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

chuckles1066

NeilW wrote: »

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.

It's not illegal, where have you got this from?

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.

This, in my opinion (this being a discussion) is quite insane. If we had a banking system where the incentive was to make transactions suceed, we'd soon be complaining tat we have spiralled into massive debt, the banks fault obviously, when they have paid all our bills and 'wants' and suddenly were owing 10k to them with no way to pay it. Just making transactions suceed, regardless of balance is quite honestly, insane.

On another note, that is what an agreed overdraft is for, exactly what you say. Not to live in, but to make transactions suceed. Most people can get an overdraft. For those that can't, there is a reason for it, they are too much of a risk, or have not been a good/trustworthy customer. All those who have reclaimed their charges, are now highly unlikely to get any leeway in terms of negotiating an overdraft.

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.

A banks job is to lend money? <spits everywhere="" coffee="">No it's not. Not at all. A banks job is to look after your money and provide whatever service YOU SIGNED UP FOR. Therefore, if you have signed up for a current account, that's what they provide.

A banks job is never to lend money. Only offer the services, of which it's then the customers decision to take up those offers, in terms or personal loans, hire purchase loans, overdrafts, mortgages.

It's a service they provide, but in no way is it their job to lend money.

Also, what's a poor customer? And should they be treated differently? If so, that's walking straight into discrimination against other customers who maybe are not in your terms 'poor'.

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.

There is no such thing as an unauthorised overdraft. As per my comment above. Say there was. The bank would then be putting you into debt, without your prior consent. Think of the compensation claims. Let's face it, all thsoe who have reclaimed their charges would have gone for compensation for the bank putting them in debt, via an unauthorised overdraft. Everything has to be authorised.

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

On the contrary, it's definately not banks who need to grow up. Seriously, if this is how you and maybe others think the banking system would work, it's frankly frightening. We have people saying 'why should we have to read terms and conditions' and others like yourself stating that banks should lend with no consent / put us into an unauthorised debt which we are unaware of.

You could argue that charges are already doing this, and no doubt you will. But, this is where we all have to take responsibility for ourselves and not do it.

And that is what all contracts are based on is it not?

Say you drive, when you drive on the UK roads you agree to the 'terms and conditions'. Break them and you get penalised. Break them a certain amount of times and you get taken off the roads.

It should be like that with banking, i.e. keep breaking the rules, your thrown out of the bank. However, it's not going to happen due to political correctness.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

£400 of charges?!

Also, what you have said is wrong. The deposit showed, but nothing was cleared. It tells you exactly what your avaliable balance is.

Therefore, you were in the wrong, not the banks. You spent money which you didnt have, very simple.

I agree with most who talk about the repocussions of people claiming (and now claiming for the second time round :rolleyes: ) as I have said many times before on this board.

I have always looked after my account and credit cards and now I am getting penalised, credit cards interests have doubled (literally) Why? Because of all this, it's been warned about many times. Still cannot quite understand why Martin continues to promote this, apart from it brings a LOT of visitors to the site.

Ok, lets get this straight. I paid the cheque in the account, on Monday, The cheque cleared and showed available funds on Thursday. I contacted customer service centre to confirm the cheque had cleared and was advised it had and funds are now available for withdrawal and cheque could not be returned unpaid. On Friday, I paid my bills, with my AVAILABLE BALANCE!!!!. On Saturday the cheque bounced and all my payments had already went through. The bank stated they could not reverse the payments and could not help us financially as we had accrued charges on the account, caused by the cheque that cleared and then bounced!

So to clarify, the cheque cleared and showed available funds, otherwise the payments would not have went through!!!!! Then 2 days later the cheque bounced. I was charged for each individual transaction that came of the account. Thats £39 per transaction max 3 charges per day.

