Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

mramra

Lee_Jeffries wrote: »

It's gone from very a very bad day to just a bad day.

On the contrary it's a very good day for the majority of people who believe in budgeting and careful management of their finances. This could have ended with everyone facing annual/monthly charges for their current accounts. Thankfully, common sense prevailed. :T

pie81

Lee_Jeffries wrote: »

How long will we have to wait until we hear anything about this clause??

It's gone from very a very bad day to just a bad day.

Erm... ages probably. First someone (OFT maybe) needs to argue it in court, then the banks will fight it, if they lose at first stage they will go to court of appeal, if they lose there they will go to the Supreme Court. As before I suspect that individual claims would be stayed while this goes on. So it could take up to 2 years or so again before there is any final decision.

Captain_Cautious

dbilsborough wrote: »

I worked for NatWest for 11 years, and charging was rife back in the 80s / 90s, what was different than now? People these days jump on the bandwaggon of campaigns about how unfair the world is and how they should not have to pay for X/Y/Z or how "they" should sort everything out for us.

In the vast majority of cases, the people that were charged for unauthorised overdrafts when I worked in banking knew full well what they were doing, knew they would be charged for it and accepted it. There are of course circumstances as above where someone has got a fraudulent cheque, but let's be honest how often has that happened to you?

Another point was that a large percentage of people that incurred unauthorised overdraft fees could have saved the expense by bothering to ask the bank for an overdraft facility. If someone was turned down for an overdraft it was never to punish the person but rather a decision made using the information given by the customer and their history looking as to whether they could afford to pay the money back.

People have to make choices in life, you choose to spend money, you choose to save money. I suspect for every 100 people that say we really needed to take the money they didn't actually have from the bank 99 of them didn't really need to, they might have wanted to, they might have spent the money they actually had unwisely, but that's a different thing all together.

Ignoring the fact you worked for NatWest for 11 years, which makes you a far from unbiased observer, you are missing the point. You claim that charges were rife in the 80's and 90's...so what? This simply illustrates the point that thanks to the internet, campaigns like Marin's gain wider exposure. That the banks went unchallenged for so long should worry us, not the fact people have finally woken-up to the inherent unfairness of the charging structure. It certainly shouldn't be celebrated. Also, you make a sweeping generalisation about peoples spending habits, but I can also do the same, arguing that most bank employees are irritating and unhelpful on the phone, and a great many have ridden the gravytrain for as long and as far as possible. Maybe you were one of them?

You mention that people "knew about overdraft charges and accepted them". We have no choice in accepting them. You cannot ask for better terms from your bank, not unless you are a billionaire. The T&C are set out in the standard contract, which you have to accept or you don't have an account. It's not choosing this charging structure, it's having no viable alternative! As a society, we HAVE to own a bank account. You cannot survive in life without one. All employers demand one, any service of goods will probably require one. And yet, we have an effective cartel in the provision of this ESSENTIAL service with all 4 major clearing banks, by some fluke of nature, sharing almost identical charging structures! How perculiar?!

The bottom line is this. I currently pay a monthly fee for my account, the HSBC Plus account. This comes with various additional services I deem worth the expense. I am happy to pay for my banking. However, what I object to in the strongest terms possible is being held to ransom by a bank and charged WAY beyond what could ever be called a fair charge for exceeding my overdraft by a tiny amount. It's uterly unacceptable and is nakedly rapacious profiteering by the banks dressed-up as administrative costs!!

You are a fool, as are any of your ilk, who celebrate this ruling. What we require is a CLEAR and FAIR charging structure, where people are not caught in a spiral of charges and debt. The banks lectured us on financial responsibility for years, until they themselves failed to heed their own preachings. This ruling won't encourage banks to review their charging structure and entire business model, leading to a simpler, fairer charging structure. Banks should be trying to steer customers away from debt and charges, as opposed to pouncing on any misdemeanour like a pack of rabid wolves. Moreover, banks shouldn't be reliant on charges to generate a profit as they have for years. It's a rotten business that relies on penalties to generate an income. Nor is it acceptable to talk about "free banking" when it isn't free, only to some. Explain this...why does it take days for cheques to clear? Why does it take days for one major clearing bank to transfer money to another? It seems almost laughable to talk of this in terms of progress, but perhaps the banks need to focus on improving their offering, then more customers might consider banking worthy of a monthly fee. These things are taken for granted in other countries, why not in Britain?

