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

IvanOpinion

Twinkly wrote:

Oooops, another mistake.

"to put towards the £1 in my purse" should read "£6". Co-incidentally, 1970's maths education did nothing for my typing

You are an amateur ... if you want to see what lousy typing is really like you only have to read my posts .. now I am a professional at typos

ivan

Twinkly

IvanOpinion

I thank you sir for your kind praise :rotfl:

Need_More_Money_2

lady_noluck wrote:

I agree. £5 isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. I can't wait to go overdrawn and be charged such a small amount. What fun!!!! Idiot :rolleyes2 Have you ever considered the possibility that sometimes people go overdrawn out of necessity??? For example, your wages have disappeared on bills already, your babies screaming for a fresh nappy and your cupboards are emptier than a size zero stomach. What do you do? Wrap your babys bum in kitchen roll whilst hunting for roadkill to feed your starving children??

This is the problem with this kind of thread. People always want to take it to the extremes. No one is suggesting that everyone goes overdrawn on purpose. The point is that if there is very little penalty for going overdrawn, more people might be tempted to go overdrawn when they wouldn't have before.
For those people who have to go overdrawn to feed their children, this still isn't the responsibility of the bank. They're not charities. The fact that some people are in that situation (not through financial mis-management) is a much wider problem for society as a whole (that the goverment should deal with, not the banks). Whilst the situation of these people will be made worse by multiple high bank charges, we also need some penalty charges to act as a disincentive against debt. Otherwise I feel that, overall, this country's debt problem will only get worse.

oceanbee

No some of us are hard working mums trying to keep a roof over my childs head when her dad walks out on us and leaves us with a huge debts to pay.

I still worked and never once did the bank highlight to me i had a problem with my banking. I managed my account the only way i felt i could at the time.

But it took 1700 pound you people want to think yourselves lucky you dont have to ask for your money back.

I think Martin has help people like me understand how to bank correctly and know one should be knocked for that .Understand that no one should charge £30.00 to send out a letter.

Martin i think you have made me understand how to manage my money and thanks to you i have had £1400 pounds back today, so that can go on one of the debts left.

trademark

Prescilla!!! (an insult or your name , im not sure) .... and IDIOT !!!!


more insults, as expected but im open to abuse, in answer to your question though i have lost count of the amount of times an un-expected bill has arrived, on those occassions i arranged an overdraft with my bank and it was dealt with, a free overdraft i might add, its called communication and if it doesnt happen then the relationship between bank and customer breaks down.

I and others are insulted on this thread because we are in the minority and because people would rather not face the truth, that in many cases a banks t&c's are broken simply because a night out is in order or becasue envious eyes are acted upon out side of a shop window.

Before the sob stories please this time for once notice the word MANY, above

Twinkly

Need_More_Money wrote:

For those people who have to go overdrawn to feed their children, this still isn't the responsibility of the bank. They're not charities. The fact that some people are in that situation (not through financial mis-management) is a much wider problem for society as a whole (that the goverment should deal with, not the banks). Whilst the situation of these people will be made worse by multiple high bank charges, we also need some penalty charges to act as a disincentive against debt. Otherwise I feel that, overall, this country's debt problem will only get worse.

Whilst I appreciate your opinion I do not feel that penalising people is a valid incentive for them to stay out of debt. (To use analogy smacking children doesnt stop them being 'naughty'). Some middle ground I think would be to introduce some form of penalty, not neccessarily a charge, after a fixed period of time for repeat offenders. I also strongly believe that there should be education of young people at some level to manage finances before they enter into the world of 'being grown up and having money'. This *should be* the responsibility of parents but some government initiative should be implemented in schools also.

I've managed money fairly well over the years despite not having much of it and in the example I gave above my account was in credit, I had money in the bank and staff refused to give it to me unconditionally, it was that simple. I dont consider it an extreme example as it must have been a situation others found themselves in at some time or other.

I was not asking for charity and was perfectly capable of feeding my children. I was not in a debt situation due to my own mismanagement I had money in the bank. I needed neither the government nor the bank to help with a debt situation. Had I taken the action they attempted to force me into (card at ATM) I do not feel I should have been put in this position nor subsequently penalised at all, for any amount.

I appreciate banks charge penalties for large withdrawals from some high interest accounts to cover any losses and make a profit but I wanted £4 out of my standard interest bank account. I am not Rockefeller !

Their rule prevented me from access to my own money (regardless of the reason for my withdrawal) therefore it was most definitely their responsibility that I would not have been able to feed my own child.

Need_More_Money_2

Twinkly wrote:

Whilst I appreciate your opinion I do not feel that penalising people is a valid incentive for them to stay out of debt. (To use analogy smacking children doesnt stop them being 'naughty').

We might not smack children for being naughty, but they are still penalised in some way, so I don't think your analogy holds.
The existing charges have worked as a deterrent for me. They've made me take great care to ensure I don't go overdrawn. Whilst I appreciate not everyone can avoid it, without the penalties I might've not bothered so much about managing my money properly.

Twinkly wrote:

Some middle ground I think would be to introduce some form of penalty, not neccessarily a charge, after a fixed period of time for repeat offenders. I

Agreed, although I suggest there should be a small penalty at first. With repeat 'offenders' penalised more harshly, especially if they show no interest in trying to deal with their financial problems.
It is certainly a difficult one to balance. Deterring reckless spending, but not wanting to make someone's debt problems worse if they are actively trying to deal with them.

Twinkly wrote:

also strongly believe that there should be education of young people at some level to manage finances before they enter into the world of 'being grown up and having money'. This *should be* the responsibility of parents but some government initiative should be implemented in schools also.

Agree completely with this. Much of the problem (note, I didn't say "all") is due to people not knowing how to manage their money properley. The banks can be criticised for their advertising and pushing of loans, but we are all responsible for our own actions. We shouldn't need babysitting.

Twinkly wrote:

I appreciate banks charge penalties for large withdrawals from some high interest accounts to cover any losses and make a profit but I wanted £4 out of my standard interest bank account. I am not Rockefeller !

Their rule prevented me from access to my own money (regardless of the reason for my withdrawal) therefore it was most definitely their responsibility that I would not have been able to feed my own child.

Yes I can see that your experience with the bank would be annoying and their rule does seem ridiculous

Twinkly

Need_More_Money wrote:

We might not smack children for being naughty, but they are still penalised in some way, so I don't think your analogy holds.
The existing charges have worked as a deterrent for me.

My analogy was meant to reflect a disagreement with your assertion that penalty 'charges' are necessary, as in financial, and to support my suggestion of some form of penalty but not necessarily financial. For smacking read charging. It makes sense then

Whilst smacking might stop a child throwing a tantrum deliberatelyand make them think again it will not necessarily stop it doing it again for reasons beyond their control such as immaturity at a certain age to express themselves in another way. Equally, charging a customer might stop them doing it deliberately and make them think again but will not necessarily stop it happening again possibly for reasons beyond their control.
, as detailed above in my previous post.


I hope I've managed to communicate my analogy better this time

I am glad you agree with me on other points raised in my post, it is gratifying that I am not the only one who thinks along these lines. By educating our children in all aspects of life we can all hope for a better society to enjoy in our old age.

Need_More_Money_2

Twinkly wrote:

My analogy was meant to reflect a disagreement with your assertion that penalty 'charges' are necessary, as in financial, and to support my suggestion of some form of penalty but not necessarily financial. For smacking read charging. It makes sense then

Whilst smacking might stop a child throwing a tantrum deliberatelyand make them think again it will not necessarily stop it doing it again for reasons beyond their control such as immaturity at a certain age to express themselves in another way. Equally, charging a customer might stop them doing it deliberately and make them think again but will not necessarily stop it happening again possibly for reasons beyond their control.
, as detailed above in my previous post.


I hope I've managed to communicate my analogy better this time

So we're agreed that some kind of penalty is required? The question is whether it should be in the form of a charge or something else?
I wouldn't argue with that. (Although I suspect the naughty step might be taking the analogy too far )

RitaDaly

Sorry Trademark-don't agree with you at all...

My case was ludicrous -I - like you- am responsible with money. So you can imagine how I felt when the HALIFAX charged my £30 - £39 for each items I was overdrawn between 18 Jan - and 30 Jan - 12 days !!! The total came to £ 459 !!!!!!!!!!!!! I was overdrawn by just under £ 200.

I don't expect not to pay anything -in fact I agree that I would pay interest and their monthly charge of £ 28 for being overdrawn. But I don't expect to be ripped off either. I am willing to admit my own mistake and pay for them - I am not willing to let people rob me blind.

Cheers
Rita