Yes, the ex-employer is to blame for the cheque bouncing, but the bank is to blame for the cheque clearing then bouncing and then not helping us out for the short term:mad:

Hi,
This is a long story but basically I had a number of lloyds accounts (personal and business) until beginning of 2005. I was ill for a few months in hospital in 2004. My dad contacted them to cancel direct debits...but they didn't..so no money coming in resulted in £855.94 in bank charges in 3 months. They said last year they'd give me these back but didn't. I'm now claiming against the bank charges but Lloyds look like they've sold the 'debt' to debt collectors and today I got a statutory demand issued under the insolvency act 1984 (bankruptcy). It's for less than I'm claiming in bank charges. I'm at the 2nd stage just this week for bank charges claim. What should I do regards this letter please? I've spoken to Ist credit but they just say I can't claim bank charges back :mad:

Obviously you are completing missing the point and have just come to insult everyone with your opinions. My point being is, if you are told in advance, which with my bank I was not, that you are going to be a charged a huge over-inflated filling the banks pockets amount you wouldn't pay it.
Obviously being the complete dim-wit that you seem to think most of the people on here are, you are too educated for me to even fathom out. You have your opinion and I have mine. The banks are robbers and now they have to face up to the fact that they have been caught out and have to pay it back.

Serves them right for trying to cheat the public

ITF!!!! wrote: »

Hi I am making a claim with Barclays to recover £635.00 from them and decided that if I was offered £500 I would take it .Today I received a two page letter from them explaining the errors of my ways.

The letter explains that the fees have been charged in accordance with the terms & conditions of the account & is the customers responsibility to make sure that their account is run in credit or within an agreed overdraft limit.

It goes on to say on this occasion I am willing to offer the sum of £395.00 as a refund of charges apllied to my account.Please note that this offer is meant as a gesture of goodwill,if you would like to accept my offer please sign and return the enclosed form.

Now my question is I am really holding out for at £500.00 as after all I see it as my money in the first place,so what do I do next?

Thanks for any advice in advance

You have the obvious two choices: take the money and write the other £240
off as a learning experience or take your chances before a District Judge and run the risk of getting nothing (or winning the entire £635).

Only you can make that decision.

richt71 wrote: »

I've spoken to Ist credit but they just say I can't claim bank charges back :mad:

OF COURSE YOU CAN. :mad: :mad:

I guess my question was more along the lines of..

What do I do now I have decided to turn down the offer they have sent me?

LOL so I suddenly don't have a life because I pay my bills manually!? It takes about 10 mins a week and I save myself a fortune in charges!

Uh huh, ok!

***Board Guide note, another post that has several posts merged into one***
</spits>

Mark7799

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!!!![/QUOTE]

Bit of a contradiction in your own post there?:rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

upthewall wrote: »

Ok, lets get this straight. I paid the cheque in the account, on Monday, The cheque cleared and showed available funds on Thursday. I contacted customer service centre to confirm the cheque had cleared and was advised it had and funds are now available for withdrawal and cheque could not be returned unpaid. On Friday, I paid my bills, with my AVAILABLE BALANCE!!!!. On Saturday the cheque bounced and all my payments had already went through. The bank stated they could not reverse the payments and could not help us financially as we had accrued charges on the account, caused by the cheque that cleared and then bounced!

So to clarify, the cheque cleared and showed available funds, otherwise the payments would not have went through!!!!! Then 2 days later the cheque bounced. I was charged for each individual transaction that came of the account. Thats £39 per transaction max 3 charges per day.

Yes, the ex-employer is to blame for the cheque bouncing, but the bank is to blame for the cheque clearing then bouncing and then not helping us out for the short term:mad:

Non of that makes any sense at all, anywhere.

If a cheque clears, it has got past the bouncing stage and there is no longer anyway in which it can bounce.

Once past cleared stage, the cheque is discarded, the money has been pulled succesfully from the other bank / account and jobs done.

It cant then, especially 2 days later, bounce. The whole cheque process is complete by that stage (after clearing). That is what the term 'cleared' means. Its done, dusted, the money has cleared the process. Bouncing is when it does not clear and funds cannot be drawn from the other bank / account, therefore, NOT clearing.

And your cheque bounced on a saturday? A non working day where the cheque houses do not work in the banking industry?

Astonihing customer service you got going on there! :rolleyes:

upthewall_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Non of that makes any sense at all, anywhere.

