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

dickybodoo

LouBlue wrote:

Well, I've read this whole thread and I see things from both sides. Here is my own personal situation. My debt is purely down to living beyond my means, I have no-one else to blame but myself. So I find out I can reclaim Bank charges back, I am overjoyed. It will help clear some of these debts. But after reading some of the posts on here, I do understand I had the responsibility of being in charge of my finances and not going overdrawn, making sure I had enough money in there to make sure DD's went through etc....so I am still going to reclaim because I desperately need the money but I AM now changing my ways in regard to my finances, all down to the wonderful information on this site. I will make sure in future that I keep a keen eye on my bank statements and also keep in contact with them, if I think there is or will be any problem. I know not everyone's debt problems are down to overspending, but mine are and I must take responsibility from now on.

You need to be applauded for now thinking like you do. Sadly tho there are people out there who will claim all their bank charges back, spend all the money and then STILL go out and spend more than they can afford - WHERE WILL IT ALL STOP is what I want to know? Well done you for your words I'm sure they will make a lot of people stop and think about their own situation.:T

feedering

Al_Mac wrote:

For a basic one yes. However on average you are wrong. Certain accounts have to have manual intervention, sometimes on a daily basis, so I reckon the £2 - £3 would be fairer. £4.50 in my opinion is to much

mmmmm manual intervention regarding a charge. Not just everyday account maintenance.

Al_Mac

feedering wrote:

mmmmm manual intervention regarding a charge. Not just everyday account maintenance.

Yes, relationship managers have to decide if a letter goes out or not and if the charge is made or not.

So a letter and charge might be stopped:D

dickybodoo

studentphil wrote:

The last couple of lines of the OP are unduely harsh and personal. It is fair enough that you think reclaiming charges will have negative results. However, in all fairness charges that are reclaimed are illegal ones and to advocate not to seek redress is equal to accepting it is fine for banks to act outside the law. Which is certainly an odd conclusion if you accept the rule of law.

What is illegal is people making use of money that they do not have in their Bank accounts, its stealing pure and simple - you get arrested if you take things of the shelf and walk out the shop without paying - where's the difference? The Banks should charge something £4/4.50 etc. not the £35/39 thats been quoted - charges are in the terms and conditions of your Bank account - if people read them, understood them and remembered them there wouldn't be a problem. Why should people think they should be "outside the law"?

feedering

trademark wrote:

feedering ... i do condone the banks because i understand how debt can turn and unbalance the sensitive financial environment in which we live.

Very quickly i might add ....

There must be a penalty for taking something which is not yours Wrong in contract law
If you were to take my wallet from my house you may well go to jail, if you are to take money from a bank Far to simplifed bear in mind the banks can take you money in error without informing you is this theft as well?
AND DO NOT BE MISTAKEN, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING BY EXCEEDING THE TERMS OF YOUR ACCOUNT AND OVERDRAFT FACILITY. This is not in point the bank getting back any losses for my actions I agree with. I have a contract with the bank that they MUST adhere to as I should. They dont by charging unlawful amounts for breeches of contract. Its unlawful its that simple.

Then you are charged around £30-£35 ... I think this is fair and very right.

Now ill say this again, there are genuine cases where a bank abuses this penalty and this must be addressed, ive been around you might say, im 39 and the majority of people i know who are in debt have got to that position by doing as i did as a teenager, overspending to obtain items that i could not afford, the £15 letters of those days acted as an incentive not to go further and to contact the bank, who i might add were very helpful once id explained my position.

There are also intermediates who can act on your behalf to reduce debt and communicate with the financials, free services which can be contacted through the citizens advice centre. no relevance to this discussion. So there is no excuse that a bank would not listen though im sure ill hear about them now.

Not many here like the fact ive raised this thread as they do not like home truths ... who does, and as ive said before there can be no winners here, least of all the minority who support the banks to some extent. I am amazed that you are trying to justify the bank unlawfully taking monies from people, to use your point if they took my wallett..... It works both ways the law is the law.

Regards Feedering

feedering

dickybodoo wrote:

What is illegal is people making use of money that they do not have in their Bank accounts, its stealing pure and simple - you get arrested if you take things of the shelf and walk out the shop without paying - where's the difference? The Banks should charge something £4/4.50 etc. not the £35/39 thats been quoted - charges are in the terms and conditions of your Bank account - if people read them, understood them and remembered them there wouldn't be a problem. Why should people think they should be "outside the law"?

Wrong

So I have a DD for £10 and only have £9 in my account, how can the bank refuse the DD for £10 yet charge £35 taking me overdrawn????
Please explain this.

dickybodoo

The banks are making large profits alone from charging people £1.50 to withdraw their own money from a hole in the wall unless you go to the bank machine itself where I live, this is just another money making racket and guaranteed to keep their profit margin up.

Its not "the Banks" that charge the £1.50 its private companies!! I do wish people would get their facts right.

dickybodoo

feedering wrote:

Wrong

So I have a DD for £10 and only have £9 in my account, how can the bank refuse the DD for £10 yet charge £35 taking me overdrawn????
Please explain this.

Again - if you read the terms and conditions(!) of your Bank account you will see that you have to have CLEARED funds in your account ONE WORKING DAY before any ddrs/stos/chqs etc. are due to come out of your account. It's so simple. It is YOUR responsibility to ensure you have enough money in YOUR account to meet all your payments - not the Banks. I'm really fed up of hearing how its always someone elses fault!!

feedering

dickybodoo wrote:

Again - if you read the terms and conditions(!) of your Bank account you will see that you have to have CLEARED funds in your account ONE WORKING DAY before any ddrs/stos/chqs etc. are due to come out of your account. It's so simple. It is YOUR responsibility to ensure you have enough money in YOUR account to meet all your payments - not the Banks. I'm really fed up of hearing how its always someone elses fault!!

without being condecending you are missing the point, the bank charging me for a missed DD etc I totally agree with! Its just its correct!

What is unlawful is them overcharging me its not allowed!!!! thats the crux of the arguement!!!!

jamalfatty

I've not read through all the pages on this thread, but from what I have read it seems many people are missing the point entirely. These charges are unlawful and therefore whether or not you think people should manage there finances better, which they should (myself included), the banks had no right to charge us the amount they have been doing regardless of what they have put in T&C's and what we have signed for.
We, as consumers, therefore have every right to ask for this money back.

I applaud people who have managed there finances well enough to never incur these charges, we are not all however as fortunate and I'm sure those that have spoken out against people reclaiming what is lawfully there's would be doing exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed.