not LLoyds, and if it hasnt occurred to you ..banks already charge a monthly fee on some accounts, now rather than sit there and bleat like a sheep on heat, go fact find before you come on these threads baaaaaing like an aging yew, cos you sound more like larry the lamb!

Thank you for your very mature response.

At some point you may realise that there are people whose opinions differ from your own.

sinizterguy

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Theres more charity shops on your local high street than banks. :rolleyes:

I am not saying that banks are charities made out of LEGO bricks, of course they are out to make money, talk about stating the obvious.

You have obviously been sucked into the Service Arguement used by the banks in an attempt to restructure accounts and re-word T&Cs to suit this arguement.

Example Barclaycard 1999 T&Cs



Key words in the term are 'losses or costs' not service provided. This makes it a penalty.

I could go onto other banks as I have access to a large number of T&Cs

So you are saying it will be fair if they charge you for services provided instead of losses or costs ? And that service charge can be the same as the "penalty" charges now ?

IvanOpinion

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Ivan I agree that people need to shop around more for better deals in regards to banking, I myself should even take head of this also.

However our banking IMHO is not free currently as there is a number of charges which are hidden already in the system including as you say interest rates. We seem to be forgetting that the banking industry is a competitive marketplace currently and for one bank to introduce (I know first direct does already, I think) charges on accounts then the consumers would vote with their feet and switch to another bank. This is where I think they will introduce other stealth charges in other ways. However saying that I don't think the fact this is hapening or is going to happen means the blame can be laid purely at the door of bank charge re-claimers as the banks IMHO would have done this anyway. Afterall as you and GD have pointed out previously, the banks are businesses aimed at making a profit from providing a service.

The point is though that they are not allowed to do this from penalty charges as this is irrecoverable at common law.

Tanz

I understand what you say but what many have not yet picked up on is that banks have started, in direct response to this reclaiming (and other actions), moving the cost from "penalty charges" to other charges. This is being reflected in interest rates and, as an example, 'application fees' for a remortgage which are absolutely extortiionate (and were the exception rather than the norm only few years ago). The problem with some of these new 'penalty charges' is that no matter how responsible you are with your finances you may not be able to avoid them.

Ivan

sinizterguy

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I understand what you say but what many have not yet picked up on is that banks have started, in direct response to this reclaiming (and other actions), moving the cost from "penalty charges" to other charges. This is being reflected in interest rates and, as an example, 'application fees' for a remortgage which are absolutely extortiionate (and were the exception rather than the norm only few years ago). The problem with some of these new 'penalty charges' is that no matter how responsible you are with your finances you may not be able to avoid them.

Ivan

You wont be able to avoid them and you wont be able to claim them back. All this claiming basically opens up ways for banks to charge all customers rather than the ones who can't handle their accounts properly.

TANZARELLI

sinizterguy wrote: »

So you are saying it will be fair if they charge you for services provided instead of losses or costs ? And that service charge can be the same as the "penalty" charges now ?

No what I am saying is that for years the banks have been fleecing customers with disproportionate penalties and until recently they had not been challenged about this until some chose to do something about it. Following the OFTs report into creditcard charges the media got hold of this and it became a big issue for the banks and instead of disclosing their actual costs they have been paying out.

<O:p</O:p

wrote:

Calculating fair <O:p</O:p
default charges in <O:p
credit card <O:p
contracts

<O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

wrote:

The statement sets our view of the law, which is in essence that default <O:p
charge provisions are open to challenge on grounds of unfairness if they <O:p</O:p
have the object of raising more in revenue than is reasonably expected <O:p</O:p
to be necessary to recover certain limited administrative costs incurred <O:p</O:p
by the credit card issuer

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
If they are recovering their actual losses then this would be fine, however they are not they are making extortionately high amounts of profits from customers for their account breaches which is unlawful (notice I said unlawful not illegal)
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

wrote:

We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below <O:p</O:p
the threshold

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

This is why even £12 credit card charges are successfully being claimed back as this still doesn’t reflect their true costs/losses.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

wrote:

Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of<O:p</O:p
default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made <O:p</O:p
should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge <O:p</O:p
where grounds of unfairness exist

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Banks are blatantly rewording their T&Cs in an attempt to cloak and veil their charges, they are attempting to restructure them as service fees in an attempt to keep fleecing the consumer, this is not on and is open to challenge.<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p
Tanz<O:p</O:p