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

krisskross

So the banks are responsible for all the personal debt in Britain? A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it. If a debit card is refused in Tesco because there is no money in the account and to avoid the owner of the card getting charged what will happen? Barclays or whoever will be reading in the tabloid press that they have refused food to hungry children. I am not saying the banks are not charging too much but they are not philanthropic organisations and if there are enough people ignoring their financial situation, then there is always someone waiting to take advantage. The banks' raison d'etre is to make money for their shareholders. Do you claim back from Burberry when you have paid £200 for a handbag then discover it only cost a tenner to make in China? Have they charged you too much unlawfully?Can they justify a £190 markup? Do you ask them to?

I will be very interested to know how many people claiming their charges back will have run them up again by this time next year? Smaller charges perhaps but they will still snowball alarmingly if lessons on financial management are not learned. What are people doing with their claim backwindfalls? Are they using them to pay off their debt to the bank, thus putting them in exactly the position they would have been in had the charges not been levied.

Al_Mac

krisskross wrote:

So the banks are responsible for all the personal debt in Britain?

Apparently so:eek:

angierey

I have been reading on this thread that some people consider that the charges (although high) are agreed to by us in the T & Cs and that we should accept this.

In order to recieve wages/ benefits, we must have a bank account. Bank account carry these charges, if we did not agree to these T & Cs we would not get a bank account and not be able to recieve benefits or wages, therefore we have been forced to agree with UNFAIR charges in the T & Cs.

Would it not be fairer for the charge to be proportional to the amount overdrawn, or the actual cost to the bank for rejecting a DD?

Being overdrawn by 12p due to miscalculation (DD of £11.38 and switch of £9.79, knew ther was £20 and odds in account, but odds actuall came to 5p not 17p) does not cost the bank £30 to put right. especially when weekly regular amount of £85 was due to clear the very next day.

if the bank were to charge in proportion to the amount, say double, then they would make money from those with the cavalier attitude who regularly go overdrawn by large amounts, and those who have genuinely made mistakes will be happy to pay up in order to have the DD or whatever paid and will be more careful next time

Al_Mac

An earlier poster said it was illegal to not be able to have your wages paid in cash, don't know about benefits.

nickmack

krisskross wrote:

So the banks are responsible for all the personal debt in Britain?

Of course not, but they certainly don't help matters and some of their practices are morally if not legally questionable.

If a debit card is refused in Tesco because there is no money in the account and to avoid the owner of the card getting charged what will happen?

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.

Do you claim back from Burberry when you have paid £200 for a handbag then discover it only cost a tenner to make in China? Have they charged you too much unlawfully?Can they justify a £190 markup? Do you ask them to?

Not a good example. There is no law preventing the sale of goods at a price above their cost.

angierey

If you go to an emplyer they state (some of) the terms and conditions of employment, in that is the method of remuneration, if you demand that you are paid in a different method to everyone else in the company and state the legal situation, what are the chances of landing the job?

nitrocat

Just want to add my support to those claiming charges back.
The charges are illegal and should be reclaimed without remorse and I will explain why.

The charges are defined illegal by the same laws that state that the banks are allowed to create the money out of thin air and then lend it with interest.

The money that everyone is striving for was created out of thin air. <re-read three times please.

We the general public are not allowed by law to create money, as it would be called counterfeiting. We are also legally bound to accept the money that was created by the banks out of thin air as legal tender.
To charge interest (money) for something that was created out of thin air is kind of unfair in my opinion. However this is the way it works legally.

The flip side to the law that allow banks to create money is the law that people can go bankrupt and not have to pay back the money that was created out of thin air. So additionally anyone going bankrupt should not feel remorse.

After all why feel guilty for something that was created without effort by a bank, that the bank then earns a living from lending to the public, by getting interest upon the sum borrowed.

Similarly why feel guilty for reclaiming the extortionate illegal charges that the banks charged for this “out of thin air money”.

I feel some sympathy with those that live within their means and can foresee having to pay more for banking in the future. This includes myself. However it is the financial legal system (fiat) that is causing this and many other side effects (house prices beyond the reach of younger people).

The desire to be responsible with money remains from a time when money could not be created out of thin air. The financial legal system changed but peoples opinions did not. They are changing now slowly though.

My own view on this fiat based, fractional reserve, debt based, world economy is that it is immoral. Money should be a store of value uncountafitable by anyone including banks like it was many years ago.

And just for the record, I do not have any bank charges to reclaim.

krisskross

All this talk about HAVING to have a bank account to have wages and/benefit paid into is nonsense. Why not have a savings account to receive your money? No cheque book, no cards except one to remove your money from the bank. I know several people who are rubbish with money who use this method. Does mean you have to use cash for everything, but that is no bad thing, when it runs out no more can be spent so no debt.

Al_Mac

nickmack wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.

He's saying, should the bank refuse your card whilst shopping for food, the bank will then be accused of starving children. However if the bank lets the payment through, the bank will then be blamed for allowing you to go into debt and be charged.

What ever they do is wrong.

angierey

krisskross wrote:

All this talk about HAVING to have a bank account to have wages and/benefit paid into is nonsense. Why not have a savings account to receive your money? No cheque book, no cards except one to remove your money from the bank. I know several people who are rubbish with money who use this method. Does mean you have to use cash for everything, but that is no bad thing, when it runs out no more can be spent so no debt.

I have a basic bank account now. however I also have to have DD for bills to be paid. Companies now charge an extra £4 to £5 to have bill sent to be paid in cash. when you consider each of these bills, even basic utilities, all charging this amount it adds up. Especially when in reciept of benefits.