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

Mark7799

Yes but many of the charges complained about ARE for bouncing items.

Moonbeam

WOW - I don't think I've seen such a reaction to a thread!!!

I've not read it all but generally agree that banks shouldn't be profiteering from bank charges, but don't believe that in essence they should be unlawful.

We operate free banking in this country and this is part of it - we need to stay within the credit limits agreed. I do think that the banks will get the money back one way or another by introducing different charges to make up the shortfall.

I work for a bank and believe me there is not always a set cost for dealing with charges - I spend an incredible amount of time talking to customers about how they run their account and trying to give them guidance to avoid charges in the future, but time and time again I hit a brick wall. The amount of people that just don't think about their finances until they are in trouble is incredible. Often they want to be bailed out even when they admit that they have caused the original problem.

I have experienced financially hardship but have no requirement to claim back charges because I always kept an eye on my finances and stayed within the limits I was given - if I couldn't afford it I went without... Unfortunately so many of my customers think that "Sky TV" is a necessity and don't take action to prevent charges - now safe in the knowledge they can claim them back.

I think that Martin Lewis is completely dedicated to consumer revenge and this certainly falls into that catagory, but I can't criticise as so much of the advise on this website helped me to achieve the financial status I have now - debt free!!!!

So overall I think banks should charge when people go over overdraft limits, bounce cheques, standing orders and direct debits - but not so much as to cause future financial hardship for those people.

The sooner the OFT rule the better - as I bet they find that charges should be capped - not removed altogether.....

nickmack

Moonbeam wrote:

I've not read it all but generally agree that banks shouldn't be profiteering from bank charges, but don't believe that in essence they should be unlawful.

It's not a case of believing they shouldn't be unlawful, they are unlawful. They break consumer regulations, common and statute law. We know it and the banks know it.

We operate free banking in this country and this is part of it - we need to stay within the credit limits agreed. I do think that the banks will get the money back one way or another by introducing different charges to make up the shortfall.

Agreed. People should remain with in their limits, some people mis-manage their finances, others don't have a choice. Banks will ensure their profit margins are not harmed one way or another and as long as it's lawful, I don't mind how they do it.

I work for a bank and believe me there is not always a set cost for dealing with charges

I'm sure Manual Intervention occurs now and again, but the majority of charges are completely automated.

So overall I think banks should charge when people go over overdraft limits, bounce cheques, standing orders and direct debits - but not so much as to cause future financial hardship for those people.

The sooner the OFT rule the better - as I bet they find that charges should be capped - not removed altogether.....

No one is saying charges should be removed altogether, just kept lawful, they should charge what it costs.

krisskross

Beate wrote:

. The fact is that the OFT has already said that those high charges are unlawful so I am not sure why we even have to analyze how people get into debt at all?

Did this ruling happen when we were all snoozing? Or are you muddling up with credit cards?

brasso

I tend to agree with moonbeam -- sensible, middle-way post.

If the charges themselves are so high as to cause financial hardship, then they are clearly morally wrong as well as (we now hear) legally.

But I still say that people who gloat about being able to claim back £4,000 in charges are admitting that they are totally financially incompetent, and I really don't see why I should bankroll these people. I try hard to keep my finances in order. If I find I'm paying many hundreds of pounds a year on charges, it would eventually dawn on me that I was doing something wrong. Not so some people, apparently.

I'm glad that the excessive charges have been shown to be wrong but I do hope that we agree on the principle of charging, even if it's only £5 or £10 or so, to avoid the end of free banking to those who look after their money properly.

System

I am curious about all the people who have posted here blasting charge reclaiming (no one in particular) - what on earth are you doing on a channel that is decicated to helping people claim?? strange!

feedering

brasso wrote:

I tend to agree with moonbeam -- sensible, middle-way post.

If the charges themselves are so high as to cause financial hardship, then they are clearly morally wrong as well as (we now hear) legally.

But I still say that people who gloat about being able to claim back £4,000 in charges are admitting that they are totally financially incompetent, and I really don't see why I should bankroll these people. I try hard to keep my finances in order. If I find I'm paying many hundreds of pounds a year on charges, it would eventually dawn on me that I was doing something wrong. Not so some people, apparently.

I'm glad that the excessive charges have been shown to be wrong but I do hope that we agree on the principle of charging, even if it's only £5 or £10 or so, to avoid the end of free banking to those who look after their money properly.

Again missing the point, what the banks are doing is unlawful its that simple.
The banks making millions no billions each year out of our money. We are forced in todays society to have a bank account, they make money from us because of this.

So why should we sympathise with the banks?
Always remember a bank is a business its there to make moneyfrom you!!! thats it!!! It will do you no favours.

Need_More_Money_2

Somebody said that those in debt are in debt because they have lived beyond their means. Whilst that is quite an emotive statement, it IS essentially true. However, there are vastly different reasons why people might have lived beyond their means. Some justified, some not. For some it will be because they just HAD to have a new car rather than a second hand one, or HAD to have a new TV, or HAD to have sky or a mobile phone. Others just have no idea how to manage money and don't keep track of what they spend. Some posts on this thread have implied that this is just those on low incomes, but I know people on fairly high salaries who are highly educated, yet have no idea how to manage money and are constantly in debt.
Of course many will be in debt because of misfortune such as losing a job after taking out a loan etc. These people should certainly be treated more sympathetically than those in the former categories.
Surely it should not be beyond the abilities of the bank to work out which category people fall into and treat them appropriately. Of course that might mean having people in banks actually talk to their customers. If it is clear that someone is actively taking steps to resolve their financial difficulties then they should be rewarded for it. However, if someone clearly still has a cavalier attitude to their finances and don't give a s*** about their debt, why shouldn't the banks penalise them in some way?
The existence of these penalty charges has meant that I have taken great care in managing my finances to ensure that I have never incurred any of the charges at all. Now I realise that I have been fortunate enough to earn enough to be able to do this, although it is also down to making do with an old banger of a car for many years and not buying lots of things that I would like (but didn't need). And yes I realise not all people are in debt because they choose to spend extravagantly. My point is that without the penalty charges I might have been more tempted into debt that I didn't need. The last thing we need to do is encourage more unecessary debt.

I'm sure the banks will find another way to make the money they'll lose from not being able to charge these fees. The question is, will the alternative be better or worse? Perhaps they'll introduce banking charges for those who are regularly overdrawn. Maybe that will cost you more in the long run.
If someone is constantly going overdrawn (without agreement) or having bounced DDs, perhaps the banks will just close the account if they see it as not in their interests to allow it to remain open. Is this a good thing or not? On the one hand, it will stop the customer building up more and more debt. On the other hand, not having a bank account could be a major inconvenience. Or it might push more people towards loan sharks.

We cannot just look at the ending (or reduction) of these charges in isolation. There will certainly be knock on effects. Only time will tell what the overall consequences will be and whether the result will be beneficial to the customers or not.

Al_Mac

The site is about money saving. In reality the site should really have stopped people needing to reclaim, but they didn't find it until too late. So when they have reclaimed they can avoid the situation again

brasso

Al_Mac wrote:

The site is about money saving. In reality the site should really have stopped people needing to reclaim, but they didn't find it until too late. So when they have reclaimed they can avoid the situation again

I admire your faith in human nature Al!

Am I being cynical to suspect that the people who are claiming £4K in charges are going to be even more irresponsible when that amount pops up in their bank account? I'd love to think it will get them back on the straight and narrow but....... :rolleyes: