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

doitmyself

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nah mate. Just showed a deposit, I thought everyone knew that didnt mean it was cleared and you can view actual cash avaliable at any time at cash machines, online or via telephone banking.

Say I have a balance of 1k, put a cheque in for 2k from another bank.

Will show 3k in the statement, but avaliable balance will be 1k. They have to show the deposit otherwise we'd all wonder whether it got through.

This is the whole problem, people just not knowing or educating themselves about the system, again, its common knowledge and again, all in the T&C's.

I hear ya bud, I just don't understand what the hell some of these people are on about sometimes. What's more alarming is neither do they!

As for Mr. Lewis, well he's made a career out of telling people who couldn't fathom it out for themselves despite the endless marketing from the CC's how to do a balance transfer. The Council Tax banding thing was (arguably) a worthy effort but ultimately a damp squib. Like the site, that's about it...

Graham_Devon

I think Martin does a stunning job, however, this is on the edge, moving into 'This is how to not be responsible for yourself'.

He didnt invent this (as far as I'm aware). And I cannot blame him for jumping on the bandwagon and opening this forum, it does afterall make economic sense. However, I think it should be shut now. He knows exactly whats happening, and knows the consequences, yet still promotes it.

It will simply make it worse for everyone.

As for the charges, well, people are charging now for charges they have occured SINCE reclaiming. I.e. they have had a BIG windfall in most cases, and are back to being charged again.

There simply is no hope.

Taffyfella

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nah mate. Just showed a deposit, I thought everyone knew that didnt mean it was cleared and you can view actual cash avaliable at any time at cash machines, online or via telephone banking.

Say I have a balance of 1k, put a cheque in for 2k from another bank.

Will show 3k in the statement, but avaliable balance will be 1k. They have to show the deposit otherwise we'd all wonder whether it got through.

This is the whole problem, people just not knowing or educating themselves about the system, again, its common knowledge and again, all in the T&C's.

Sorry mate, I feel your swerving from the point, your starting to slander people by saying " thought everyone knew that didn't mean it was cleared" should never assume everyone should know this.

Also "people not educating themselves" are you one of these people that sit there and read endless paragraphes of T&Cs? It's up to the individual if they want to educate themselves on the complexed banking system. Why should they?? After all, an a/c is opened well before you even read the T&Cs unless you want to sit at your branch for three hours reading through befor you sign!!

The funds were probably available, hence why a swicth card was used to pay the bills. It is possible for funds to become available straight away.

The point I'm getting at, is upthewall was catergorically told these funds were available, why should she think otherwise.

Moral of the story is YOU CAN'T TRUST THE BANKS!!!!

doitmyself

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think Martin does a stunning job, however, this is on the edge, moving into 'This is how to not be responsible for yourself'.

He didnt invent this (as far as I'm aware). And I cannot blame him for jumping on the bandwagon and opening this forum, it does afterall make economic sense. However, I think it should be shut now. He knows exactly whats happening, and knows the consequences, yet still promotes it.

It will simply make it worse for everyone.

As for the charges, well, people are charging now for charges they have occured SINCE reclaiming. I.e. they have had a BIG windfall in most cases, and are back to being charged again.

There simply is no hope.

The site will live on because of the sheer number of people across all age and experience boundaries who come together here, and that's fantastic.
I've always thought Martin Lewis is someone with not much to say but who manages to say it loudly and often. Quite frankly when he disappears into inevitable obscurity no-one here will care, or even notice.

I agree with you re. reclaim charges, and then re-reclaim charges. And then...? Well stop incurring the F charges might be an idea huh?
As for the subsequent post here, again !!!!!!?
Zzzzzzz

Taffyfella

Agree to disagree shall we??

:rotfl:

doitmyself

Taffyfella wrote: »

Agree to disagree shall we??

