Real cost to the banks

rushy506

Hello all, only one of a few posts on here and just wondering your thoughts.

We are claiming bank charges as they are supposedly illigal and dont reflect the cost of going overdrawn to the bank.

Question is, Where will this stop though... I mean, today for example I bought a sandwich from a very well known sandwich chain and it cot me 2.50. But to actually put it together must have only cost 50p or so...

Can I claim the difference back? no of course I can't. I am merely suggestiing its a service and agree they make too much money, just thought I would ask this as it popped into my head today when I said to my friend 'thats a prip off, it costs em nothing like that to make'...

Thoughts?

Lee

GarethR

rushy506 wrote: »

Hello all, only one of a few posts on here and just wondering your thoughts.

We are claiming bank charges as they are supposedly illigal and dont reflect the cost of going overdrawn to the bank.

Question is, Where will this stop though... I mean, today for example I bought a sandwich from a very well known sandwich chain and it cot me 2.50. But to actually put it together must have only cost 50p or so...

Can I claim the difference back? no of course I can't. I am merely suggestiing its a service and agree they make too much money, just thought I would ask this as it popped into my head today when I said to my friend 'thats a prip off, it costs em nothing like that to make'...

Thoughts?

Lee

You should eat your sandwich & concentrate more on what it tastes like. You dont work for a bank by any chance do you? :rotfl:

Stephen_Leak

Not a really valid example. The sandwich shop was't penalising you for buying their product. There is nothing wrong with making an honest profit but they can also charge what they think the market can stand.

Lets say you lend me some money. I agree to pay it back by a certain date. I don't. You ring me to remind me. You can add the cost of that 'phone call to my debt. What the law does not permit you to do is add an "excessive" amount to the debt.

It is this last bit that is the problem. Just limiting the banks to charging their costs is actually not the answer. These days, it costs so little to administer a default, that this would not be a "disincentive" to defaulting. Just doing this will not do anyone, neither banks nor us customers, any favours.

IMHO, the law should be changed to allow banks, under strict control of course, to charge a fixed amount as a "disincentive".

Dylanwing

Stephenleak - Totally agree - Basically it needs a tariff set 'according to the crime', preferably capped, and do as Nationwide do, charge you at the end of the following Month later so that the original problem is not compounded. Hardly rocket science! (That is aimed at Banks and Regulators - Not posters here!)