How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

IvanOpinion

amancalledchip wrote: »

can see free banking coming to an end

I don;t think so .. I would suggest that more accurately those that can least afford it will lose their free banking. Those that lodge (e.g.) £1500-2000 per month will probably still get their free banking, credit facilities, free overdrafts etc.

Those that do not earn this sort of money could well end up with basic non credit bank accounts (free, but no ability to spend what they do not have ... embarassment at check outs etc.) or they can pay for credit facilities and assoicated charges (if they over spend).

Sadly many of these people were responsible, managed their money on tight budgets and kept close track of the numbers .. they are likely to be the ones punished the most by the irresponsbility and cavalier atitude of others. But then why should those people care, just as long as this society continues to reward stupidity, laziness and failure they will claim back charges.

The other bit I think is disgrceful is that banks, as part of the settlement, are not removing credit from the people making the claim. They must start doing this.

Ivan

Knackered

What makes you anti-reclaimers believe you have the right to free anything? This isn't a communist country you know. Do you expect that you should have free car insurance subsidised by the unfortunate few who have accidents? Get real, and shut up.

By the way, the courts have constantly ruled in favour of reclaimers so clearly there IS something unlawful in the what the banks were doing, therefore you are wrong. Fact.

amancalledchip

because the banks offererd us free banking.

did they offer the claimers the option to go over their agreed overdraft then expect to pay nothing for it.

nickmack

amancalledchip wrote: »

because the banks offererd us free banking.

What they offer is 'fee-free' banking if you're in credit, this is not 'free' banking. This is subsidised by those who incur charges.

If no one incurred any charges because all accounts were well managed, the money would be recouped through other means, such as account running fees.

If the charges are found unlawful, a similar situation may arise. Of course, if you haven't incurred charges, you may not be pleased. If you have, it is generally seen as a fairer (lawful) way to cover the cost an account.

Most people are looking after No.1 which is understandable. However, I have to question the morals of those who advocate subsidising their banking with unlawful charges incurred by others, if that is the result.

The banks of course don't *have* to charge account fees, even if the income stream of charges dries up. The banking profit model is incredibly complex and I don't pretend to understand exactly how costs incurred are covered by income regarding customer accounts. As a profit making business though, it seems the customer is an easy target to both blame and make money from than perhaps other sources of income.

cheqmate06

Banks can't afford to lose customers and so i feel bank accounts will always be free. Banks make a lot of interest out of the better customers and this counter balances against those who claim.
Banks will end up being like supermarkets, cutting charges and offering incentives in order to get more custom.

Mark7799

cheqmate06 wrote: »

Banks can't afford to lose customers and so i feel bank accounts will always be free. Banks make a lot of interest out of the better customers and this counter balances against those who claim.
Banks will end up being like supermarkets, cutting charges and offering incentives in order to get more custom.

I disagree. I think banks will be more likely to cherry pick customers. They will offer 'fee free' incentives to those who use a lot of products from the same bank or deposit >£x per month but those who are low earning are likely to end up having to pay more or be offered accounts with very limited facilities.

ianianian_2

This article is not written to simply provoke a response; I honestly want to know why it is perceived that bank charges are unfair? <o></o>
People know they will be charged if they spend more than they have so I don’t see what right they have to complain? It seems to me that this bank charges case is just something jumped upon by people who have managed their money badly in the past (there is of course exception to this). <o></o>
I know many people who have claimed money back, but there was pretence of being hard done by, they spent money they didn’t have on things they didn’t need and suffered the consequences. They knew they would be charged and accepted it, yet now these charges are being redeemed and I am unsure why and what message this sends?<o></o>
I believe the argument is something to do with the fact it does not cost the bank anywhere near what they charge, but is that really the point? A parking ticket must only cost a few pound in admin charges yet the fine is £30/60, however the point is to discourage people from parking where they shouldn’t and I’m sure people prefer this to a jail term?<o></o>
If it is the case that the reason that bank charges are classed as unfair is the gap in the costs and profit to the bank, then why aren’t people taking them to court to lower mortgage rates? I find it a far greater issue that banks make hundreds of thousands of pounds for lending people money to buy a home (a human need) than banks charging £50 for someone taking money they shouldn’t.<o>
</o>

fedupnow

ianianian

I agree. Perhaps we can tackle the mortgages next.

I signed an agreement with the bank when I opened the account and stuck to it. In hindsight I should have taken however much I needed to buy whatever I wanted and then kicked up a fuss when they wouldn't let me borrow it, without permission for free.

The original case Martin quotes, about the woman on benefits who got into trouble when her benefits were not paid in on time, is an isolated incident. The benefit office should have been made to pay the associated costs - it was their error not the banks. When it is the account holders own fault then they should pay. I just don't get it at all.

Whitedove

adam_NI wrote: »

i would disagree that you've saved me any money on this front!

the bottom line is this "dont spend beyond your means!". you shouldnt expect the bank to run your account for you, i would love to hear anyone's comments on this, everyone is entitled to their opinions on any matter! but i dont look forward to my monthly banking charge thanks to all you lazy people!!1

Hi Adam,
How right you are! If you do not have enough money in your account then arrange an overdraft. If you take money from a bank and it does not belong to you or has been agreed that they will lend it to you then you are stealing! If you steal money from a bank you are stealing from those of us who have money saved there. If you steal money from me then I expect you to be punished. Everyone is aware of the rules and aware of the extreme punishments inflicted. If you don't want to be punished don't steal the money.

Knackered

I don't get cricket but I don't go onto cricket forums to criticise them for liking it.