The banks HAVE to change, this would have been a first step. As it is we are back in the realms of airy promises, vague talk about the banks taking a new approach and the goverment "having a word".

P_Walters

mramra wrote: »

On the contrary it's a very good day for the majority of people who believe in budgeting and careful management of their finances. This could have ended with everyone facing annual/monthly charges for their current accounts. Thankfully, common sense prevailed. :T

Absolutely...hahaha. Careful budgeting???? Careful budgeting???????????!!!!! All I do is work, pay bills and watch TV. As if they won't be charging for current accounts in the not too distant future (all the hole in the walls now tell me there'll be a charge for my withdrawal). Today has just proved they can do anything they want. Oh, and let's wait and see what those delicious bonuses are like next time round, still enough to keep them in clover for a long while I bet. It all stinks and I am fuming, worked all my life and the only thing I pray for in my old age is that I can keep warm and fed. Please, don't patronise about careful flippin' budgeting, not right now.

Broadstone

Very disappointing news today; although it was made slightly brighter with Martin Lewis's bulletin this afternoon with regards the door reopened for reclaimers.

For info, I am one of the bank charges claimers.

I suggest that we all wait and see what advise comes forward from the Moneysavingsexpert team. Please also remember that the forthcoming class act should be a very strong tool for fast-tracking a resolution to this. I hope that it will work in a similar, if not identical fashion, as it does in the USA. Fingers crossed !

Broadstone

mramra wrote: »

On the contrary it's a very good day for the majority of people who believe in budgeting and careful management of their finances. This could have ended with everyone facing annual/monthly charges for their current accounts. Thankfully, common sense prevailed. :T

Please do not contribute in this forum as it is for people who are pro-actiively looking to reclaim unfair banking charges. Your views are irrevelant and are not adding any value.

If you choose to respond to my posting, I will just ignore your comments and not respond. I suggest everyone does the same and hopefully this person will just go away.

Broadstone

dbilsborough wrote: »

I worked for NatWest for 11 years, and charging was rife back in the 80s / 90s, what was different than now? People these days jump on the bandwaggon of campaigns about how unfair the world is and how they should not have to pay for X/Y/Z or how "they" should sort everything out for us.

In the vast majority of cases, the people that were charged for unauthorised overdrafts when I worked in banking knew full well what they were doing, knew they would be charged for it and accepted it. There are of course circumstances as above where someone has got a fraudulent cheque, but let's be honest how often has that happened to you?

Another point was that a large percentage of people that incurred unauthorised overdraft fees could have saved the expense by bothering to ask the bank for an overdraft facility. If someone was turned down for an overdraft it was never to punish the person but rather a decision made using the information given by the customer and their history looking as to whether they could afford to pay the money back.

People have to make choices in life, you choose to spend money, you choose to save money. I suspect for every 100 people that say we really needed to take the money they didn't actually have from the bank 99 of them didn't really need to, they might have wanted to, they might have spent the money they actually had unwisely, but that's a different thing all together.

Please do not contribute in this forum as it is for people who are pro-actiively looking to reclaim unfair banking charges. Your views are irrevelant and are not adding any value.

If you choose to respond to my posting, I will just ignore your comments and not respond. I suggest everyone does the same and hopefully this person will just go away.

livelyred

So are we not going to get our money back now ? Ive been waiting 3yrs this xmas when i put my claim in ?

P_Walters

Broadstone, you should be Prime Minister!! I think the less bankers we have contributing to this forum the better, we do not intererfere in their worlds (blatantly obvious after today) and they should have the good manners to stay out of ours (they can book another holiday or something if they're looking for things to do on the internet).
I was thinking, I need to thoroughly read through this alternative clause that everyone is talking about as I must admit my post was a bit of a get it off your chest one, but if all else fails, as many people that I know have already been paid out through Small Claims Courts, does this not become a personal issue to the people who have been denied such payouts and therefore qualifying our cases for the European Court? Just a thought. Last resort I must stress.

mramra

P_Walters wrote: »

Broadstone, you should be Prime Minister!!

Looks like he believes he is already!