How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

Alias_Omega

I would class myself as an good customer, therefore this charge is a little OTT.

nickmack

Jarlawuk wrote: »

Also despite breaching the terms and conditions of the account quite clearly (and knowingly), don't really see anyone turning around and saying "£5 would be a fair charge so I just want the difference back".

Not sure why any customer would be able to specify the actual cost of the breach. It's the bank who hold this information.

pigsmightfly

nads wrote: »

Hi Adam,

You raise some very interesting points...


Firstly, well done in your ability to manage your finances better than others.


Couldn't agree with you more even if I tried!


Unlike a bank charge, you actually received the "pleasure" of watching a film from that £5.60 you spent. Remember it was your decision to go to the cinema.
In my opinion it is not the fine that is the issue it is the extravagant amount the bank fine that is. £30 for being overdrawn from say £1 - to anything upwards. Really it cost the bank £30 to run an automated script which processed outgoing values and mark the transaction as requiring a letter to be sent whcih again would be an automated process. I don't think so.


Thanks for the words of wisdom!


And we're not a money pit! You do realise the money you put into your bank account is used as liability for their stock brokers to invest that money buying shares in companies from low-risk to high-risk as well as lending to individuals and banks. Lets say your money was used as a loan to an individual who kept on missing their payment date and kept getting charged fines, the bank keeps getting £30 - why don't you get it any of hat £30?!
We as customers are taking a risk putting money in our accounts for them to spend. It just happens to be that we live in a stable economy and banks don't go bust ala Bearings Bank did in the 90s. When my account is in credit, they're using my money.


It's not that simple. A horrible, horrible snowball effect can take place. Take my example, I changed jobs and my new payroll date was the 10 days late and I ended up with bank fees of £230 last month, now I've got to somehow save £230 this month so the same thing will not happen at the end of this month. This is coming from someone with far fewer expenses than families who needto decide will it be the bills and food or the excessive bank charge.



From your opinions, you appear to be financially sound so I don't see why you are so concerned about the service charge First Direct has introduced. If brought in by other banks (I bet a tenner Barclays will) it will be filtered to only affect a small % of people and guess what it will be those who already have difficulty keeping their accounts in credit. It's the way the cookie crumbles...

I hope that helps you to understand my view of the situation.

Think your reply to Adam was spot on - couldnt agree more with what you replied

nemo183

I entirely agree that banks and credit card companies have been overcharging for going over a credit limit. This must happen to us all from time to time, and it's a real pain. However, I keep reading that people are looking forward to going back six years, to claim for multiple charges that have been made month in, month out.

At some point it is surely the responsibility of the account holder to get their act together and stay within the limits that were agreed when they opened these accounts. In the USA, exceeding an agreed balance figure would be treated as fraud - a criminal offence.

Instead, in this forum, we have people banging on about their charges - which, at the end of the day, they agreed and signed up to when they took up the card/overdraft. Whilst it might very well be that these charges are way too high, surely we all have a moral responsibility to remain within the limits we agreed.

If an account holder continually takes it upon themselves to exceed the limit they agreed to, surely they must accept the consequences.

Whilst this is a money saving site, it is also a money management site.

Perhaps it would just be simpler if those people that are unable to keep within the limits they agreed should just have their cards taken away, and their accounts closed. If they are unable to manage their finances in a responsible way, why on earth should they be allowed to keep the facilities they agreed to?

ukmonkey

nemo183 - thanks for the post.

I perhaps agree that yes, there is some responsibility that rests on the shoulder's of the account holder. But all too often we hear bang's (et al) banging on about how they are "responsible lenders". The problem, for most people is, that the first charge or two has a "domino effect" and just sends them into a seemingly endless spiral of debt.

I'd suspect that a lot of people, if that charges weren't as high as they were, would not be in as much debt and have as many problems, as they do at the moment (have had in the past, for those that came through it all).

In my opinion, the banks that are charging disproportionate penatlies are not fit to hold a UK credit licence (i.e that is, for them, effectively, not fit to trade by giving credit). Will the FSA and/or other relevent bodies look at withdrawing their credit licences? No! Could you imagine the effect it'd have on the economy, overnight, if noone could get a credit card, noone could get an overdraft, etc etc etc.

With regards to your citation about the situation in the United States with regards to exceeding your overdraft limit, I fail to see the reasoning behind it being treated as fraud.

In my opinion, if there is no money in your account to cover a payment, it doesn't get authorised, end of. Yes, I appreciate that this would screw some of us when we're getting a few "bits" the day or two before pasy day, me included sometimes(!), but this would avoid a lot of the penalty charges problem. I know some banks already work like this, and some have limits. But they actually charge your for them not allowing a payment through. I mean, what the hell is that about? You might have seen it referenced on here in places, generally called "card misuse charge".

