How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

TANZARELLI

Sorry the double quote should be together not sure why it posted like that lol

sinizterguy

I'll respect your opinion on the matter. I still think the charges should continue - maybe the banks should have worded it better or included it in charges elsewhere. But given the current circumstances, the way the charges were addressed and contract law in this country, the charges can be labelled as unfair and as such fought in court. But I still support the banks ability to charge people who cannot maintain their accounts properly - or have an absolute cut-off without letting them go 1p over their agreed limits.

I am unlikely to have any supporters of my viewpoint on a board such as this.

Tanz, thank you for your well worded and polite replies even if you have worn out the smileys with the last one.

I did not expect childish, immature replies such as one I received from members of this board, clearly demonstrating his/her inability to participate in an adult discussion on a public forum.

DIRTY_CASH

CHRISL wrote: »

........., 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. ....

I don't want to go down the route of explaining why free banking has never really existed as I think there is already enough evidence of this floating around for all to see should they wish to open their eyes and read it. But banks won't exactly be making a loss in the terms they will be losing money that puts them in the red as I would categorise a loss but they will be simply be making LESS OF AN ENORMOUS PROFIT... and treating their customer fairly. What is so wrong with being charged proportionally and fairly?

Sinizterguy I don't recall calling you a troll but I do think you are rather entrenched in your opinion somewhat. You.... don't... actually......work for a bank do you????:eek:

sinizterguy

DIRTY_CASH wrote: »

Sinizterguy I don't recall calling you a troll but I do think you are rather entrenched in your opinion somewhat. You.... don't... actually......work for a bank do you????:eek:

Thread hijacker and something else.

No, I dont work for a bank.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are willing to consider the other side with an open mind and not just believe your side is the only right side.

DIRTY_CASH

sinizterguy wrote: »

Thread hijacker and something else.

No, I dont work for a bank.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are willing to consider the other side with an open mind and not just believe your side is the only right side.

Ditto.

Discussions get heated.... but in the end the best one's usually do.

I thouroughly respect your opinion its just that when things have snowballed by accident, unforseen circumstances or in error and you get stung its hard to see someones opposing opinion who has not been in the same situation, as one of sense. Especially as they are sticking to it like glue. I actually agree with you on the point of charges yes they should be applied but not at this excessive rate. They aren't transparent, fair and nor are they reasonable.

It just gets my goat when someone says they are fair and just when they haven't been hit by them and seen them roll out of control.

Funnily enough... I was even advised by a bank clerk to claim mine back. Something is amiss and I beleive the banks do understand that what they have been practising isn't fair.

Whatever the outcome of this test case at least we will have some clarity and fairness hopefully applied in future.

As for bank charges for all isn't the most likely scenario going to be along the lines of:

BANK A WILL CHARGE £20 PER YEAR
BANK B WILL UNDERCUT THIS TO £15 PER YEAR
BANK C WILL DO THE SAME £1o
BANK D WILL NOT APPLY CHARGES FOR BANKING AT ALL AND AS A RESULT SO WILL ALL THE OTHERS.

Market Competition could sort this all out.

Mark7799

DIRTY_CASH wrote: »

BANK A WILL CHARGE £20 PER YEAR
BANK B WILL UNDERCUT THIS TO £15 PER YEAR
BANK C WILL DO THE SAME £1o
BANK D WILL NOT APPLY CHARGES FOR BANKING AT ALL AND AS A RESULT SO WILL ALL THE OTHERS.

Market Competition could sort this all out.

I don't think so.

If I can offer an alternative scenario

Bank A will offer an account with 'free' banking if you fund it with a minimum of £1500 per month (£10 per month if you don't - remember the First Direct case - unless you have at least two other products also from Bank A)

Bank B will offer a basic account without a monthly charge but the account will give you only a solo strength debit card and not allow you to set up direct debits (although it will pay you interest)

Bank C will offer an account with free banking, free travel insurance, personal account manager access, fee free credit card providing you fund the account with a minimum of £2000 per month.

Little old lady, managed her money, lives on a pension now has to pay for her banking.....

Person who doesn't manage his/her money won't be charged excessive fees but after the Bank has returned ten items within a three-month period gets sent a letter giving him/her 30 days' notice that their account will be closed. Because of poor credit history, all they can get is an account with Bank B.

TANZARELLI

sinizterguy wrote: »

I'll respect your opinion on the matter. I still think the charges should continue - maybe the banks should have worded it better or included it in charges elsewhere. But given the current circumstances, the way the charges were addressed and contract law in this country, the charges can be labelled as unfair and as such fought in court. But I still support the banks ability to charge people who cannot maintain their accounts properly - or have an absolute cut-off without letting them go 1p over their agreed limits.

I am unlikely to have any supporters of my viewpoint on a board such as this.

Tanz, thank you for your well worded and polite replies even if you have worn out the smileys with the last one.

I did not expect childish, immature replies such as one I received from members of this board, clearly demonstrating his/her inability to participate in an adult discussion on a public forum.

Thanks for acknowledging my posts. Obviously you are entitled to your opinions and we may have to beg to differ on the charging regime. I agree banks should charge but they should charge proportionately and not disproportionately. If they did then I would be happy and so would 100's of 1000's of other consumers.

Thanks for the discussion, it gives me practice for my day in court lol.

Tanz

DIRTY_CASH

Mark7799 wrote: »

I don't think so.


Little old lady, managed her money, lives on a pension now has to pay for her banking.....

Person who doesn't manage his/her money won't be charged excessive fees but after the Bank has returned ten items within a three-month period gets sent a letter giving him/her 30 days' notice that their account will be closed. Because of poor credit history, all they can get is an account with Bank B.

I agree somewhat but will they really close the account when they are still making money off the offenders through their fees excessive or not?

I asked a "mole" - friend of mine working in the bank. She has 12 years experience will two major high st banks

Before I started claiming back my fees I asked X some questions.

Will I be black marked in anyway externally - i.e credit references on Experian and Equifax etc. She replied NO.

Would I be black marked Internally i.e on their banking system. She replied NO again your record will not be altered in anyway to the detriment the wost that will happen is that a note may be entered on my file indicating that I have reclaimed back charges in the past.

Will this stop me getting a new credit card, loan, mortgage etc if I required - NO why would we do that, we don't want to lose the customer that we could actually make money of.

Will the banks close my account - NO they make money off people who have charges so why would they wan't to get rid of them and why would the degrade my account?

Either she is BS'ing me in which case I will scratch her eyes out for leading down the garden path to financial doom or she has a point.

Mark7799

DIRTY_CASH wrote: »

I agree somewhat but will they really close the account when they are still making money off the offenders through their fees excessive or not?

Will the banks close my account - NO they make money off people who have charges so why would they wan't to get rid of them and why would the degrade my account?

Either she is BS'ing me in which case I will scratch her eyes out for leading down the garden path to financial doom or she has a point.

I've not quoted everything for reasons of space but if the levels of fees is reduced from £35-39 to ,say, £5, the Banks (whichever one) are not making money to the same level and therefore have no incentive to keep accounts open.

(Are we actually using this thread for the purpose it sounds as if it was intended for;) )

DIRTY_CASH

Fair point. I just don't think this is as doom and gloom as it sounds. Banks in other countries manage this a little better than in the UK. Maybe a review of banking practices as far as charging all round is long overdue.