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

moneyspendingexpert_3

krisskross wrote:

no it's not illegal

Yes it is. Something to do with the law.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

moneyspendingexpert wrote:

When I looked back over 6 years its amazing how the charges add up.
I posted my letter yesterday asking for them all back. Best saving scheme I have ever belonged to.

:rotfl: :T :rotfl: :T :rotfl: :T :rotfl:

Edinburghlass_2

Phone the head office number in Glasgow, ask them to put you through. I had trouble getting the number, was eventually advised to contact head office and get put through. I spoke to a guy who basically said it was being investigated and woul take 7 - 10 days. Haven't heard anything yet. Went to Sheriff Court yesterday, spoke to an in court advisor. She has suggested that they write a letter, covering all the various aspects, including the fact that I have been a customer for nearly 29 years. This will go to my branch and the Leeds office, on Sheriff Court headed notepaper. They will have 7 days to respond. Failure to come to a satisfactory conclusion will mean that I will be taking it to court. The court are doing this free of charge, and I feel it is worth it. Once they see the headed paper they might well respond positively!

Will keep you posted.

moneyspendingexpert wrote:

Illegal, Unlawful......Tomato, Tomato (pronounced differently).

Sorry lol getting this thread and another mixed up, moneyspendingexpert are you saying that the banks are charging people illegally? or people are illegally, using the banks money?

Al_Mac wrote:

Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

Hey....I know how to say tomato, and anyone who says different is a liar.

I stay well in credit every month with my bank however i dont disagree with people getting their charges back at all.

I speak to people in debt all day in my job and theres many out there who have been unfortunate for all manner of reasons. Even the people with a certain banks' insurance have major problems claiming for it for whatever reason. The bank has also stolen my own money through an idiot customer service advisor who put me on a different type of account without my knowledge. then the bank wouldnt refund my money after I made a complaint. The whole idea of this site is "Consumer Revenge"

My main point to make here is that Martin has probably saved ALL of us at least more than 10 pounds per month (which will cover your small monthly current account charge) by helping us to be more savvy consumers and then given hope to thousands of people by slashing their debt substantially!

In all fairness this site has done us ALL far more good than harm. Then someone slates its creator, attacking him for the fact he may have a bigger bank balance than you because he has made a success of helping people to have bigger bank balances themselves? Grow up!

Sorry if this has all already been said by someone else but i had to vent my frustration at the first post

Wow, what a thread! I've had to skip on a bit because my eyes were beginning to dance. What I would like to say however, is that I had an interesting conversation with a pal of mine who used to work for one the large banks. Her words were "I had to become very hard hearted when I worked there". I asked her what she meant by this..well, she quite rightly pointed out that when people call up their bank because they are in so much debt, they need a solution, they are not calling a financial advisory service, they are calling a sales team, who get prompts on their screens in front of them, having punched in all the debt info, saying more often than not, "sell them a consolidation loan" - a good little commission earner. For someone who is desperate to decrease their monthly payments, it all seems a perfect solution. However, as my friend admitted, you are not offering them advice per se, you are offering someone yet another product because you have sales targets to meet, knowing it is only a matter of time (usually within 12 months) when they call you back saying that they can no longer afford the monthly repayments on the loan and need a 0% credit card to help them out of another mess, and so it goes on. Profit is made. This is a commercial reality.

Yes, banks may appear to be helpful and sympathetic, but they are a business and will sell you another product for their own gain, sugar-coating it as sound financial advice.

I do agree with the credit culture that has been mentioned on previous postings. This seems to be more prevelant in the UK than any other country in Europe. Friends I have abroad use their credit card as a debit card, ADDING money to it for a particular purpose. I think there should be a limit on the amount of credit an individual can ever have at one time, means tested. There needs to be some protection for consumers whose debt is out of control. Of course, some personal responsibility is required as well. However, I doubt this will ever happen - As Martin stated, the banks' best customers are those in debt who don't ever default.

We should also remember that this forum is for the financial ostriches who have buried their head in the sand, before their LBM, and before we cast aspersions at people, it would be worth remembering that everyone we know has experienced failure in their lives in some form or another eg. procrastinating over a relationship you know is doomed, sticking with a job you know is bad for you. We should therefore be a little more forgiving for financial procrastination and irresponsbility as well, given that this is our focus point here.

One final point about not having kids til you can afford them...eek...back in my 20s I would have probably said something like this myself, but now well into my 30s with a divorce behind me (hence my debt!), I have realised that you can't always choose how your life goes. It's one big grey and ambiguous area. Most people don't choose to have a child in the way they intentionally choose to buy a material possession. There are some things you don't foresee and when you find out you are unexpectedly pregnant, despite having taken all precautions available, faced with an unenviable decision ( which is a whole other debate and belongs to another forum), then and only then, can you truly appreciate where on the list of your priorities future expenses actually feature.