So to me, it isn't fraud. Perhaps, morally, a little "bad", but for some people, there is no choice, and knowing that they will get hit with a hefty "fine", they still need to commit the "crime" anyway just to live.

You mentioned about people having facilities withdrawn. This is often a last last LAST resort, due to the banks losing money in terms of interest, and more prominantly, penalty charges. Just my opinion, that's all.

HSBC actually have an internal "coding system", to gauge what sort of customer you are. One of these is smething along the lines of "Good customer - potential for repeat bank charges". They will then tailor the way they manage your banking to maximise their pofits, such as reducing your overdraft in order to make more in charges from you, giving you a credit card because they can see you are poor at managing your money, and they hope you'll stray over your limit a few times. They're not daft (well, they are, but that's a different story!), they just see the pound signs at the end of the day, like nearly all companies, and unfortunatley, they have been too profit driven in the past, and now the fightback is on.

To summarise, I appreciate where you're coming from, but the banks have responsibilities, both legally and morally, and these are currently not being fulfiled.

chris1275gt

nemo183 wrote: »

I entirely agree that banks and credit card companies have been overcharging for going over a credit limit. This must happen to us all from time to time, and it's a real pain. However, I keep reading that people are looking forward to going back six years, to claim for multiple charges that have been made month in, month out.

At some point it is surely the responsibility of the account holder to get their act together and stay within the limits that were agreed when they opened these accounts. In the USA, exceeding an agreed balance figure would be treated as fraud - a criminal offence.

Instead, in this forum, we have people banging on about their charges - which, at the end of the day, they agreed and signed up to when they took up the card/overdraft. Whilst it might very well be that these charges are way too high, surely we all have a moral responsibility to remain within the limits we agreed.

If an account holder continually takes it upon themselves to exceed the limit they agreed to, surely they must accept the consequences.

Whilst this is a money saving site, it is also a money management site.

Perhaps it would just be simpler if those people that are unable to keep within the limits they agreed should just have their cards taken away, and their accounts closed. If they are unable to manage their finances in a responsible way, why on earth should they be allowed to keep the facilities they agreed to?

My situation 5 and 6 years ago. Some weeks i was paid on Thursday, on occasions it was not get credited till Friday.
I had small direct debits on the 1st (four of them) and one for £4.00 on the 5th.
Yes i should have kept a check on things but when you are dashing all over the country its hard to remember to check things at 70MPH to do a 12 hour shift.
The result once the bank refused to pay three of the ones on the 1st and charged me £35 for each. Total £105 in one day. Also this was more than the DD. On several occasions they did the same with the £4.00 charging £35 and recently £38. Years ago they sent out letters about the bounced payments and that the charge was to cover the cost of the letters. As far as i can remember they have not sent out letters for a few years. Another point with my account is most times when i have been charged a credit paid in has not cleared until just the day after the charge. They then pay the item refused a few days earlier. It does seem unfair to me that they can refuse £4.00 and charge you£38 when say £300 is credited the next day.
Lucky for me i don`t have the problems now that i had 5 or 6 years ago.
and charged

regularsaver1

Alias_Omega wrote: »

I would class myself as an good customer, therefore this charge is a little OTT.

problem is the bank don't

if a customer writes a letter saying they have been a customer for 20 years, yet they racked up £1000 in charges, they would not be a good customer to have charges to them

krisskross

chris1275gt wrote: »

My situation 5 and 6 years ago. Some weeks i was paid on Thursday, on occasions it was not get credited till Friday.
I had small direct debits on the 1st (four of them) and one for £4.00 on the 5th.
Yes i should have kept a check on things but when you are dashing all over the country its hard to remember to check things at 70MPH to do a 12 hour shift.

Why didn't you just alter the day the DDs came out? Every DD I have ever set up asks ME to choose the day for payment.

I used to work 12 hour shifts as well. But I also had internet banking 6 years ago.

esmerellda

Many companys tell you they cant change the payment date - or give you a choice of three of four usually inconventiently placed dates. When i switchedto my parachute account afer i started claiming I adjusted everything I paid except the mortgage to go out by standing order rather than DD - then I am in control.

Jessie_M

Firstly, I've doing internet banking now for about 6 months, so I've been keeping a close eye on myaccounts with the Halifax. A few weeks ago though I had a direct debit on my account for £18.83, (I hadn't checked my banking on this paryicular day), anyway there was only £16.73 in my account so I was short of £2.10 (quit alot of money hey). Well anyway the bank didn't pay the direct debit and then sent me letter trying to charge me £39.00. I tell you I was not best pleased. I did get the charge refunded back to me but it's not the point, banks do have a responsibility to their customers and when they do things like this the trust dissolves, if they started being fair to us the consumers then maybe we would be fair to them.