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

Mark7799

I only found this thread last night, took me nearly two hours to read it all! Have to say that I'm amazed it hasn't been locked yet.

As usual, this thread very quickly polarises people into the two camps - it all seems to revolve around the perceptions of people who incur charges - MOST (not all) posters seem to think these people are either completely !!!!less with money and have a cavalier attitude or are struggling valiantly on a meagre income - no half measures or compromise from either in these camps.

To try and offer a new perspective, and not repeat what has been said already, there is another area I have wondered about. It seems to be accepted by virtually everyone (myself included) that these charges are extremely disproportionate to the costs incurred by the Bank but most posters on this thread (from both camps) seem to accept that some sort of charge will still be made in the future. Something I am surprised that Martin hasn't covered in his many tips previously (apologies if he has but I have searched and haven't found it) is how to operate a bank account and minimise the risk of charges being incurred. Even if the charges are reduced to £4.50 per item, a figure I have seen quoted elsewhere, someone incurring this twice per month would still end up forking out £108 over a year; money that some posters by the sound of it cannot afford to waste (or the equivalent of three monthly bills being paid in cash/cheque rather than d/d and incurring a £3 charge each).

Financial management should be taught at an early age (just MHO) This includes budgeting, the principles of overdrafts, loans and credit cards. This could be part of PSE time in schools (only an idea). After all, this may be the only independent information people will get. People need to spend some time reading the t&c's of bank accounts - not glamorous or sexy but it can save money in the long term. Remember, when the fees currently being argued about come to a more realistic level the argument about claiming them back because they are unlawful won't be able to be applied but there will still be charges there.

This includes familiarisation with things like having money in accounts to meet payments the working day BEFORE direct debits are due - virtually every bank now has this policy.

*Knowing how to recognise which cash machines will charge for making withdrawals and which are offering a free service.

* Do not automatically assume the balance given to you by a cash machine means that is the amount of money available for you to spend. The only way to be sure is to keep your own records - pen and paper or spreadsheet. Again, not sexy but necessary.

*Virtually all banks offer internet banking - by implication, every poster here has internet access and should be using this to check on their accounts.

* Get an overdraft facility on your current account (appreciate not everyone will be allowed or offered this) - this is a buffer zone for emergencies (possibly another way of getting that 'rainy day' fund referred to earlier in the thread. This is NOT the account holder's money but access to funds in an emergency.

* Learn how long payments take to clear and to reach beneficiaries. Don't leave it to the last day, if a miscalculation occurs then it means more charges (at whatever level)

Edinburghlass_2

MSE_Martin wrote:

While I fully understand why Edilass closed the thread. I believe that we have to allow open discussion on this. I fundamentally disagree with both the premise and the principles that Trademark espouses - and his assumptions of the impact on the market (please read my 'the impact on banking' article linked to from the main article - though i intend to write a blog explanding on this very soon).

Yet its important to be aware that this is a huge issue that is revolutionary and hits right across society and debate must be allowed. Therefore I have reopened the thread.

Yet let me remind all posters (with no specific poster in mind)

1. Discussion is fine, insulting others isn't
2. Sensitivity to the fact that the aim of these boards are to help people not persecute or make them feel guilty.

With that in mind i will permit the discussion to continue as long as those sensitivities are followed. If not. I will close and/or delete the thread accordingly - the prime concern of this site is to help people save money and take on big companies - its the motto on the front page and I will always prioritise that.

And finally may I remind you of the note on the top of the page.


Please be nice to all MoneySavers. There’s no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

Martin

The reason it hasn't been locked again is above and I simply don't have the time to keep checking the thread and nor to be honest do I have the heart to even read it.

chrissyfp1

Mark7799 wrote:

I only found this thread last night, took me nearly two hours to read it all! Have to say that I'm amazed it hasn't been locked yet.

To lock this thread would be taking away peoples right to freedom of speech, i feel that the government already do enough to take away peoples right to that. This is an open forum to enable people to voice their thoughts and opinions and obviously if we all agreed there wouldn't be much point to it. However i do not agree in the way that some people have voiced their opinions. Some people have been downright nasty and rude to people on both sides of the arguement and that is unacceptable. We are all entitled to our opinion but that should not mean being nasty to others who don't share that view. I think that the minority who have come on here to be nasty have found themselves ignored anyway and therefore have wasted their chance to perhaps put across a valid point in a very open debate.

trademark

So now ive annoyed the blind

Ridiculous Jennie , it was a turn of phrase as used in everyday conversation, meaning are you blind to the greater picture.

Im very suprised i must explain that.

This thread has degenerated because of such comments and because once a person has aired their views and cannot continue either through lack of intelligence or lack of understanding then they lower their tactics and throw insult.

eg the !!!!!! remark, the hard earned cash? remark and the countless others who can not reason without being shrouded by their own mistaken views

Triker

My bit

Why do people act so outraged when something has been found to be unlawful?

Do you feel the same about the mis-selling of endowments or the pension crisis?

Or do you honestly think that you will always be immune from the might of the banks and that unfortunate events may not happen to your family and you may have to approach the banks for assistance.

Do you actually know how it feels to put a perfectly logical case across to a faceless customer service person only to be told 'no can do' and 'by the way there's a £90.00 charge for going overdrawn'.