It is estimated that to financially support a child until 18 years of age costs in the region of £180000. These days, more and more of our kids live at home longer, study longer, need supporting longer, so if we have to wait until we can truly afford to have a child, it will be too late. Gone are the days where most kids leave home and get a job at 16 and become financially independent.

Suki

icefall wrote:

Its simple if the banks want to go to court to prove their inflated penalty charges are not illegal and against the law, thats all they have to do.

They won't though, mystery that

I wouldn't be too sure! Just because there hasn't yet been a case doesn't mean there won't be! I think banks have got far too much to lose in not trying a future 'test' case so it will happen when they are good and ready.

If I was one of these who had claimed my bank charges back, I would be putting a fair bit of that away. i.e. 'unlawfull charge' minus £12 (lawfull charge) x number of successful charges claimed.
Imagine if the banks had charged me £30 x 150 resulting in £4500 of charges over the years and I demanded this back and as some have, compensaton ( ) what is stopping the banks claiming £12 x 150 back from me at some point in the future?
If the banks are not successful at regaining their total refunds back, they might easily decide to claim what they could have lawfully charged back which might leave a lot of people 'without a paddle', so to speak!

So good luck to them.

I'll move your post into a thread regarding this situation where you'll find a few people reclaiming their bank charges.

***Board Guide note, sorry another post where several posts have been merged together***

Al_Mac

moneyspendingexpert wrote:

Yes it is. Something to do with the law.

If it was illegal the CPS would prosecute and someone would go to prison. It is just unlawful, could not be enforced in a court of law. This hasn't been proved yet, as the bank's are scared

moneyspendingexpert_3

Al_Mac wrote:

If it was illegal the CPS would prosecute and someone would go to prison. It is just unlawful, could not be enforced in a court of law. This hasn't been proved yet, as the bank's are scared

Illegal, Unlawful......Tomato, Tomato (pronounced differently).

Al_Mac

moneyspendingexpert wrote:

Illegal, Unlawful......Tomato, Tomato (pronounced differently).

Ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:

joyful_star

Congratulations to Mr. Perfect who is able to adhere to his bank's terms and conditions and for his downright ignorant comment which states that people who get bank charges are theives.

Point of correction: Bank customers are levied with bank charges not only when they go over their overdraft limit, they are penalised for not having sufficient funds to cover a cheque or a direct debit payment... the payment is usually not made but a bank charge is incurred.

Most people I know do not deliberately go into debt or incur a bank charge. It is usually due to unfortunate circumstances. Most of my charges were incurred at a time that I was unemployed for 4 months.

Furthermore, the banks usually get their money back and while I feel they are entitled to whatever it cost them to be "out of pocket" I don't feel it is right for them to charge as much as £30-£39 each time a direct debit can't be paid, a cheque bounces or someone goes over their authorised overdraft limit by a few pence. It is the bank customer that it usually left out of pocket whilst banks make obscene profits from the unfortunate.

Let's just hope that Mr. Perfect never suffers any misfortune in his life because then he might understand what us "lesser beings" are going through.

One final thing: Hoorah!!! to this website for helping people address their debt issues

moneyspendingexpert_3

trademark wrote:

So those of us who adhere to our banks terms and conditions and build a good working relationship with our banks over a prolonged period will now have to carry those who dont.

A quote from the opening post. So the main question here then really is who should pay for banking.
I could equally say that why should I, who sometimes goes over his OD limit, pay for his banking?
We dont all pay for each others shopping.
I think we should all pay for our own banking, I dont mind paying a reasonable charge to the bank for them to do my banking.

ukmonkey

Well, the OP is blaming the wrong person, Martin wasn't the person who first kicked all this off! Although (and rightfully so too), he is the one that has used his journalistic powers and his madia contacts to help sell this cause to more and more people over the last few weeks.

Keep up the good work, and to the OP, what if I carjacked you if you were 5 seconds late setting off from a green light? I'm sure you'd be wanting legal action taken against me, and rightfully so!

N.B - I'm not making threats here, I'm just trying to cite a scenario that the OP might understand, and to give him/her food for thought as the principle is still the same.

ollyk

Maz wrote:

Amyway, Martin is just giving you the facts. Banks, like any other business have to make a profit to stay in business. Maybe they'll now go after the'customers ' that can afford to pay.

What about the customers who can't afford the charges so keeps in the black, but they also can't afford the new costs to run an account? How about these people?