Bank charges

maxzorin_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Irrelevant.

Please could you elaborate why this is irrelevant, I thought it depended on the individual case such as how the charges were applied amongst other things?

noh

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/financial-hardship-unaffordable-lending.htm#2

"Consumers sometimes believe mistakenly that their bank is obliged to refund all the charges made to their account – or may not apply any future charges – if they are in financial difficulty. This is not the case.
However, a bank should respond helpfully and fairly where a consumer is in genuine financial hardship. What this means will depend on the individual circumstances of the consumer, and will not necessarily involve any refund of money."

meer53

maxzorin wrote: »

Its not as simple as saying someone spent more than they could afford - that is a very big Generalisation. Some people accidentally go over their balance due to an unforseen circumstance, such as emergency car repair, being out the country & not monitoring all transactions, moving house etc.

They may not trust internet banking for some strange reason & not monitoring all transactions each & every week, then they go their limit by a few pounds, a direct debit is due to go out, it gets returned plus they get charged £25 - 35 by the bank for refusing to pay a direct debit of a simular value - how is that fair or right?

The fact that someone can incur charges for the above scenarios is true. BUT, these are usually one off instances, to incur fees over a 6 year period would indicate very poor financial management.

If you thought the charges were unfair or incorrectly applied, you should claim at the time, not 6 years later.

maxzorin_2

meer53 wrote: »

The fact that someone can incur charges for the above scenarios is true. BUT, these are usually one off instances, to incur fees over a 6 year period would indicate very poor financial management.

If you thought the charges were unfair or incorrectly applied, you should claim at the time, not 6 years later.

Yea fair point, unless they didn't know it was possible to complain & claim them back until now. Some people are not as bright as others!

Still think its morally wrong to charge someone £30 for going over their limit by a few pounds no matter how many times it happens.

Wywth

maxzorin wrote: »

The bankers are the greedy ones, £120 is a pathetic offer.

I thought the courts ruled they couldn't be assessed for fairness, not that they WERE fair? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Its not as simple as saying someone spent more than they could afford - that is a very big Generalisation. Some people accidentally go over their balance due to an unforseen circumstance, such as emergency car repair, being out the country & not monitoring all transactions, moving house etc.

They may not trust internet banking for some strange reason & not monitoring all transactions each & every week, then they go their limit by a few pounds, a direct debit is due to go out, it gets returned plus they get charged £25 - 35 by the bank for refusing to pay a direct debit of a simular value - how is that fair or right?

There are still avenues the other person could explore such as BCOBS. What do you think about BCOBS?

You've answered your own question there