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

Al_Mac

BE NICE TO OTHER MONEYSAVERS

Remember, MoneySaving should be fun. Everyone using these boards is here for the same reason, to save money. The site’s motto is “Please be nice to other MoneySavers”. It should go without saying, but please remember that when using this forum. Please report any abusive/offensive/racist comments to [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=3476997&postcount=5

angierey

wasnt sure how to report messages, seen it now.

You can get your opinion across without resorting to name calling.
thanks for having it removed Al Mac

Al_Mac

angierey wrote:

wasnt sure how to report messages, seen it now.

You can get your opinion across without resorting to name calling.
thanks for having it removed Al Mac

Not sure I got it removed, just pointing out the rules:D

Emotive subject, but you do really need to read. As people aren't all they seem. Just because they are one thing today, doesn't mean they weren't something else in the past If you know what I mean;)

angierey

confused !!!!

Cagey

Why. Life is simple. You do not exceed your overdraft & you don`t get charges . The bank gives you an overdraft to help you to manage yor finances , not to give you free credit. Why does everyone think the overdraft is their money & spend up to & over it. Some may through necessity but most do through mismanagement or through trying to get something for nothing.
Martin has backed the wrong horse if you ask me. Why is he asking everyone to try& fleece the banks of our money.

icefall

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

Its not charges per se, its the amount of charges, years ago the charges were much less, till they decided to inflate them and change the terms so they repeatedly charge those inflated penalty over a small amount of time.

Its the out of proportion amounts that are illegal and against the law.

recent article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436882&in_page_id=1770

couple of quotes from the above link

Banks are making almost twice as much profit from their customers than they did ten years ago, a report shows.

Over the same period, the combined profits of the biggest nine banks have soared to £30.7billion, a rise of 150 per cent. Only the oil industry has seen similarly spectacular returns.

krisskross

icefall wrote:

Its not charges per se, its the amount of charges, years ago the charges were much less, till they decided to inflate them and change the terms so they repeatedly charge those inflated penalty over a small amount of time.

I wouldn't agree with that statement. I have been charged once for a failed direct debit. This was for a rates payment of £23 and the charge for bouncing it was £25. So 20 years ago much higher proportionally.

The banks make a very small proportion of their overall profits from personal banking and current accounts, but no one really wants to hear that do they?

System

ollyk wrote:

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!

I think not.

ollyk

joyful_star wrote:

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.

You want to count yourself lucky you ain't in France :rotfl:

icefall

krisskross wrote:

I wouldn't agree with that statement. I have been charged once for a failed direct debit. This was for a rates payment of £23 and the charge for bouncing it was £25. So 20 years ago much higher proportionally.

The banks make a very small proportion of their overall profits from personal banking and current accounts, but no one really wants to hear that do they?

With reference to your charge, I read somewhere that they were less years ago, as I have no source at the moment, perhaps not.

The amount of charges claimed back is a drop in the ocean to the banks, but some people don't really want to hear that do they?