A Bankers View, Open Letter To Martin Lewis And His Followers On Bank Charges.

Tim_L

No, this is the big lie the banks are peddling. No-one is being made to suffer because people are reclaiming their OWN money back - this is not some kind of additional bonus payment. Actually "these people" are paying interest on their borrowing, they are not freeloading. You pay for borrowing money by paying interest on it, and they're doing so. If they borrow more they pay more.

The banks ARE using charge reclaiming as a means of providing a convenient set of scapegoats for reducing benefits and introducing limited charging, but this doesn't really stand up to any sort of detailed analysis. Anyway, even if it did, surely any responsible person would want to pay for their own services, not rely on someone else to subsidise it?

You'd be lucky to get anywhere near a "manager" these days. Most of them don't even have phones, according to the call centres. What you will get is something like the last poster suggested, routed into debt consolidation and ppi according to a call centre script.

The best way to help people in financial difficulties, or in danger of getting into difficulty, is not to steal their money.

rog2

Tim_L wrote: »

You'd be lucky to get anywhere near a "manager" these days. Most of them don't even have phones, according to the call centres. What you will get is something like the last poster suggested, routed into debt consolidation and ppi according to a call centre script.

The best way to help people in financial difficulties, or in danger of getting into difficulty, is not to steal their money.

How VERY true, Tim - when I was trying to negociate with my bank (HSBC) I was dealing with an 'account manager' who I saw on a fortnightly basis. One day I went, to a pre-arranged meeting, to be told that my account manager was on a course - I was 'seen', in the waiting area, by a young lady who was at great pains to point out to me that she had absolutely no authority to make any decisions regarding my account and that I must call the 0845 number. Two weeks later I was told that my account manager was now 'on holiday' - it took a further month before I was told that she no longer worked at the Bank and that all queries regarding my accounts must be routed through the 'call centre'. I found myself 'dealing' with script-reading automatons, often from Asian call-centres, who had absolutely no interest in offering help or advice - on one occasion I was actually told that this is 'Global' Banking whether I like it or not.
The truth of the matter is that Banks are 'Fairweather Friends' they like their customers to take risks with them, and often charge them dearly for the 'privelege' yet when a customer requests 'help' from the Banks, they 'criminalise' the customer by the imposition of unfair charges.

Tootsie_Roll

This thread is just degenerating in the usual way that these topics do - on the one hand you have people who feel aggrieved about the way they have been treated in the past and feel that charges are unfair; on the other hand you have people who have direct experience of working in the banking world, who appreciate the finer complexities and have seen at first hand the way a significant proportion of the population manage their finances.

We will never agree - so pointless continuing.

I will wait for the outcome of the test case in January.

Tim_L

If you don't want to engage in the discussion Tootsie, and you don't want to have your assertions challenged, then no-one is forcing you do to so.

One way you could use your knowledge of the "finer complexities" of the banking world is to answer some of the substantive points instead of just making little hit and run attacks on particular people. I've made some quite lengthy and detailed posts in answer to your attacks, and others have done likewise, but you won't engage. The thread is hardly degenerating, but it is running against you, and I suspect that's what really bothers you.

If you work in banking, and if you consider a significant proportion of the population to be unworthy of your services, why not simply ask your employers to close their accounts?

rog2

Tim_L wrote: »

If you don't want to engage in the discussion Tootsie, and you don't want to have your assertions challenged, then no-one is forcing you do to so.

If you work in banking, and if you consider a significant proportion of the population to be unworthy of your services, why not simply ask your employers to close their accounts?

Well said, Tim - posters are free to post their comments, or not - nobody is holding a gun to their head.

T Roll's experience of the 'Banking Industry' is confined to the 'Debt Collection' end of the business. One could be forgiven for thinking that he has a particular 'axe to grind' in the case of 'Bank Charges' as if they are declared illegal, then there could be fewer 'debts' for the debt collection industry to collect, thereby putting his own position at risk.