:rotfl:

Sure. As our Iranian friend showed us this week taffy you are free to go, as a gift to the Bristish people

katecheshire

I would not mind paying a reasonable charge and one that related to the severity of the 'offence'. £30 to bounce a DD for £8? No letter sent so what are they charging for? Plus they have the deeds to my house so I'm hardly likely to abscond with 'their' £8 . . . . plus I had money in an ISA, just hadn't been able to get to the bank to transfer. It's because it's all done by computer. Years ago I worked for Natwest and we used to actually check what date someone got paid before deciding whether to bounce a cheque.

My bank used to be helpful; you could talk to someone in the branch and they helped me through a horrible time when I got divorced. Now you have to ring head office and it's completely impersonal. You wonder if anyone has actually read the banking code.

Graham_Devon

Taffyfella wrote: »

Sorry mate, I feel your swerving from the point, your starting to slander people by saying " thought everyone knew that didn't mean it was cleared" should never assume everyone should know this.

Also "people not educating themselves" are you one of these people that sit there and read endless paragraphes of T&Cs? It's up to the individual if they want to educate themselves on the complexed banking system. Why should they?? After all, an a/c is opened well before you even read the T&Cs unless you want to sit at your branch for three hours reading through befor you sign!!

The funds were probably available, hence why a swicth card was used to pay the bills. It is possible for funds to become available straight away.

The point I'm getting at, is upthewall was catergorically told these funds were available, why should she think otherwise.

Moral of the story is YOU CAN'T TRUST THE BANKS!!!!

Hmmm. Ok, so your saying people shouldnt learn about money and how the bank which holds their money runs because 'why should they'?

Nough said me thinks.

If funds were avaliable from that cheque, it would NOT have bounced. Bouncing happens when funds are drawn from the other bank and it does not happen.

So how can you say funds were avaliable, if it bounced? No, they were not.

Yes, you could probably spend it, but your taking a risk in doing so. Your spending on a promise written on a piece of paper. However, I know my bank do not let me withdraw cash if my STATEMENT says £300 but my avaliable balance says nil.

Trusting banks is nothing to do with it. YOU have control over your money. YOU decide what to do with it. YOU know the score if you break the T&C's unless your in a boat where you think 'why should I know what the banks do'. If you are, expect charges.

Is this really the kind of attitude of people claiming? I'm quite frankly astonished by the 'why should they' comment.

NeilW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It will simply make it worse for everyone.

Will it. Why is that? Because the banks say so?

Under the current illegal charging regime banks have a huge incentive to stop transactions from happening. That's why they remove money from your account and bounce transactions before adding money to the account. (The old 'debits before credits' trick). They love bounced cheques because it allows them (in the case of the Yorkshire bank for example) to even charge the person who paid the cheque into the bank.

Banks are central to the economy of the country. Failed transactions have a ripple effect across the economy - increasing costs to businesses. What we need is a bank system where the incentive is to make transactions *succeed*, and make transactions happen quickly. Currently the financial incentive is to do the exact opposite.

People who accidentally overdraw need not be in breach of terms and conditions. A bank's job is to lend money. That is where they make their profit (or it should be). I have absolutely no problem with a bank charging 1000% APR for an unauthorised overdraft. At least then the cost would be transparent and they could be castigated for 'overcharging' poor people. Remember that the doorstep lenders, like Provident, were hauled in front of the Competition Commission for having APRs in excess of a mere *100%*. Obviously they would have been better just imposing illegal charges on their poor customers.

Banks can recover a good chunk of the money they would lose from charges by increasing the percentage amount they charge on unauthorised overdrafts - assuming competition allows them to do that.

Similarly competition will stop them withdrawing free banking. That is just a smokescreen put out to frighten the horses.

I see nothing but good coming from this consumer revolt. Banks are going to have to grow up and realise that they occupy a privileged position in the economy and that they have no more right to super-normal profits than any other business.

NeilW

NeilW

Tozer wrote: »

Bad for you that you could not abide by the terms and conditions.

If the incentive was to charge interest, rather than penalty charges the T&Cs would be different. They are as they are to profit from illegality and the ignorance of consumers.

And as a lawyer you will know there is no requirement to abide by any contract. Only civil or criminal consequences of not doing so. And often the consequences aren't that onerous - as the banks have been demonstrating for years.

NeilW