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

robpw2

MonkeyMad wrote: »

@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?

no i never recieved notification of the charges untill the money had been taken , my point being is if the charges were taken on the day they claim to be on the statement then the money would have been paid automatically but by taking on the 2nd it means they can charge yyou by claiming it was due on the 1st

innovate

robpw2 wrote: »

no i never recieved notification of the charges untill the money had been taken , my point being is if the charges were taken on the day they claim to be on the statement then the money would have been paid automatically but by taking on the 2nd it means they can charge yyou by claiming it was due on the 1st

Can you explain this again? So far I have understood:

• There were charges that were due on the 1st.
• They took them on the 2nd.
• You withdrew some money on the 1st because you noticed the charges had not been taken
• You now are in an overdraft situation

Apologies if this understanding is incorrect - can you please amend and/or provide further detail?

MonkeyMad

That's what I thought he was saying....

linniloo

Why do banks allow us to go overdrawn in the first place if we haven't got a pre-arranged overdraft?

Why doesn't the transaction just get rejected? They can't blame technology for this, surely? When I was younger (1990s) I went to buy a greetings card for £1.10. I had £7 in my account and the transaction was declined. As the bank worked in multiples of £10 and I didn't have at least £10 in my account, they wouldn't let me buy anything with my card. This was my understanding of how bank accounts work to this day, but it appears i am wrong (but wouldn't like to test it out in the card shop again).

TangerineDream, I'm sure you are long gone, but I for one sincerely sympathise with you and your sister and I hope you get it sorted. It IS an extortionate amount of money - I wish I could earn £1000 for lending someone a few quid. I am sure she will have learnt not to ignore letters in the future. I too have been shocked by the comments on here. I think the majority of the posters here are passionate about saving money and examining terms and conditions so they don't get caught out and end up giving banks their hard earned cash - good for them I say. Sadly however, I don't know many 19 yr olds who share this passion and they are vulnerable to organisations such as banks who will make money off them wherever they can.

Someone pointed out that money management should be taught in schools - I for one agree. Last year I taught 4 groups of year 10s (14-15yrs) money management as part of Social Education for 6 weeks. I am not a maths teacher, I am textiles by trade - we all tried our best but ultimately the kids found it dull because they couldn't relate to it. It was too abstract. No one from any of the banks wanted to come into school and talk to our kids and my knowledge was limited so I don't know if they got much out of it. It should be taught in maths, instead of things like cumulative frequencies (have I just made that up?!). There should be at least 1 project about money management that includes how bank accounts, credit cards, ISAs etc and mortgages work. But what do I know...?!

Gromitt

The banks say they don't want your payment to bounce just because you have not got the funds. If you go for a basic account then you can get your transaction declined instead, but its still possible to spend money you don't have (eg. spend money on card, authorisation falls off, withdraw from atm, shop takes money).

Looking at the posted statements however, it seems that she did have some kind of overdraft as the 'Unauthorised overdraft fee' didn't kick in until 7 months after the original charge, so maybe a £150 buffer? (There was only a £20/month charge prior to use - overdraft usage fee?)

So in all fairness, she was given plenty of time to pay the charges before the rediculous fees kicked in, but decided to stick head in sand and forget about it. Until it got over 1K.

The bank I believe has been fair, reducing the fees by £400. Its not their fault she ignored the account for so long.

JuicyJesus

linniloo wrote:

Why do banks allow us to go overdrawn in the first place if we haven't got a pre-arranged overdraft?

Why do you try and spend money you don't have? If you don't do that, you don't get charged.

I have to wonder about people who say that. That's always their excuse - "the bank should have said no". So they wanted to go to the supermarket, pick up loads of stuff and then go pay for it, and then have the bank say no so it all has to be put back? Or they had a Direct Debit coming out and they wanted the bank to bounce it so they had an unpaid bill?

Did you know you didn't have enough money in your account? If you did know, why were you trying to spend more? If you didn't, why didn't you check?

Or should they let the transaction go through, for free? That's a nonsense.

Don't draw out money you don't have and you'll never get charged. There are indeed very good reasons to go overdrawn - if the choice was between me walking 100 miles home in the p*ssing rain at midnight, or paying a £22 Reserve fee to Barclays to buy a train ticket home, you bet I'd fork over the £22. That is a service. If people wish to use that service because they can't be bothered to look at what they are spending then that is their choice. More fool them.

Sadly however, I don't know many 19 yr olds who share this passion and they are vulnerable to organisations such as banks who will make money off them wherever they can.

She wasn't vulnerable. She was an idiot. I'm rather sick of people who are just plainly quite stupid and who have done stupid things being conflated with people who are genuinely in a position where they might not understand what they're getting into, or where they are actually in a position where they could be taken advantage of.

Someone who can't read their bank statements is vulnerable. Someone who can but doesn't is an idiot. The average 19 year old, especially one going to uni, is more than capable of opening their letters, reading them and taking action based upon what they contain. The OP's sister didn't.

It doesn't need passion, just a basic sense of responsibility and common sense.

Gromitt wrote:

Looking at the posted statements however, it seems that she did have some kind of overdraft as the 'Unauthorised overdraft fee' didn't kick in until 7 months after the original charge, so maybe a £150 buffer? (There was only a £20/month charge prior to use - overdraft usage fee?)

NatWest changed their fee structure to a daily fee from a single monthly maintenance fee around that time, explaining the huge leap.

linniloo

JuicyJesus, I didn't explain myself particularly well - I am not suggesting that we try and spend money we haven't got deliberately, just with lots of things coming out of your account it can be difficult to keep on track with your balance at times. I am not condoning "going to the supermarket and buying loads of stuff that I can't afford" - far from it! I can't spend more cash than I have in my hand so why have the banks decided that if I have it in their control that I can, but then charge me for the privilege?

