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

nel

i think its up to both, but a customer who is weighing the pros and cons as to whether or not to to take out a loan to buy for example, a car so that they can get to work to make a better life from themselves and their families or stay on benefits and be a "social burden" (not my view) would probably take the loan. in these cases where they probably don't have a good credit rating they are more likely to pay a higher interest rate for the priviledge of getting back to work ...i can't see that this is fair

Need_More_Money_2

sarah1975uk wrote:

Banks and finance companies love those that get into debt and regularly get into financial trouble... hence why they report such huge profits... from those who get charged rediculously high charges. SURELY THE PROFITS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!! eg: customers getting charged for taking their OWN money out of a cash machine as one example!!!

I disagree with cash machine charges BUT the cost of running the machines has to come from somewhere. The question is, should this be paid for directly by the customer using the machine or indirectly (through reduced interest rates or the other bank charges being discussed in this thread).

sarah1975uk

Al_Mac wrote:

Bank charges to personal customers contribute very little to over all profit.

If you use a cash machine owned by your own bank, you shouldn't pay. But why shouldn't you pay to use another banks?

If i asked you for money would you give it to me?? No i doubt it lol because you work hard to earn your moeny lol! and its yours! if i give a bank business of banking with them why should i get charged for withdrawing my own money. its just another form of paying interest on your own money yet again! surely we pay enough down the money chain!

Need_More_Money_2

nel wrote:

i think its up to both, but a customer who is weighing the pros and cons as to whether or not to to take out a loan to buy for example, a car so that they can get to work to make a better life from themselves and their families or stay on benefits and be a "social burden" (not my view) would probably take the loan. in these cases where they probably don't have a good credit rating they are more likely to pay a higher interest rate for the priviledge of getting back to work ...i can't see that this is fair

Isn't it based on the risk that the bank sees? If the person has a lower credit rating the bank sees a greater risk of not getting the money paid back and so charges more for taking on that risk.

nel

krisskross wrote:

Ahhhhhhhhh but these people will almost certainly have mortgage protection insurance and money stashed away in case disaster strikes.

but the mortgage protection insurance direct debit doesn't get paid so it won't cover next months mortgage.....and you get further charges on top charges (at least £90)....and the disaster fund has been exhausted due to needing to replace a freezer, cooker and washing machine (things like that always come in 3's)

OHHHH DEARRR

sarah1975uk

just an idea perhaps just abolish lending other than to buy a house or large purchase not just for day to day living expenses! wouldnt this encourage less debt and encourage people to live within their means! Am not getting at anyone with this post, god knows im in debt too.... but the uk is way out of control with the debt spiriling out of control. The uk is so easy to promote the buy now pay later way of living, but again i do realise they dont make us use it but do sometimes make it an attractive option.

alba37

Does anyone have a copy of the prog? I missed it

nel

Need_More_Money wrote:

Isn't it based on the risk that the bank sees? If the person has a lower credit rating the bank sees a greater risk of not getting the money paid back and so charges more for taking on that risk.

but this is like guilty before proven innocent isn't it?

they are still more than likely to get their money back in the end by whatever means they have at their disposal and still passing the costs for retrieving it on to the customer in charges and solicitor fees

hey the banks are in the business of "risk" they cover their !!!!!! in more ways than one as we can see from their billions in profit

sarah1975uk

Need_More_Money wrote:

I disagree with cash machine charges BUT the cost of running the machines has to come from somewhere. The question is, should this be paid for directly by the customer using the machine or indirectly (through reduced interest rates or the other bank charges being discussed in this thread).

Understand that it does cost something but for years they never charged ...so how was paid for before the new system of paying to withdaw cash ?? i assume the big fat cats in the banking world somehow incorporated their charges in interest rates etc.

refundmeplze!

I have been reading this post with great interest, I too am reclaiming bank charges and believe that I am in the right and banks are in the wrong. however I do accept that there are two sides to every argument and of course there will be people who do not think the way i do and believe that these charges are fair.
But this does not give these people the right to assume they know what it is like to live on the bread line. They cannot say that everyone should have a spare £50 or £20 lying around for emergencies. They cannot say they are right because they have not been there. Nobody can comment on something properly untill they have been in that situation.Nobody at all.
So to all the know-it-alls posting on here, YOU CANNOT COMMENT ON A SITUATION UNTILL YOU HAVE BEEN IN IT YOURSELF. Just the same as i cannot comment on a situation untill I have been in it myself.
:T :T :T :T