Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

Dammam

alexjohnson wrote: »

So who's fault is it? You knew that your income was falling so I'm afraid the responsibility is with you to make the changes. I'm not trying to be heartless but the buck stops with you. As to the DSS - why did they stop payment? Assuming it was an error not an investigation, why is that your bank's fault? It's no more their problem than if my employer forgot to pay me. For what it's worth JSA / Income Support is £60.50 and people make that work. I presume you also either own your house, or get housing benefit? Council tax benefit? I'm not saying you should be happy but I am wondering why any of this is your bank's fault.

None of it is the banks fault of course. However, as the bank were happy enough to grab as much cash as possible from someone who had fallen into problems I feel little sympathy for them now that it turns out that they have been making huge profits from the people who can least afford to pay them without paying any heed to the legality of their actions.
Maybe they'll be a little more customer friendly in future. They can afford it - how much have they saved by laying off huge numbers of customer services personnel over here and giving the jobs to lower paid workers on the sub-continent? How much of that saving has made its way to our pockets? All we get is poorer service.

mattee77

Can anyone advise please, I went to court last year, the same week the cases were put on hold. and was told i would have to wait until a descision has been made on the test case and that the bank had to write to me with a descision within 14 days of a result. has anyone else got this far and in the same boat as me. I believe i have to wait until the final decsision has been made(appeal)

pwg_2

A friend phoned today in tears to confide that she felt she was totally trapped by ever-increasing bank charges applied by NatWest to her current account. Having run into financial difficulty some time ago, she now never uses this account. All direct debits etc have been cancelled but not before the balance of her account had entered into the 'red' of her authorised overdraft for £500.
She was unable to pay off this debt and now by applying monthly charges and interest, her authorised overdraft has been well exceeded with NatWest currently charging £28 each month plus substantial interest so much so that the outstanding balance is fast approching 2K.
Closing the account would not appear to be an option for the bank would require the debt to be paid and she is unable to do that. Meanwhile the debt mounts. I have read the articles re what ultimately can and what can't be claimed back. This mounting debt is 100% due to the bank charges and 0% of my friend's 'spending. Can you please advise as to what she might do NOW to stop these charges being added uncontrolably like as in 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'.

PhiltheBear

alexjohnson wrote: »

It's not a penalty. It just isn't. You're just choosing to view it that way.

So, I get a bill for £10. If I choose to pay it - in a perfectly legal way other than the way the company who issued it wants me to - I get charged an extra £5. And that's not a penalty? You obviously don't live in the rela world.

You could write a cheque. The point was that you don't need direct debits. If you have really taken my advice to heart and gone for a cashcard-only route then sure you'll need to go to your own bank or post office. Which plenty of pensioners seems readily able to do on pension day.

Let's be quite clear - if you pay by cheque or cash or any method other than direct debit then you get charged extra. You are PENALIZED. If you don't have a bank account you can only pay by cash. If you have a 'basic' bank account you don't have cheques to use. So, once again, how do you pay if any of these things apply to you without being penalized?

(Fail to pass on the discount.) You're right on the cost part, but where you are misunderstanding is that the utility will accept less money for a higher certainty that they get any money at all. Direct debit isn't cast-iron, but as all the reclaiming about direct debits that get paid anyway shows, most of the time they do get paid. In exchange for that, the utilitiy will accept less money.

No - you are wrong again. The bill that the utility company issues show the amount you owe for its services/product. It doesn't accept less money for those services. It charges EXTRA if you choose not to pay the way it wants to. That's extra.That's not a discount.

.Oh, here we go, the reclaimers' first line of defence - the poor. I know how much you would love to be seen as crusaders, but let me flip this round. Your attitude is deeply patronising. The "poor" don't need your help. Providing "affordable credit" actually just forces people into doorstep lenders. The reclaiming campaign is (per Barclays and the experience with credit cards) likely to push interest rates up. People on low incomes can pay by direct debit the same as everyone else. If they choose not to then their low incomes are not the issue, their choices and priorities are. The people I know who do not pay by direct debit have no money worries, but dislike the idea of direct debit. I think they're crazy but it's their money.

As someone who spent about 35 years working for banks I can see that you really don't understand credit at all. "Affordable credit" is just that - affordable. Doorstep lenders aren't affordable. But they are usually the only option for people with little or no money. People on low incomes often can't afford to pay by direct debit - because they can't get bank accounts.

Who are these people of which you speak? Evidence?

11% of the poorest income population of the UK don't have a bank account (see http://www.poverty.org.uk/44/index.shtml) if you exclude Post Office accounts because they have limited functionality. There's plenty more evidence. Google it.

