Late fee, should we not be charged?

borgbaiter

MABLE wrote: »

If the penalty fee is too low it would have no affect. However having a fee of about £38.00 would make most people think twice before going overdrawn without permission. After all when you write a cheque knowing there is insufficient money in the account you should be punished. Its a bit like taking money out of a friends wallet without asking first.

good job we have the rule of law not the rule of bank. only courts are allowed to punish not even the richest institutions. note the courts will always take personal circumstances into consideration and will not make people go without food or benefits.

MarkyMarkD

youknowwho wrote: »

this is for ejones. I know its not on the subject, but..... how did u get the signature to appear at the bottom of your post?

And if you want to send someone a personal message, use the personal message functionality - under "User CP" - rather than cluttering up the forum!

Stephen_Leak

I agree that there must be a charge, both to cover the CCC's costs (to prevent this being passed on to those who pay on time) and also as a disincentive to paying late in the first place. The problem with just charging the true cost of £2 is that is isn't much of a disincentive. Doing just this won't help the banks, CCCs or us customers. Personally, I consider that the law should be changed to allow banks and CCC's to also legally raise a disincentive (capped at - for example - £10).

MABLE

I read online today that banks are considering ending current account free banking and imposing a fee of £500 per annum. This apparently is to claw back the charges they have had to refund.

It seems very unfair we all have to suffer for the sake of the minority. Are we now to believe these people who have had charges refunded will now conduct their account in a more orderly fashion. Personally I doubt it.

Perhaps we need a few more Bank Managers in the form of Mr Manwaring to educate the masses on how to run their financial affairs.

inmypocketnottheirs

MABLE wrote: »

I read online today that banks are considering ending current account free banking and imposing a fee of £500 per annum. This apparently is to claw back the charges they have had to refund.

It seems very unfair we all have to suffer for the sake of the minority. Are we now to believe these people who have had charges refunded will now conduct their account in a more orderly fashion. Personally I doubt it.

Perhaps we need a few more Bank Managers in the form of Mr Manwaring to educate the masses on how to run their financial affairs.

Not sure about the £500 p.a. charge. But Mable, tell me, what happened before 'free' banking?

MABLE

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Not sure about the £500 p.a. charge. But Mable, tell me, what happened before 'free' banking?

Its what is happening now or is going to happen. What happened before has gone.

bengal-stripe

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

I agree that there must be a charge.....the law should be changed to allow banks and CCC's to also legally raise a disincentive (capped at - for example - £10).

Not much of a difference to the current twelve quid, is it?

inmypocketnottheirs

MABLE wrote: »

Its what is happening now or is going to happen. What happened before has gone.

Exactly what is happening to 'free' banking then!

oldagetraveller

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

what happened before 'free' banking?

In the late seventies you had to keep an average £100 balance in your current account(some banks might have been different). If you didn't you were then charged for each of the transactions (cheques, direct debits, standing orders) during that month. I think this subsequently dropped to £50. Then it changed to keeping a credit balance in the account. If you went overdrawn (unauthorised) the charges were applied.
Personally I think this would be a better system than just a blanket charge because those who operate their accounts properly have "free" banking and those who can't and steal other customers' (yes other customers', not the banks' )money pay for the priveledge!:cool:

inmypocketnottheirs

oldagetraveller wrote: »

In the late seventies you had to keep an average £100 balance in your current account(some banks might have been different). If you didn't you were then charged for each of the transactions (cheques, direct debits, standing orders) during that month. I think this subsequently dropped to £50. Then it changed to keeping a credit balance in the account. If you went overdrawn (unauthorised) the charges were applied.
Personally I think this would be a better system than just a blanket charge because those who operate their accounts properly have "free" banking and those who can't and steal other customers' (yes other customers', not the banks' )money pay for the priveledge!:cool:

Yes OAT, you are exactly right. That is how banking used to operate before 'free' banking. We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch, and free banking even less so. But in the last 30 odd years, banks have become ever more greedy, with the corporate mentality of screwing as much money as possible from the customer, it is unlikely to return to such a fair and proportionate system.