How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

newreclaimer

I always thought the idea of lending money was so companies can make money from interest charges, not charging and just taking illegal penalty fees.
I dont think anybody has any problem with paying interest.

DickDastardly_2

Smasher, I was kind of expecting this type o fpost, although I was hoping for a more balanced view and an open discussion of the campaign. I think it is presumptious of you to say what I have and haven't experienced in my life seeing as you do not know me. As a matter of fact, I have experienced the spiral of debt right to the very bottom. And I cannot bleat about it because I chose to spend money I didn't have and that got me into trouble in the first place. I take the responsibility for my own action and although it took a lot of work and over a decade to get myself straight I still dont blame the debts collectors or the banks. The only grudge I bear was over the letter charges compounding the debt, but having said that, I shouldn't have been in a position to be getting the letters in the first place. And I cannot reply to the frankly silly proposition that T&Cs would have terms about breaking legs....:rolleyes:

As I said earlier, there has to be a balance and I fear the campaign has been skewed of late, even more-so now it is encompassing credit cards, etc. If they are making charges for unauthorised spending, unauthorised overdrafts then those costs must surely be the responsibility of the person spending the money, not the bank?

I fully support Martin's campaign to cease excessive and punative charges for letters, etc that make bad situations worse, but there must be balance surely if we are to avoid the inevitable backlash and re-introduction of banking charges across the board? As Martin has pointed out in his various publications, this money saving stuff is akin to a war, win this battle and the banks will strike back, make no bones about it. Thing is I fear that the silent non-overdraft using majority will suffer.

Smasher

DickDastardly wrote: »

Smasher, I was kind of expecting this type o fpost, although I was hoping for a more balanced view and an open discussion of the campaign. I think it is presumptious of you to say what I have and haven't experienced in my life seeing as you do not know me. As a matter of fact, I have experienced the spiral of debt right to the very bottom. And I cannot bleat about it because I chose to spend money I didn't have and that got me into trouble in the first place. I take the responsibility for my own action and although it took a lot of work and over a decade to get myself straight I still dont blame the debts collectors or the banks. The only grudge I bear was over the letter charges compounding the debt, but having said that, I shouldn't have been in a position to be getting the letters in the first place.

Thats your choice. Others are just not so preppared to allow an unlawful practice go unchallenged.

DickDastardly wrote: »

And I cannot reply to the frankly silly proposition that T&Cs would have terms about breaking legs....:rolleyes:

Then you have completely missed the point of that statement so I'll make it easier for you to understand. It doesn't matter what is in the terms & conditions, if the terms are against the law, they are unenforceable whether you agree to them or not.. Yes it is exaggerated, but the principle is the same.

DickDastardly wrote: »

As I said earlier, there has to be a balance and I fear the campaign has been skewed of late, even more-so now it is encompassing credit cards, etc. If they are making charges for unauthorised spending, unauthorised overdrafts then those costs must surely be the responsibility of the person spending the money, not the bank?

Credit card charges are even more blatently penalty charges. Again, you have missed the point. A penalty charge is against the law, whether you agree to it or not, it is unenforceable if it against the law. What about the responsibility of the lender? Just look at Northern Rock :rolleyes:

DickDastardly wrote: »

I fully support Martin's campaign to cease excessive and punative charges for letters, etc that make bad situations worse, but there must be balance surely if we are to avoid the inevitable backlash and re-introduction of banking charges across the board? As Martin has pointed out in his various publications, this money saving stuff is akin to a war, win this battle and the banks will strike back, make no bones about it. Thing is I fear that the silent non-overdraft using majority will suffer.

Well, if it turns out that banks have to start charging "non-overdraft using" customers to make up the dip in profits due to the loss of unlawful penalty charges, these "non-overdraft using" owe a huge thanks to those who paid these charges because it would mean that it is they who have been paying for their banking for all these years :rolleyes:

BIPO

I'm new to re-claiming charges and indeed this website. I have just posted my paperwork (fingers X'd for the outcome of the case). I have been reading this thread with interest and to quote DickDasterdly, 'but there must be balance surely if we are to avoid the inevitable backlash and re-introduction of banking charges across the board?' - I do agree, but don't you think that if pan-banking charges were to be re-introduced at a more legitimate level that is not considered unlawful, then perhaps this would be considered as fair by all?. A pan-banking charge below that of current un-auth'd overdraft charges may well prove to secure some silent non-overdraft users agianst potential unforseen over-spending in the future that would attract heavy charges. The suffering of non-overdraft users will at least be shared by all. We can't all peek around the corner to sneak-preview financial hurdles all the time, can we?...

DickDastardly_2

Just to clarify a few points raised there.

I am not 'on the side' of anyone but myself, and certainly not the banks, so don't take my posts as a support for them.

All I am saying is that individuals need to take some of the responsibility rgerading overdraft debt and credit card debt.

