Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

cragdoo

chasancrai wrote: »

...For those that think they are so bad, why do you use them?!

Because without a bank account in this day and age people would find life very very difficult , some thing the banks are all too well aware off and take advantage off.

trust me if I could operate without a bank account I would , but the fact of the matter is I can't , so I am stuck dealing with these robbing b*****ds

techspec

fischer79 wrote: »

"As for people being worse of because of monthly bank charges - £10 a month is morer manageable than £35 a time , taken several times a month without notice. "

Yes but £10 month when you normally pay £0 will be a hit to the majority of poor people who don't receive charges.

Thats why it is important that the basic accounts remain free. The government forced people to have accounts, it is their responsibilty to enforce free banking, or even subsidise it if necessary.

Mind you, with the current governments tax the poor to lower taxes for the rich policy, nothing can be taken for granted anymore.

fischer79

Well basic banks accounts are government enforced. It's just they pay no interst and have other restrictions

susanmarie

fischer79 wrote: »

The fact that people are poor is an issue for the government to resolve not banks. I dont see why banks should lend money for free.

Also you din't answer the second point about all poor people being worse off as they will all pay annual charges if the banking model changes.

If it wasn't such a painfully serious topic this would be funny.

No one is asking for free banking, they are asking for fair banking. Being charges in £50 for a 60p "lend" is excessive and unfair. End-of.

I didn't answer your second point because it was nonsense. It is the very poorest who are suffering now because of high penalty charges. I think when you refer to the poor being worse off, you actually mean - "the poor, but not the very poor ones" well shame on you. You would not expect a beggar to buy your lunch.

susanmarie

chasancrai wrote: »

Chipbeck - take a chill pill or get a job that pays moer money to get you out of your financial mess!

Chasancrai - perhaps you need a reality pill

How are people expected to be able to get out of a financial mess if they are getting charged over a £100 for going over drawn one month, which when taken the following month as one lump sum, causes yet more financial problems.

fischer79

I dispute that - People paying bank charges now are not all "very poor" some will actually be well off and disorganised. This charge is also avoidable.

If people are so poor they cannot live without going overdrawn then it is the governments responsibility to feed and house them not the banks.

susanmarie

fischer79, if people go overdrawn once how much do you think they will get charged in total if they are on a tight budget? £30? £60? £300? I know one person who incurred £600 worth of charges because one direct was unpaid which resulted in a charge, which resulted in further charges when this one was taken. How on earth are people living on a tight budget expected to pay such excessive charges. No one is asking for hand-outs, all they want is for the system to stop charging them excessively to pay for "free banking" for other people.

How is the charge avoidable? If an admin error results in charges, which are then automatically applied, which cause further charges - Can you please answer this question clearly, as I think many people will be keen to find out!

I suspect though you have no idea what your talking about, bank charges for many are not avoidable. They sprial out of control very quickly and keep people in debt. Disorganised people may be able to pay off the debt, but genuine poor people will not.

I think you need to think about the moral issues here - because there are a small number of people who are suffering extreme financial hardship because of these charges, and these people are the poorest in society. And the reason they are paying these charges, from a business point of view, is to provide revenue (if it wasnt you would simply pay back the actual cost of the loan). This revenue then goes towards paying for "free banking" for the weathly.

fischer79

susanmarie wrote: »

fischer79, if people go overdrawn once how much do you think they will get charged in total if they are on a tight budget? £30? £60? £300? I know one person who incurred £600 worth of charges because one direct was unpaid which resulted in a charge, which resulted in further charges when this one was taken. How on earth are people living on a tight budget expected to pay such excessive charges. They should avoid the charges by not going overdrawn.No one is asking for hand-outs, all they want is for the system to stop charging them excessively to pay for "free banking" for other people.

How is the charge avoidable? Don't go overdrawn - get a basic bank account which generally do not have overdraft facilitiesIf an admin error results in charges, which are then automatically applied, which cause further charges - Can you please answer this question clearly, as I think many people will be keen to find out!Bank admin errors would be refunded.

I suspect though you have no idea what your talking about, bank charges for many are not avoidable. They sprial out of control very quickly and keep people in debt. Disorganised people may be able to pay off the debt, but genuine poor people will not.

I think you need to think about the moral issues here - because there are a small number of people who are suffering extreme financial hardship because of these charges, and these people are the poorest in society. And the reason they are paying these charges, from a business point of view, is to provide revenue (if it wasnt you would simply pay back the actual cost of the loan). This revenue then goes towards paying for "free banking" for the weathly.

Your whole argument is predicated on the case that some people are so poor it is impossible for them to avoid using an overdraft. If thats the case surely you should be arguing for their benefits to increase rather than against bank charges.

krunchieuk

chasancrai wrote: »

Chipbeck - take a chill pill or get a job that pays moer money to get you out of your financial mess!

I'm guessing your job was easy to get then, no spelling skills required on the application then....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

borgbaiter

hi

whether you have an agreed overdraft or not a bank will still invent one for charges and add charge after charge at their will. you have no choice in this.
i used to get charges the olny way out was i was fortunate to have a house i could remortgage to pay off the outstanding debt accrued. i realise many dont have this option and i see no way out for these people. i have great sympathy for them and feel the government should too and make some sort of contingency payment in relation to disputed bank charges. they can find upto 100 billion to bail out banks i wonder how much they can find for those in genuine need..... so far it seems to be nothing not even lip service to the problem.


Borgbaiter