Yeh Nice One Martin .......... Not

southernscouser

Nelski wrote:

There is a question that is over all this publicity and success for claiming back the charges - Just who will pay because it for sure wont be the banks they like any other business will pass on an increase in costs to the consumer - us. Isnt this just a vicious circle?

And this is what it's all about. I've lost count of the times I've said this.

People being charged unlawfully have been subsidising banking for all those who never get charged. Now all of a sudden it's on the other foot and those who 'might' now start having to start paying their fair share don't like. So who do they blame? :rolleyes:

Thats what it all boils down to. The banks turn everyone against each other and people fall for it hook line and sinker.

HSBC didn't introduce a charge for bank accounts because of bank charges being reclaimed. They did it because they are greedy barstewards who think they can get away with it, and while people spend all their time fighting each other on here instead of fighting the banks they are watching from a dar counting there ever increasing profits.

Quasar

I am in the fortunate position of having savings and no debt. I am not against the banks making a good profit, partly for obvious selfish reasons, partly because businesses need profits to carry on.

However on one occasion, due to an oversight and the fact that, being self-employed I have money coming in at irregular intervals, I found myself overdrawn by the princely sum of £3.15. This "huge" overdraft lasted for three days. I was charged £70. The explanation was that the three days crossed from one month to the other and the charges were £35 per month.

Now I find the above rather extortionate. While it is in my interest (as a saver) that banks make a profit, I think there comes a point where their excesses need to be curbed before they get out of hand and may cause worse problems - ie. large number of people getting really desperate and refusing to pay credit cards etc. point blank. That may not be very good for the economy.

It is also true that people perhaps need to reassess the way they spend. Those who are in debt because of illness, divorce, bereavement, redundancy etc, of course need every penny they have and it is grossly unfair that banks make money out of their misery.

However there are also those who borrow to the hilt in order to have the latest model of everything, from the PC to the TV to the whatever. These people need to learn that want and need are very different things.#

That said, if the bank are charging unlawfully, then they really haven't got much in the way of defense. So the two sides have equally valid points, and the only solution I can see is yes, let's have bank charges, but not extortionate ones.

Nelski

southernscouser wrote:

Because some people do actually live hand to mouth. They literally don't have spare penny each month and by not paying by direct debit they are now getting charged an extra £3 a month on bills. Lets say you have 6 outgoings on DD's. You now need to find an extra £18 a month! :eek:

Im not sure this is an argument about charges though - if you are out of pocket very single month then something has to give and its not down to the banks its down to you. Why should the banks fund your debt?

SmileyHappyBeing

reehsetin wrote:

im sorry but anyone with some common sense would have enough money set aside, at least say £50 set aside for emergencies so they wouldnt have to worry about feeding their child, your telling me that there is no way at all you could have had £50 set aside,
i can understand a series of unfortunate circumstances meaning you run out of emergency money but not having even enough for food set aside just seems silly

Not getting involved in the bank charges debate, but would like to comment on this.. Before me and oh got together a few years back i was on benefits for a while (a while after id had my dd) and it was extremley hard finacially, yes i cut back on luxuries etc etc and tried to live within my means but when i was only getting £105 (roughly was a few years ago) a week to live on (which yes is manageable,just) and you have your gas, electric, phone bill, tv licence (was weekly as on benefits), water rates, travel expenses, food, had to top up my rent myself (was with ex and we were paying rent and then we split and they classed property to big, but thats another story ), and day to day living expenses , toiletries etc, and unforseen things that tended to crop up it is very, very hard to stay within your budget...

How on earth are you meant to just have £50 lying around for an emergency if you are in that situation even now with oh working and me part time money is still tight...we dont have credit cards or an overdraft and we live with what we've got and im proud to say ive prob had 4 bank charges in the last few years as it would of just totaly f**ked my finances to pay the charges, and one off them i got let off as i rang and begged them to reverse it as it would off totaly screwed my money situation up for months all for something that wasnt my fault (new dir deb and i received letter advising me off date after the dd had tried to take my money ).. anyway i said i wasnt gonna comment on the bank charges but my point is, not everyone is so lucky to just have 50 quid lying around

krisskross

Perhaps we could look at this another way.I am selling my house , I instruct an Estate Agent and sign his contract saying i will pay him 1%. Darned house sells to the first viewer the next day, full asking price. So I have to pay £2000 despite the fact that the EA has done pretty well nothing. Now do I try to welsh on the deal saying the £2000 is not a fair reflection of the service he has rendered to me? That it did not cost the EA all that dosh to sell my house, even though I signed a contract agreeing to it. So where is the difference between that and the bank levying charges that I have agreed to when I signed up?

Al_Mac

studentphil wrote:

However, in all fairness charges that are reclaimed are [STRIKE]illegal[/STRIKE] ones

i think you'll find the correct term is unlawful

tesuhoha

Nelski wrote:

There is a question that is over all this publicity and success for claiming back the charges - Just who will pay because it for sure wont be the banks they like any other business will pass on an increase in costs to the consumer - us. Isnt this just a vicious circle?

But they would still make a massive amount if they didnt pass on this increase to us. The problem is that they wont accept a decrease in their profits. The reason people are reclaiming these charges is not because they dont think they should pay a fee, but because they are grossly unfair. So what trademark said about not taking responsibility - well its okay to accept responsibility for going over the limit - but not at that price. The banks should also accept responsibility for the error of their ways. They have defrauded people of their money for years. Let them pay, not the people!

tesuhoha

Nelski wrote:

Im not sure this is an argument about charges though - if you are out of pocket very single month then something has to give and its not down to the banks its down to you. Why should the banks fund your debt?

I dont think theres much danger of that somehow - a bank funding someone's debt.

Yakka

Martin

I take your comments on board regarding helpful discussion, but not so long ago there were programmes about the spiralling levels of personal debt and what should be done about it.

Now we are hammering on about big companies and profits. Large companies / profits are "a bad thing" and should be curbed according to your mission statment.

As a pensioner and shareholder I naturally have a problem with some of the comments. Maybe some charges should be changed and maybe bank administration should be more user-friendly, but I really do support the principle of penalty for unauthorised borrowing.

southernscouser

Al_Mac wrote:

2) ? So there will be fees

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one:D

When we had a branch on site, everything was paid in branch, except my mortgage. Now I use a virtual branch, or 6, but still have control:p

If you picked 2 you'd lose the election matey! :rotfl: