Well annoyed, banks are crap. Have they screwed over my little sister? Is this fair!?

BritRael

mildred1978 wrote: »

I think you've missed the sarcasm in BritRael's post.

You beat me to it! :T

mildred1978

saterkey wrote: »

Its another strong argument to put financial lessons into schools, I thought my daughter would do this in living to learn lessons but instead theyve done drugs, healthy eating and sex about 5 times each, no financial planning, which i think is ridiculous as its so important. She will be doing business alevel so will hopefully have it in great detail, but will also do lots of instruction myself.

Unless its changed radically in the 17 years since I did mine, A level business does not explicitly cover personal finances. Some principles are transferrable, but it won't be in any detail.

MonkeyMad

saterkey wrote: »

Its another strong argument to put financial lessons into schools, <snip>

This used to be called arithmetic when I was at school eg balance £100, withdraw £120 =-£20 = not good.

Not difficult is it?

Turtle

No doubt you were expecting a lot more sympathy from this website. I for one think it's refreshing to read something that's not completely bank bashing and there is some realisation that banks are businesses, not charities. One of the biggest problems today in my opinion, is many people's complete inability to take responsibility for their actions.

mildred1978

MonkeyMad wrote: »

This used to be called arithmetic when I was at school eg balance £100, withdraw £120 =-£20 = not good.

Not difficult is it?

Indeed. We also studied compound interest and other useful financial concepts as part of maths.

Mind you, it seems that a GCSE in Maths or English is no longer any indicator of numeracy or literacy....................

Employers told the panel that they only saw grades A to C in English, Welsh and maths as "initial indicators" of ability. "They also tell us that candidates with these qualifications are not necessarily literate or numerate," the consultation says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-18270027

robpw2

I don't understand how the op could get it so very wrong , i mean thats a hell of a lot of charges for essentially what could have been a very small mistake.
However i am not in favour of the banks either especially the way they rejig transactions to suit themselves

yesterday was the 1st of june , apparently i found out today the 2nd of june i owed lloyds charges that were due out the 1st of june , only those charges didnt come out yesterday when money went into the account for wages had they done so i wouldnt have woken up to this morning money dissapeering , i know because i logged in yesterday and withdraw money too etc , however looking at the statement it now says the charges were taken on the 1st of june so any transactions yesterday over the amount i had in my account had the charges been taken properly results in a charge -thus the bank makes money charging me for the fact that i have taken more money then my balance even though all day yesterday these charges were not on the system ,,. banks only want to help themselves

MonkeyMad

@mildred1978:
Indeed. I notice a recurring trend in many of these types of thread ie the modern usage of the word 'naive' where 'stupid' would equally and more accurately suffice. The mind also boggles where this also commonly precedes being told they are about to head off to University ie they are supposed to form the UK intellectual elite.

Since now 50% of young people head to University, we must conclude that the vast majority of 'clever' people are indeed now actually quite dim, which really makes you worry about the state of those below average...

@robpw2:
I hope you are not saying that you were told the charges would come on 1 June and they did, but in the meantime you took too much money out because they hadn't posted the charges on your balance?

JuicyJesus

lolavix wrote: »

I still find it unbelievable that after all the publicity over bank charges people can ignore all correspondence from their bank for so long and then moan that they're in debt.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people still don't realise that you can go overdrawn even without an overdraft facility, and that this is a service that attracts charges. You'd think people would realise that by now.

JuicyJesus

Turtle wrote: »

No doubt you were expecting a lot more sympathy from this website. I for one think it's refreshing to read something that's not completely bank bashing and there is some realisation that banks are businesses, not charities. One of the biggest problems today in my opinion, is many people's complete inability to take responsibility for their actions.

The thing is, unconditional bank bashing is just stupid. Banks should act fairly to their customers, and fairness includes treating customers consistently and doing what they say they will. It does not include the customer being completely shielded from the consequences of their own actions (or in this case, inaction) or their own responsibilities.

If the OP's sister had noticed she was overdrawn and came to an arrangement with the bank early on when she noticed she was being charged and was having difficulty repaying the money, I would have a lot more sympathy for her than I do at the moment.

Fiddlestick

TangerineDream wrote: »

Do you get a thousand pound fine for failing to buy a parking ticket for the first time?

No, you get a (round here anyway) 60 pound penalty that's reduced to 30 pounds if you pay in 14 days.

It is increased to 60 if you stick your head in the sand and do nothing.

Do you get a thousand pound fine for speeding the first time?

No, you generally get a fine through the door that escalates to a court appearance and prosecution if you stick your head in the sand and do nothing.

Do you see a theme here?