Nice use of the ellipses (that's the "...")!<snip> What I actually said was:
"And almost all companies will choose certainty with less money than risk and more money most of the time"
As you want this in words of one syllable, that's:
Firm's choice?
a) I know I will get the money, but will get a bit less than b), OR
b) I might get the money, but if I do it will be a bit more that a).
Most firms will pick a) most of the time.
Sorry that wasn't clear.

What with reclaiming and utilities and a general sense that the world is out to get you I feel a bit sorry for you. Just a bit, mind, as it is your choice whether you go through life seeing the glass half full or half empty.

Let me embolden your statement slightly differently: "And almost all companies will choose certainty with less money than risk and more money most of the time". I was merely dealing with one part of it. And again, you misrepresent the facts.
The choices the firm has are:
a) I will get all the money I am entitled to for my services
b) I will get all the money I am entitled to for my services PLUS a handy extra amount by making life difficult for those who chose not to comply with my wishes.
Understand it, Alex, it's not a discount for doing what they want - it's a penalty if you don't. A surcharge. Nowehere on any of my utility bills does it say that it's a discount. It does say that if I pay by any other means there's an 'extra' charge.

What makes you think I haven't? That I am not stupid, I am reasonably articulate and can happily use words of more than one syllable? There you go being patronising again.

As to the rest - sorry but while it might have been nice if your bank had been more sympathetic, equally the DSS is not their problem. Why do you think it should be?

I don't think it's the bank's problem. In fact, if you read other posts you will see that I'm quite happy for banks to make reasonable charges. I'm not happy that they make extortionate charges which penalise those who are least likely to afford them so that those who want 'free' banking can get it at other people's expense.

And I think you haven't tried living on benefits because if you had - even for a short time - you wouldn't have the attitude you've got. My evidence? I used to have exactly the same attitude. When I was earning £100,000 p.a in banking I used to spout the same rubbish that you now do. I had to stop work to look after my partner who had developed cancer. I spent all my savings. I had no income. I got no financial help from the government because I had savings. Eventually when my money ran out and I'd exhausted every other means I started claiming benefits. I didn't start until over a year after I could have done because, like many others, I thought it wasn't something I should do. However, having experienced it and having met many others who've been in a similar situation I now have a much better understanding of the difficulties faced.

I now know how hard it is to get a bank account when you've got no income other than JSA. I know how rising prices affect spending power to the extent that day to day existence becomes a genuine struggle. And I see no reason, at all, why people in that kind of circumstance - who, generally, can't fight back against big corporations/banks - should have to shoulder extra, punitive, costs so that the middle classes can get free bank accounts. But perhaps my moral code is different to yours.</snip>

canadian_2

My son has put a claim in from the National Westminster Bank well over a year ago, recorded delivery, using the letter you had on your site, listing all the charges owing. However he has never received as much as an acknowledgement of the letter. Then the court cases started and we did not know what to do now. Any advice would be welcome

glenn1577_2

Can someone please advise me in this recent Fsa waiver, am i correct in thinkin if you are in financial difficulties then the fsa waiver states that you can still go through with the reclaiming of bank charges,

Smasher

PhiltheBear wrote: »

it's not a discount for doing what they want - it's a penalty if you don't. A surcharge. Nowehere on any of my utility bills does it say that it's a discount. It does say that if I pay by any other means there's an 'extra' charge.

That is really all you needed to say. That pretty much wraps up the argument.
Of course, all they will need to do now is re-word them, then Alex is right. Whatever your view, it is just another profit stream, simple as that.

brokenpiggybank

has your friend spoke to the bank?!? tell her to go to the bank with a financial budget of what she gets paid has to pay out and see if she can make an arrangement to pay off the overdraft at £10 a month and ask that the stop applying the charges if she sticks to the agreement and i have found this usfull little quote from the banking code very usefull

14.2 If you find yourself in financial difficulties, you should let
us know as soon as possible. We will do all we can to
help you to overcome your difficulties. With your cooperation,
we will develop a plan with you for dealing
with your financial difficulties and we will tell you in
writing what we have agreed

AJR1984

I fear I'm being quite dumb here, but I'm having a massive amount of difficulty understanding HSBC's reply to my letter.

As far as I can work out, I've been given a flat out refusal on the subject of reclaiming my bank charges.
They've not said it's on hold, they've just said 'Shove it' basically.

They said my claim has already been sent to their lawyers and that I have 'Confused charges with fees' and therefor will not refund me.
The only thing I tried to claim was the 'TOTAL CHARGES' which I believed was one of the things that you could claim back from HSBC?

I am very, VERY confused. Has anybody else had something similar?

Thanks very much

Miss.B_6

i went overdrawn by 32p by accident. I don't have an overdraft but have now been charged £28 by my bank. Is there anyway of not paying the charge? I have phoned them and they said it does not matter if i was overdrawn by 32p or £100 it is the same charge to all. I have never been overdrawn before and find the charge rather extortionate. If anyone could help me i would greatly appreciate it.