BWDSKi

Smasher wrote: »

Oh I see!

So if I follow your line of reasoning and murder someone. Even though Murder is against the law and has been proven so many times over, I could argue that it is not against the law because it hasn't yet been proven in this instance. :rolleyes:

Actually I read the whole post:, you clearly state that you believe penalty charges are not unreasonable if you have been notified what those penalties are.


I will explain again for you, penalty charges are against the law. Nobody is allowed to impose them for breach of contract. Not a bank, not a catalogue, not your local builder. The law applies to EVERYONE.

A woman got let off scott free of murder earlier this year, after admitting that she had done it....

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

There's some good debate going here and on the whole it's being kept civil. While you're posting though, just a reminder not to let things get personal, whether it's to the OP or others on the thread.

Thanks!

Andrea

Smasher

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

We will never agree - so pointless continuing.
I will wait for the outcome of the test case in January.

Yes that's quite a sensible observation, I can't wait either!

Maybe we won't agree in terms of opinions, so how about then, we see if we can agree with reason & facts.
Below is some of what I know to be facts and some of what I believe to be facts, I will post which I know & which I believe.
I would be genuinely interested to see if you (or anybody else for that matter) agrees that what I believe to be facts are pretty accurate, even if they have not yet been proven. If I have got it wrong, please put me right

1. A penalty clause/charge is contrary to common law.- I think we're all agreed on this & why. Here is the existing case law.. It is unquestionably a fact.
http://www.bankchargeshell.co.uk/legal.html

2. The whistleblower and Cynthesis (google for it) are fairly accurate in their findings that it would cost no more than £4.50 to refuse a payment or for an account holder to exceed their overdraft. Accurate? Maybe? Way off (why)?

3. Charges exist for no other reason than to make easy profit for the bankers.Accurate? Maybe? Way off (why)?

4. Before banks changed their terms & conditions to re-brand their charges as service fees, they were consistent in their defence that the charges are a true reflection of their costs.I believe that they knew that they had no chance of winning this argument in court because they knew full well that this defence was a lie. This is why they never dared step into court to challenge a claim. Accurate? Maybe? Way off (why)?

5. It was a deliberate & calculated intimidation tactic to take claimants to the brink only to settle at the last minute because..
a) if they suffer charges because of struggles due to low income, chances are they won't afford the court fees either, that wipes out a fair few claims b) it will frighten most people witless the thought of facing a bank in court, that wipes out a few more more c) banks can rely on the those who are disorganised or poor due to lack of education to have those very traits fail them if they attempted to reclaim.
Accurate? Maybe? Way off (why)?

6. The original point of the OFT test case was only to see if the UTCCR applied to bank charges.This would rely on banks continuing to claim that the charges were to meet their costs. The reason being: If the charges are more than their costs, they are penalties & therefore unlawful and a term that imposes an unlawful penalty is void under UTCCR even if agreed to by the consumer.
A service can't be an unfair term under the UTCCR. This is the very reason why all banks re-branded their terms as service fees. It was purely a last ditch attempt to escape legal examination. Accurate? Maybe? Way off (why)?

7. Last April the OFT concluded in its report on credit card charges that by re-branding charges as services is just "disguising/cloaking" a default penalty charge(see below).
This is a fact, so do you believe that they will now publicly contradict their own existing findings?

OFT_report_April_2006 wrote:

Disguised penalties
4.21
The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default
fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of
default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made
should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge
where grounds of unfairness exist.12 (For example, a charge for 'agreeing
to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from
a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The
UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just
their mechanism.

If you agree that all of the above is pretty much the way it is, then indeed, there is no point in continuing with the argument. All we can do is wait & see if the OFT & the courts show consistency and enforce the law or if they bend over & contradict themselves & send the message that the rules can be circumnavigated if you have enough money.