My children have seen me in tears after phone calls such as this, so after much deliberation, I will be attempting to get some of my charges back.

Al_Mac

Edinburghlass wrote:

The reason it hasn't been locked again is above and I simply don't have the time to keep checking the thread and nor to be honest do I have the heart to even read it.

It isn't that bad, yes some heated debate, but a lot calmer than a pub at closing time;)

And as you regularly point out, Martin's site, not ours (or yours).

chrissyfp1

Triker wrote:

My bit

Why do people act so outraged when something has been found to be unlawful?

Do you feel the same about the mis-selling of endowments or the pension crisis?

Or do you honestly think that you will always be immune from the might of the banks and that unfortunate events may not happen to your family and you may have to approach the banks for assistance.

Do you actually know how it feels to put a perfectly logical case across to a faceless customer service person only to be told 'no can do' and 'by the way there's a £90.00 charge for going overdrawn'.

My children have seen me in tears after phone calls such as this, so after much deliberation, I will be attempting to get some of my charges back.

I think that the outrage stems from the fear that people are now going to have to pay a share for what they use, rather than others footing the bill for them? I could of course be wrong and there may be a another reason y they are so outraged. I know that some people are miffed because they feel that some people are not taking responsibilty for the fact that they are in debt and are blaming the banks for all of it. I don't think the majority blame the banks for all of it. Most just think that the disproportionate charges levied on them have made an already bad situation far, far worse.

brasso

chrissyfp1 wrote:

I think that the outrage stems from the fear that people are now going to have to pay a share for what they use, rather than others footing the bill for them? I could of course be wrong and there may be a another reason y they are so outraged. I know that some people are miffed because they feel that some people are not taking responsibilty for the fact that they are in debt and are blaming the banks for all of it. I don't think the majority blame the banks for all of it. Most just think that the disproportionate charges levied on them have made an already bad situation far, far worse.

I agree that the charges are disproportionate, but nevertheless there has to be some sanction for taking someone else's money. I don't know if the law has changed but at one time it was a criminal offence in France to go overdrawn as it is regarded as being tantamount to theft. Yet some people on this thread seem shocked that they shouldn't be allowed to just take money from the bank without warning or prior negotiation.

The frustration felt by those of us who play by the rules (often to our disadvantage) is that we are now likely to be charged to subsidise the failings of those who flout the rules. Can you not understand how frustrating that is?

I should say that I've been charged by First Direct several times over the past 10 years, usually if a direct debit has been paid before I've remembered to transfer the money in from another account. Every single time this has happened, I've called them up, explained what has happened, apologised, and asked for the charge to be refunded. Each and every time, they have done so.

I can't understand why others don't do this if they feel genuinely aggrieved.

As I say, I think the £30+ charges are way too big and I hope the amount is dropped. Around £10 would seem fair. I don't begrudge people claiming back the charges if they feel that the bank has been unreasonable but honestly, it makes my blood boil to read someone saying that they are planning to reclaim £4000 in charges. If you've paid £4000 in charges you are financially imcompetent. Surely after the first, say, £100 has been paid you should be thinking "Hmm, hold on, perhaps I haven't quite got the hang of this bank account thingie. Maybe I need to change the way I manage my finances". Nope, you just carry on blithely paying out hundreds of pounds a year, all the while cursing the bank.

I feel genuinely sorry for people in financial difficulties that aren't of their own making, and I wish these people well. But anyone who's in debt because they have a house full of electronic gadgetry, or a flashy car, then sorry but I think you deserve all the sanctions the banks try to hit you with. Take control of your own life rather than waiting for someone else to do it for you.

Edinburghlass_2

Al_Mac wrote:

It isn't that bad, yes some heated debate, but a lot calmer than a pub at closing time;)

And as you regularly point out, Martin's site, not ours (or yours).

Absolutely! But as Martin entrusted me with his "baby" I feel very precious of this board and we are both justifiably very proud of the work that has gone into it.

krisskross

chrissyfp1 wrote:

I think that the outrage stems from the fear that people are now going to have to pay a share for what they use, rather than others footing the bill for them? I could of course be wrong and there may be a another reason y they are so outraged. I know that some people are miffed because they feel that some people are not taking responsibilty for the fact that they are in debt and are blaming the banks for all of it. I don't think the majority blame the banks for all of it. Most just think that the disproportionate charges levied on them have made an already bad situation far, far worse.

Personally although it annoys me I will not be that bothered about having to pay a few quid a month for my account. I paid it whilst living in Spain. I doubt if there are many other countries where totally free banking is available like in Britain.I am also sure that banks will ensure that some of their customers do not pay account fees.

Mark 7799's post is one of the best on this thread, wonder how many people will take his excellent advice.

I feel it is such a retrograde step for the people who are on really low incomes and budget every penny so they do not get charged. They also will have to pay an account fee.

All this rhetoric about people with charges who are subsidising me is nonsense. If everyone kept within their limits then we would all enjoy free banking, or are you seriously suggesting that if no one had incurred charges that the banks would have stopped providing free banking?

BTW good morning trademark......just a friendly greeting from one '!!!!!!' to another:rotfl: :rotfl: What is a !!!!!! by the way?