Yes it is wrong that some banks and credit companies try to lure people into spending money they perhaps dont have. Yes it is equally wrong that flagrant over-the-top charges should be challenged and I support that.

What I cannot fathom though, is that whilst Martin has been using a legal technicality to make the case, (and Smasher I am assuming this is where you getting the 'its illegal' bit from?), that doesn't nessecarily make it right.

The law as we all know is an !!!, and generally suits those that shout loudest or have the most cash to spend on barrister and the like, it is not a good indicator of right and wrong.

I just feel that some of the case Martin has highlighted on his TV show and looking at things more generally, it would seem to the casual observer that lots have people have spent far more money than they should have, got themselves into all sorts of trouble and are now blaming the 'evil' banks for all their ills, and I think this impression is incorrect at best and at worst a tad irresponsible.

I am sure that no-one from Barclays or Natwest came round to their hosue and held a gun to their heads to use the overdraft, or go mad with the credit card, etc. Mostly this is an issue of personal choices. All the individuals involved agreed to the T&Cs when the signed up for the accounts or cards and I bet no-one moaned about the charges when they where out merrily spending away.

Yet when the bubble bursts, suddenly it seems it is everyone elses fault, and that is wrong on many levels. I think there is a terrible culture in Britian of have now, pay later regardless of the consequences and that is not right.

I think that this campaign has the opportunity to be very effective in challenging many of the charges, but I also fear that the results are going ot be higher costs for us all, which means the net result is far more people becoming worse off and that cannot be a success by any yard stick.

Smasher

Ah ok fair enough, those who are plain irresponsible perhaps deserve a little less sympathy. However, all a bank has to do is refuse the payment & there is no problem to discuss.
Lets not kid anyone, these banks target those on low incomes as cash cows. Make easy money by allowing someone to slip into the red by a few pennies & take a significant portion of their income & therefore put them in a position where it is likely to continue happening.

I'll be honest, I learned what I know from bankchargeshell.co.uk, not here.
Its not a "legal technicality", it is a legal fact. This law exists for a reason, without it service contracts would be an absolute minefield..

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Well, if it turns out that banks have to start charging "non-overdraft using" customers to make up the dip in profits due to the loss of unlawful penalty charges, these "non-overdraft using" owe a huge thanks to those who paid these charges because it would mean that it is they who have been paying for their banking for all these years :rolleyes:

How naive can you get ... I hope you will be able to look in the faces of those that have struggled hard to make ends meet and each month they were responsible enough to just about balance the books ... these are the people whoa re going to suffer most, the ones that now may have to find an additional fee to operate their bank account which might be enough to tip them over the edge, alternatiively they may find that they are no longer entitled to any form of credit and realise that their cheques just bounce or debit cards are useless.

But don't worry maybe you can explain to these people how they owe the irresponsible and financially incompetent in society a grattitude of thanks.:rolleyes:

why do people also keep propagating the myth that the financially inept who pay charges are paying for the banking of mature and responsible adults .. it is one of those things somebody made up and everybody jumped on the band wagon to justify their own incompetence .. a bank can and does make profit from an account being operated in a responible manner .. just not as much.

Ivan

IvanOpinion

DickDastardly wrote: »

I think that this campaign has the opportunity to be very effective in challenging many of the charges, but I also fear that the results are going to be higher costs for us all, which means the net result is far more people becoming worse off and that cannot be a success by any yard stick.

That is WITHOUT DOUBT going to be the end game ... I have always said the banks may lose a battle but they will ultimately win the war. There is plenty of evidence that this is already happening

ivan

Nathan_Spleen

IvanOpinion wrote: »

That is WITHOUT DOUBT going to be the end game ... I have always said the banks may lose a battle but they will ultimately win the war. There is plenty of evidence that this is already happening

ivan

This is merely an opinoin and one which you have made repeatedly. You talk of 'plenty of evidence' but where is it? It's fine to have an opinion but I prefer to base mine on fact.

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

This is merely an opinoin and one which you have made repeatedly. You talk of 'plenty of evidence' but where is it? It's fine to have an opinion but I prefer to base mine on fact.

Wow, is that your contribution? Maybe you can enlighten us as to what facts you are basing your opinion on?

Look at savings rates, did you not notice that some of them dropped by 0.3% (and more) after the last base rate cut, what about mortgage rates, we saw increases beyond the 0.25% mark and even some 'intermediate rises', now look at credit card interest rates have been 'drifiting up' by significantly more than increases in base rates.. also very few (if any) free balance transfers now exist .. more recently I have to pay several hundred quid for a decent mortgage deal .. not all of these are in direct relation to the bank charges but some are.

keep an eye on such things, if you are not seeing the evidence then you are obvioulsy not looking and are only seeing and listening to what you want to. Are you actually naive enough to believe that the banks are not going to recover any lost profit?

Ivan