Don't blame the campaigners for the end of free banking Blog Discussion

RainbowsInTheSpray

john1950 wrote: »

Why is it that these Martin types side with the stupid people, those who choose not to be careful with their finances and so get penalised.

What about those of us who choose not to join the inept by being sensible with our finances and living within our means. Any idiot can spend more than they have, any idiot can run up debts which their own common sense should tell them they will have problems paying back.

I have never paid bank charges because I have chosen not to. This requires some effort to live within your means and yes, it can be difficult at times and it can be boring.

I am quite happy with my banking arrangements and now that charges have been reduced I am quite happy for the banks to charge the careless.

As Morse might say"Lewis, you haven't thought this through"!!

Yes indeed.

The whole of M's blog entry smacks of defensiveness and a belated realisation that one's foot has been put in it big time.

I understand and agree with most of the points made - except that they all amount to a wilful skirting of the obvious fact that, had it not been for this campaign, there would have been no change in the status quo and those who conduct their financial affairs prudently would not be facing the prospect of current account charges.

In brief then Martin, I for one shall indeed be 'blaming the campaigners'...

Mark7799

MSE_Martin wrote: »

As I write in my blog

"Banks don’t have to pay bounced cheques. The idea ‘people are unfairly taking the banks money’ is nonsense. Banks have two limits when you go beyond your authorised overdraft; the ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ limit. This means internally they allow you to keep taking money out up to a further limit. The system is designed this way so that they can levy these profitable fees."


Martin

How about customers do not have to write cheques when there is no money in their account to meet the payment? Surely you should be encouraging people to keep a close check on their spending?

Arni_2

Mark7799 wrote: »

How about customers do not have to write cheques when there is no money in their account to meet the payment? Surely you should be encouraging people to keep a close check on their spending?

Don't be silly Mark7799, that would assume people have to accept the outcome of their own actions, not something that always happens in this country any more as long as there are campaigners, usually in the media, around to support and comfort them.

Seriously, I agree with your sentiments entirely

cnoelj

Mark7799 wrote: »

How about customers do not have to write cheques when there is no money in their account to meet the payment? Surely you should be encouraging people to keep a close check on their spending?

I will say it again

People may go overdrawn for all sorts of reasons such as their salary does not get paid in on time for reasons fair or foul. People get clobbered for going a few pounds or a few pence overdrawn by the intransigent greedy banks that like to say No. The smug and self satisfied Martin knockers do not seem able to or want to address this issue. And yes people should keep an eye on their spending, that is taken as read. Can we move on and use this forum for what it is intended for - to be positive and encouraging?

HACZ

cnoelj wrote: »

I will say it again

People may go overdrawn for all sorts of reasons such as their salary does not get paid in on time for reasons fair or foul. People get clobbered for going a few pounds or a few pence overdrawn by the intransigent greedy banks that like to say No. The smug and self satisfied Martin knockers do not seem able to or want to address this issue. And yes people should keep an eye on their spending, that is taken as read. Can we move on and use this forum for what it is intended for - to be positive and encouraging?

I must disagree. When my wife was seriously ill a couple of years ago, finances were at the bottom of my priorities. A credit card payment wasn't made and I didn't transfer some money to a halifax account resulting in several charges.
I didn't even think about the bank until the statement arrived and when it did to be honest under the stress of my wife's illness i felt like ignoring it but I didn't!
I phoned both companies, explained the situation and was given a refund of the charges. Both companies offered arrangements to prevent a similar charge being levied in the future.

The moral, I played to the rules and didn't endure any longstanding effect. With hindsight I could have buried my head in the sand and left a large overdraft to build up, simply downloading a letter and reclaiming the charges now!

Get a grip moneysavers and Martin. Campaign for fairness and justice but lets also have a campaign that encourages people to begin taking responsibility for their own actions.

Good luck to those reclaiming charges, save the money for your new monthly charges. Seriously if you do get the charges back, make sure you don't get back into a similar problem. Take the advice on these and other sites and budget within your means.

Contains_Mild_Peril

HACZ wrote: »

I do not go overdrawn, if I can't afford a new TV etc I'll save, I get paid by BACs and pay my bills by DD and debit card - why should I subsidise someone who doesn't pay any attention to their balance and regularly goes overdrawn?

Is it right, then, that those customers should subsidise you? If you always live within your means and save for things rather than borrowing, you are probably not a very profitable customer for the bank: you might even cost them more money than you make them. If that is the case, are you happy for the poor to penalised (albeit often for their own errors) for the sake of customers like yourself?
I think a few people on this thread seem to be missing one of Martin's points: he is NOT saying that bank charges must be abolished altogether or that careful budgeters should pay for genuine administration costs incurred by the financially inept. If you read the blog, you'll find he says

And of course no one is demanding an end to bank charges, just saying they’re unlawful because they’re too big - I’d be happy with a £2-5 charge rather than the current £30ish.

A £5 charge would be more than enough both to cover the bank' actual expenses and to encourage customers to check their budgets and avoid unauthorised overdrafts as much as possible.
I would also reiterate the point that overdrafts, unpaid DDs and other finable offences can occur through no fault of the account holder. If wages or benefits are paid late because of someone else's error, the account holder might not even be aware of the discrepancy until charges have occurred. The mistakes of the chaotic tax credits system have done this to many, as have other agencies, employers etc, and the difficulty is that high bank charges often result in more bank charges because the victim can't pay the first lot, which then results in more unpaid DDs etc, and the whole thing spirals out of control. Banks can sometimes make hundreds of pounds from snowballing charges all stemming from an unauthorised overdraft of only a few £s or even pence.
There is one statement in Martin's blog with which I would take issue:

While bank charges are profitable, banks really make their cash from only paying us 0.1% when we’re in-credit and lending it back at up to 18% on unsecured debts - a very profitable game

Up to? There are some on low or erratic incomes and/ or with poor credit records who would be delighted if the loan rate their banks offered them were as low as 18%.

MarkyMarkD

I'm not interested in the "legal/illegal" nature of bank charges - that's been done to death elsewhere.

But Martin is consistently ignoring the fact that one of the key points in his blog - that the banks deliberately allow their customers to exceed their overdraft limits - is to a large extent wrong. As several have already pointed out (including one before Martin's last post in this thread) a lot of intentional unauthorised transactions are undertaken using guaranteed cheques.

For banks to bounce direct debits, which are usually for utilities, would lead their customers to incur penalties from their suppliers and potentially to lose the benefit of direct debit discounts. Is it better for banks to pay the transactions or to bounce them - it's not clear that either is necessarily the best approach.

And however often people want to post that some unauthorised overdrafts are caused by others' mistakes - then those who cause the unauthorised overdraft should pay for their own mistake. I don't see why the banks (or other customers at the end of the day) should pay for your employer's, or the DWP, or whoever's, mistakes.

The idea that those who are reclaiming THOUSANDS of pounds in charges are largely innocent victims of an evil system is simply baloney. Most of those people knew very well they were spending beyond their means.

buckles

:j

icefall wrote: »

Hear hear Martin.

Keep up the good work!

sorry if this is the wrong place to air my joy - but using your advice(and 1 other site) I harassed HSBC on behalf of my son asked for £1715 and using all the methods and phrases they offered £1545-needless to say he accepted. Time taken 8 weeks to get the outcome!!!
thank you thank you thank you 1545 times!!!!!!!!

HACZ

buckles wrote: »

:j

sorry if this is the wrong place to air my joy - but using your advice(and 1 other site) I harassed HSBC on behalf of my son asked for £1715 and using all the methods and phrases they offered £1545-needless to say he accepted. Time taken 8 weeks to get the outcome!!!
thank you thank you thank you 1545 times!!!!!!!!

Are these charges just a result of banks' greed or should the customer take some responsibility?

tomstickland

RainbowsInTheSpray wrote: »

Yes indeed.

The whole of M's blog entry smacks of defensiveness and a belated realisation that one's foot has been put in it big time.

I understand and agree with most of the points made - except that they all amount to a wilful skirting of the obvious fact that, had it not been for this campaign, there would have been no change in the status quo and those who conduct their financial affairs prudently would not be facing the prospect of current account charges.

In brief then Martin, I for one shall indeed be 'blaming the campaigners'...

So you would have preferred to maintain the status quo where punative charges on others subsidised your free banking?