Phaelok

<table id="post7221003" class="tborder" _base_target="_self" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody _base_target="_self"><tr _base_target="_self" valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_7221003" _base_target="_self">'This has to be the funniest statement I have ever seen on this subject'

Indeed but as I work for the bank and you don't, I suggest you read what I put and take that on board rather than being ignorant

DDs are done automatically. It's actually pretty difficult to stop one days in advance, let alone on the day of the payment. On the occasions I have spoken to customer services about potential problems, I have received precisely zero help - the "computer says no". And it's really not surprising given the contemptuous attitude towards customers displayed here by people I assume work in banks.

' The bank's quite clearly state that cleared funds MUST be in the working day BEFORE transactions are due. The decision to pay transactions from your account is made MIDNIGHT into the early hours of the next working day. Therefore putting cash in the same day is TOO LATE as the bank has already made a decision to return the item(s) as being unpaid. Yet again, if you had read my post, you would notice that I did state that IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES this can be overruled. Those who have told you that COULD, and probably should have done that for you as a one-off

And can you explain how to put cleared funds in a bank account the same day when CHAPS is unreliable and costs pretty much same as the charge,

My earlier comment above talks about this.


So if anyone is laughing at anyone, its me at the ludicrous statement you make. Before questioning someone who actually works for a bank and is telling you straight how it works, perhaps you should read again in order to allow the information to 'sink' in.


<!-- / message --> </td> </tr> <tr _base_target="_self"> <td class="alt2" _base_target="_self"> </td> <td class="alt1" _base_target="_self" align="right"> <!-- controls --> <!-- post thank you hack --> <script type="text/javascript" _base_target="_self"> <!-- function post_thanks_give_7221003() !! do_thanks_button = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_button.onreadystatechange(thanks_button_Done_7221003) do_thanks_button.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_button_ajax&p=7221003') do_thanks_add = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_add.onreadystatechange(thanks_add_Done_7221003) do_thanks_add.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_add_ajax&p=7221003') } function thanks_button_Done_7221003() !! if (do_thanks_button.handler.readyState == 4 && do_thanks_button.handler.status == 200) !! fetch_object('post_thanks_button_7221003').innerHTML = do_thanks_button.handler.responseText } } function thanks_add_Done_7221003() !! if (do_thanks_add.handler.readyState == 4 && do_thanks_add.handler.status == 200) !! fetch_object('post_thanks_box_7221003').innerHTML = do_thanks_add.handler.responseText } } function post_thanks_remove_all_7221003() !! do_thanks_button = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_button.onreadystatechange(thanks_button_Done_7221003) do_thanks_button.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_button_add_ajax&p=7221003') do_thanks_remove_all = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_remove_all.onreadystatechange(thanks_remove_all_Done_7221003) do_thanks_remove_all.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_remove_all_ajax&p=7221003') } function thanks_remove_all_Done_7221003() !! if (do_thanks_remove_all.handler.readyState == 4 && do_thanks_remove_all.handler.status == 200) !! fetch_object('post_thanks_box_7221003').innerHTML = do_thanks_remove_all.handler.responseText } } function post_thanks_remove_user_7221003() !! do_thanks_button = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_button.onreadystatechange(thanks_button_Done_7221003) do_thanks_button.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_button_add_ajax&p=7221003') do_thanks_remove_user = new vB_AJAX_Handler(true) do_thanks_remove_user.onreadystatechange(thanks_remove_user_Done_7221003) do_thanks_remove_user.send('showthread.html?do=post_thanks_remove_user_ajax&p=7221003') } function thanks_remove_user_Done_7221003() !! if (do_thanks_remove_user.handler.readyState == 4 && do_thanks_remove_user.handler.status == 200) !! fetch_object('post_thanks_box_7221003').innerHTML = do_thanks_remove_user.handler.responseText } } document.write(''); //--> </script> <noscript> </noscript> <!-- end post thank you hack --> </td></tr></tbody></table>

Nathan_Spleen

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

We will never agree - so pointless continuing. I will wait for the outcome of the test case in January.

??????????