Natwest charged me £35

MarkyMarkD

Lyndsay_21 wrote:

From what i gather i dont think it is the the other companys fault (barclays insurance) i think because i didn't have enough funds in there by COB friday Natwest sent the DD back.This is what the lending guy at natwest i spoke to told me. I will have to phone up barclays tomorrow and ask them if it was them who took it early.

OK, now I get it. So the money was due out on Monday, and you didn't have cleared funds available in the account by the close of business on the previous banking day (Friday).

I'm sorry you didn't understand that you had to do this, in order to meet the DD.

I don't agree with digp - the article quoted doesn't prove anything at all, as the bank involved didn't defend the claim and therefore judgement was entered in default. The idea that a single charge of £35 is

extravagant and unconscionable[/b] is rather laughable IMHO. The whole idea that bank charges are penalties, rather than agreed fees for services provided, is a rather flaky one, again IMHO.

Lyndsay_21

Ok i'm really confused now one person telling me one thing, someone else telling me something else. What im going to do is write a letter and see what happens they'll either refund it or they wont (finger crossed they will). I just will have to make sure next time i've got the right amount in there before COB the day before.

digp

It's deeply worrying when people start spouting rubbish -as some have done in this post. It is one thing to have a different view point, but another to publish views based on either ignorance or foolishness.

digp

MarkyMark [snip a load of ignorant rubbish]

I don't agree with digp - the article quoted doesn't prove anything at all, as the bank involved didn't defend the claim and therefore judgement was entered in default. The idea that a single charge of £35 is extravagant and unconscionable is rather laughable IMHO. The whole idea that bank charges are penalties, rather than agreed fees for services provided, is a rather flaky one, again IMHO.

Frankly, whether you agree with me is neither here nor there. I get paid for my opinions on matters of law on a daily basis; I doubt very much that you can say the same.

The articles are cited as examples. If you want to look up the case law, have a read of Treital on the Law of Contract, for example, or Chitty on Contracts, or, even better, hire a [city] lawyer and get him to give you his opinion, instead of spouting tosh yourself [...]

Walletwatch

digp wrote:

Frankly, whether you agree with me is neither here nor there. I get paid for my opinions on matters of law on a daily basis; I doubt very much that you can say the same.

The articles are cited as examples. If you want to look up the case law, have a read of Treital on the Law of Contract, for example, or Chitty on Contracts, or, even better, hire a [city] lawyer and get him to give you his opinion, instead of spouting tosh yourself [...]

I must say, the tone this individual's posts are taking deeply concern me. It is totally upto any poster on this site, digp, to agree or disagree with you. If you have any further information that you can offer, to add value, you are welcome to do it, and prove your point. If you take posts personally, where they disagree with you, and post such childish messages, I am afraid you're only ridiculing yourself and reducing your own credibility. None of your claims of "getting paid for your opinions on matter of law" is going to sail in such cases, unless you back it up with rational facts, instead of emotional nonsense.

It is totally upto anybody on this site to agree or disagree with your views. People will just ignore you if you make it a one-on-one instead of sticking to the underlying issue being discussed.

davidcampbell

MarkyMarkD wrote:

I'm sorry you didn't understand that you had to do this, in order to meet the DD.

I don't agree with digp - the article quoted doesn't prove anything at all, as the bank involved didn't defend the claim and therefore judgement was entered in default. The idea that a single charge of £35 is

extravagant and unconscionable[/b] is rather laughable IMHO. The whole idea that bank charges are penalties, rather than agreed fees for services provided, is a rather flaky one, again IMHO.

have to agree mark.

charges are levied as a deterrent. on a bank account a customer will only be charged if they overdraw their account, if an item takes them overdrawn or if an item has to be returned because they would have gone overdrawn

to put it bluntly, if they spend money which isnt their own.

if they spend (or try to, whether by mistake or not) the banks money without permission.

(lyndsay this is not an attack against you, just general comments)

post#43 - davidcampbell - the PDC comment was just a 'tongue in cheek' remark - just to highlight the fact that the Direct Debit system, cleared funds etc are not the only procedures in the british banking system that are misunderstood, or people are ignorant of them generally, largely due to the fact that even though they are given T&C's when they open accounts, take out cards or apply for anything in general - the only time they read the T&C is when something has gone wrong! - the thread has been about Lyndsay_21 not knowing about the T&C of her bank account

gotcha. although i have some issues about this too but thats for another day. :rolleyes:

virgin_moneysaver

post#56 - I agree walletwatch, his dismissive tone was uncalled for- obviously someone who is full of his own self-importance

virgin_moneysaver

post#57 - charges are only levied if you exceed whats agreed with the bank - you can go overdrawn & not pay return fees etc as long as you have an arranged overdraft limit - the fees arise when you either overdraw the account & have no limit or you exceed the overdraft limit that you have