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

chrissyfp1

Al_Mac wrote:

And here is a question for you. Would you be happy for your bank to turn down a request just because of a penny?

Edited to add, whatever a bank does, it will be wrong for someone.

I would imagine that the majority of people would be happy for the bank to turn down a request for 1p if it meant that they didn't have to pay an extra £35 for that 1p!

Need_More_Money_2

ddavis wrote:

Heres an interesting question for all you 'never go overdrawn blah blah' lot..

Why is it even possible to go over an agreed overdraft limit?

I'll tell you why, because it makes the bank 35 quid if you do.

I have 100 in my bank. I want to purchase something for 100.98
The bank should say no. I can go find the 98p in cash and do it that way.

I've always wondered that. With things like debit cards is it because the retailer's machine doesn't always make an electronic connection to your bank, so it doesn't know there aren't enough funds until it is too late?

I do think it would be easier if the banks just didn't allow you to go overdrawn without prior permission. Are the IT systems up to this? Even if you are overseas?

Becky

Need_More_Money wrote:

I've always wondered that. With things like debit cards is it because the retailer's machine doesn't always make an electronic connection to your bank, so it doesn't know there aren't enough funds until it is too late?

I do think it would be easier if the banks just didn't allow you to go overdrawn without prior permission. Are the IT systems up to this? Even if you are overseas?

I would like to think their IT systems are capable of this, especially in this day and age. But whether they want this to happen is another matter!

YorkshireBoy

ddavis wrote:

Heres an interesting question for all you 'never go overdrawn blah blah' lot..

Why is it even possible to go over an agreed overdraft limit?

I'll tell you why, because it makes the bank 35 quid if you do.

But it also makes them £35 if you don't, since the charges for 'paid item' and 'referred item' are invariably the same.

The decision as to whether to allow the payment or not is taken by computer (at 2 o'clock in the morning when the days transactions are processed) based on your rating with the bank.

You're still going to incur a fee - it's just that with the 'referred item' approach, you're not going to get deeper into (financial) trouble.

Mark7799

Need_More_Money wrote:

Yes there is. What if the loan was taken out before losing a job? You are then living beyond your means and there isn't a lot you can do about it.

What if you lose your job and can't claim any benefits for several months. Living beyond your means is just living - doesn't have to mean buying expensive things - just food. I do accept that some people do however live unjustifyably beyond their means.

Isn't this what insurances are meant to cover (I don't mean the Bank Loan Insurance scheme but insurance generally)? When taking on a large financial commitment, part of the planning should be the 'what if' scenarios.

viktory

Need_More_Money wrote:

Yes there is. What if the loan was taken out before losing a job? You are then living beyond your means and there isn't a lot you can do about it.

What if you lose your job and can't claim any benefits for several months. Living beyond your means is just living - doesn't have to mean buying expensive things - just food. I do accept that some people do however live unjustifyably beyond their means.

Payment protection? Get another job - even if it is sweeping the streets.

EDIT: posted before seeing Mark7799's, post.

inmypocketnottheirs

Al_Mac wrote:

And here is a question for you. Would you be happy for your bank to turn down a request just because of a penny?

Edited to add, whatever a bank does, it will be wrong for someone.

Let me give you an actual illustration.

Years ago, pre Euro, I had a business in Greece. The banks in Greece give absolutely zero service to customers, and they will not let you over draw by even one euro cent (or drachma as the case used to be).

I had a cheque the equivalent of about £17,000, at the time roughly 8,500,000 drachma. In Greece cheques can be cashed by the person receiving the cheque at any branch of the account holders bank, by presenting your passport.

So I duly turned up at the bank, with my customers cheque, and they would not pay the cheque because it was 20 drachma short. On top of this, they would not let me pay in 20 drachma so I could collect my cash. I had to phone my customer, he had to go to his bank and pay cash in to cover.

As a point of interest, all the main UK banks i.e. Barclays, Nat West, Lloyds and HSBC all have European operations, where there is a lot more control over charges. Yet despite this, they still maintain operations in these marlets, because they still make a profit out of retail banking, despite their pretestations to the contrary.

To quote from The Times, Money Section, Sunday 25th February 2007:

"The OFT is set to rule within weeks that punitive overdraft charges are illegal, following a clampdown on credit card fees last year. The banks are drawing up plans to charge for current accounts to recoup the costs of the crackdown - ending 23 years of free banking in Britain.

"However, research from Credit Suisse, an investment bank, has exposed this argument as a lie; the banks generate revenues of £6.5 billion from current accounts, and three quarters of this comes from paying derisory rates, with only £1.2 billion from overdraft fees, so they could easily absorb the cost of the OFT crackdown."

So there you have it, from investment bankers, these charges can be absorbed. Banks operate differently outside of the UK, where customers pay the true of cost of banking.

And for anyone that missed it, in the quote above it says - "ending 23 years of free banking in Britain". What happened in Britain 24 years ago? We paid for banking. Did anyone complain about bank charges then? No. Free Banking was a marketing ploy for the bank that started it, I think it was Nat West, followed by Barclays, and then everyone else followed suit.

I am sorry that the Free Lunch is coming to an end, but if it means a fairer, more equitable method of charging, then it is about time.

Need_More_Money_2

viktory wrote:

Payment protection? Get another job - even if it is sweeping the streets.

Sure. I would agree with you. BUT there will still be case where someone can't get another job for whatever reason

Al_Mac

Fairer banking.

Interesting concept.

Those whose accounts are managed well will still pay far less than those whose account is not.

This belief that it will be fairer is wrong.

It will mean some people will run their accounts better.

But those who are in the trap, will still be in the trap.

nickmack

Al_Mac wrote:

Fairer banking.

Interesting concept.

Those whose accounts are managed well will still pay far less than those whose account is not.

This belief that it will be fairer is wrong.

It will mean some people will run their accounts better.

But those who are in the trap, will still be in the trap.

My interpretation of 'fairer banking' would be lawfully charging rather than the current situation.

If it transpires that people who run their accounts well, pay far less than those who mis-manage, it makes me wonder what some people who believe they fall into the first camp are concerned about in this thread.