Yes. I for one would prefer an account that declined any payments of this sort. Yes, I would prefer to leave things in a shop and go home slightly red faced but not waiting for a bank to charge me £20.00 for going a few quid over my balance 14 days later, thank you very much. No, I do not expect them to allow the transaction at all, let alone for free. I never asked for this service and I don't want it. I suppose its too easy for the banks to let them through however (despite having the means to stop them) and cream off more money in charges.

CKhalvashi

I stomached a charge from HSBC for going over limit the other month by about £13, due to a miscommunication with OH and putting a large transaction through. It was paid, I didn’t moan. It was my fault that I didn’t communicate with OH, knowing that we hadn’t crossed paths for over 24h (funny working patterns).

Do I think that your sister should be doing the same? Yes, I do. She messed up, she didn’t open her post and she got herself into a mess.

She moans about the bank making money from something (IMO rightly) being taken from the account, but isn’t grateful that over £400 has been refunded, because she can’t keep a cap on her spending! I’m in business myself, and know that I need to make a profit to keep my children in a home. One of my BTL mortgages is £624 a month, I charge the T £1200 a month to live in the property. Look, I’m ripping the T off :eek:

I don’t necessarily budget, but I do know roughly what’s in the account 99% of the time, and will stick to that. If I mess up, my problem. If I see something I want and can afford, I’ll buy it (I’ve bought 2 of the last 3 cars I’ve owned whilst driving past a dealership, driving it, and getting OH’s permission. One lasted 198k miles and the other is 2 weeks old with about 5k on it.)

If she can’t stick to a legally binding contract, I certainly wouldn’t employ her.

Sorry to be blunt, but as many problems MW have caused us in the past, I’m siding with the them (for once).

CK

k12479

linniloo wrote: »

I am sure she will have learnt not to ignore letters in the future. I too have been shocked by the comments on here...

I think many people commenting are shocked that it appears that at least 12 statements, if not more, were never opened and read. What happened to them, is there a stack of year old letters waiting to be opened? Did they go straight in the bin? Opening and glancing at a letter to determine if it might be worth reading takes all of what, 20 seconds?

linniloo wrote: »

Someone pointed out that money management should be taught in schools - I for one agree....It should be taught in maths, instead of things like cumulative frequencies (have I just made that up?!)...

Perhaps, but maybe it's something that parents should be teaching their children. While pupils are learning how not to incur bank fees, pupils in India, China and Brazil will be learning cumulative frequencies and there's already enough complaints about the level of numeracy and literacy amongst Britains young.

linniloo wrote: »

I for one would prefer an account that declined any payments of this sort.

I think you can get these or request it. If it was made standard then complaints would just shift from "My bank charged me..." to "My mortgage/Sky/mobile/gym wasn't paid just because I was 2 pence short and now they're charging me..."

JuicyJesus

linniloo wrote: »

JuicyJesus, I didn't explain myself particularly well - I am not suggesting that we try and spend money we haven't got deliberately, just with lots of things coming out of your account it can be difficult to keep on track with your balance at times.

ATMs. Telephone banking. Internet banking. Mobile banking. Branches. All of these can give you an up to the minute balance. Or you can work out how much you have to spend each month on payday and withdraw that amount. It really isn't rocket science. Most people manage it.

Again - if you don't take responsibility for your finances, you will get screwed over.

I am not condoning "going to the supermarket and buying loads of stuff that I can't afford" - far from it! I can't spend more cash than I have in my hand so why have the banks decided that if I have it in their control that I can, but then charge me for the privilege?

Because that's what you agreed to when you opened your account. And beyond that, because you're the one authorising the payment. If you go into a shop, put your card in and enter your PIN, you are in effect telling them "I would like you to pay this shop £xyz". And they assume that even if you don't have the funds, you're responsible enough to know that you don't, and that therefore you must want to borrow the money.

Which goes back to something else I said. If you don't know if you have enough money, why don't you try and find out?

Yes. I for one would prefer an account that declined any payments of this sort. Yes, I would prefer to leave things in a shop and go home slightly red faced but not waiting for a bank to charge me £20.00 for going a few quid over my balance 14 days later, thank you very much.

Well go and get a basic bank account then. They exist. They're not perfect though, because unfortunately not all transactions can be declined (yes, really). The only way to 100% prevent getting charged fees is to take responsibility for your own finances and not delegate it to the bank.

No, I do not expect them to allow the transaction at all, let alone for free. I never asked for this service and I don't want it.

Yes you did, because you asked for them to pay a transaction you didn't have funds for, which they are entitled to treat as a request for an overdraft. The time to find out if you have enough money for what you want to buy is before you go into the shop, not after. Again, accounts that don't allow this exist, they're called basic bank accounts and you can get one if you want one. You won't get a cheque book or an agreed overdraft (or sometimes any lending at all) and you can't use pay at pump machines and if you're a penny short for your mortgage you'll get a late payment marker on your credit file but you'll get what you want. But if you want a grown-up's account then you have to behave like a grown-up.

I suppose its too easy for the banks to let them through however (despite having the means to stop them) and cream off more money in charges.

Or you could just run your account properly and take responsibility for your own spending, and then you won't pay them a penny.

k12479 wrote: »

I think you can get these or request it. If it was made standard then complaints would just shift from "My bank charged me..." to "My mortgage/Sky/mobile/gym wasn't paid just because I was 2 pence short and now they're charging me..."

Have you not realised? Anything banks do is automatically wrong now.