If a cheque clears, it has got past the bouncing stage and there is no longer anyway in which it can bounce.

Once past cleared stage, the cheque is discarded, the money has been pulled succesfully from the other bank / account and jobs done.

It cant then, especially 2 days later, bounce. The whole cheque process is complete by that stage (after clearing). That is what the term 'cleared' means. Its done, dusted, the money has cleared the process. Bouncing is when it does not clear and funds cannot be drawn from the other bank / account, therefore, NOT clearing.

You obviously don't believe me and don't want to!!! I have explained what happened, only in the hope that some of the small minded people posting replies on this thread may be able to think outside of thier own little box:mad: .

Tell me, I paid almost £1k of bills that day, mainly by switch and a few by bill payment through the bank, how did they go through when I had no other funds in the account.

What I have said happened, it may not make sense but it happened.

And your cheque bounced on a saturday? A non working day where the cheque houses do not work in the banking industry?

I think you will find that most banks count Saturday as a clearing day for cheques!!!

Now I have told you the facts, at least get yours straight now before you come back to me calling me a liar or insulting me anymore.

Graham_Devon

I'm not insulting you. I know of no bank which clears cheques on a saturday due to the whole infrastructure having to work on a saturday for them to be able to clear cheques. In house cheques may clear on a saturday, but those would usually clear overnight anyway.

I have no need to think out of my own little box. This is how it works. You cannot clear a cheque for 2 days, actually have it cleared for it to bounce.

It either clears, or it bounces. There is no other way for it to happen. One or the other has to happen.

The only case I can see here is should the cheque have been a fraudulent one. I.e. a cheque has been given from the account without consent, in which case the account holder could possibly reclaim the money.

However, I doubt your bank would have imposed charges on you in this case, if they did, then I congratulate you in getting them back!!

If this was the case, i.e fraudulent, it would take a lot longer than a couple of days (including weekend!) for the cheque monies to be given back to the originators account.

lea2001gb

just a quick question to all you perfect 'I stick within my budget' people.

If you wrote a letter to a relative and posted it out and the post master said 'that will be £35 please, does that mean you would pay it?' And then when it got to the other end it had a sticker on it which said postage underpaid £25 charge would you expect your relative to pay it as well?

I didn't think so!!

Graham_Devon

lea2001gb wrote: »

just a quick question to all you perfect 'I stick within my budget' people.

If you wrote a letter to a relative and posted it out and the post master said 'that will be £35 please, does that mean you would pay it?' And then when it got to the other end it had a sticker on it which said postage underpaid £25 charge would you expect your relative to pay it as well?

I didn't think so!!

Whats that got to do with bank charges?

I'd just stick a stamp on the letter before I posted the letter to minimise the fuss.....thats just my peronal opinion and the route I would take as a responsible letter poster-er of course

michael1983l

anyway back to the issue, if you dont feel your getting a good deal by your bank because it can no longer steel money from poor people then its simple move banks and find a better deal.

Graham_Devon

michael1983l wrote: »

anyway back to the issue, if you dont feel your getting a good deal by your bank because it can no longer steel money from poor people then its simple move banks and find a better deal.

Oh right, so it's silly of us to ask that people are more responsible with our money and we should have to move elsewhere and face the hassle because people (like yourself) has been irresponsible....which you would have to be to be claiming that many thousands back in charges!!!

Graham_Devon

lea2001gb wrote: »

Obviously you are completing missing the point and have just come to insult everyone with your opinions. My point being is, if you are told in advance, which with my bank I was not, that you are going to be a charged a huge over-inflated filling the banks pockets amount you wouldn't pay it.
Obviously being the complete dim-wit that you seem to think most of the people on here are, you are too educated for me to even fathom out. You have your opinion and I have mine. The banks are robbers and now they have to face up to the fact that they have been caught out and have to pay it back.

Serves them right for trying to cheat the public

I'm not educated, I left school when I was 16 and didnt do any further education. I have, however, worked and had a keen interest in looking out for myself and doing better for myself.

You also were warned, when you signed the T&C's. I seem to be saying that over and over again.