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

Smasher

WestonDave wrote: »

I don't doubt that bank charge levels are in excess of actual costs and that should be stamped out once the courts consider the test cases, but by the same token this site needs to be a lot clearer in calling poor budgeting, poor budgeting because in the end its only good budgeting which will stop people getting penalty charges. The mixed messages which imply that its all down to the banks aren't helping people.

I personally wouldn't imply that it is all down to the banks,I would state that it is all down to the banks, because that is a fact.
If they charged what it actually cost them, nobody would be arguing here. Take £4.40 off a single parent on benefits & he/she might struggle a bit, but should be able to get by. Hammer them for £35 X 4 and you destroy them. That is down to the bank.
Yes, people could budget better to avoid the charges, but the point is, the charges should not exist. A bank has no legal position to fine people for their financial faults. They could simply refuse to pay the bill/cheque if you have insufficient funds. It would cost them pennies to process the refusal & they could pass that cost to you.

To suggest that it is anything other than pure greed on behalf of the bankers that has caused this situation is naive.

Phaelok

In law, if a charge is deemed to be a penalty, the entire charge is unlawful.

oh dear LOL.......

marcowil

Phaelok wrote: »

In law, if a charge is deemed to be a penalty, the entire charge is unlawful.

oh dear LOL.......

What's so funny Phaelok? This is exactly why the banks are currently being taken to court

Drunkstar

GadgetsDS wrote: »

arr poor you, if u dont like the way people talk to you then dont work there, if your so smart then im sure your find another job, if the banks stop taking are money then we will have no reason to "verbally abuse" people like u over the phone

You shouldnt ever be verbally abusing anyone for doing their job unless they are the ones making the rules. To think its OK to be having a go at someone like the OP for doing her job is deplorable and nasty, remember all she is doing is trying to earn her wages. Its the bank as a company and its directors that should be the target of ire.

ampersand

Rats smelt - apart from poor grammar, and how does 'MSE Martin' get to do the amending?

Nathan_Spleen

If 100 per cent of the charges were not unlawful then why have judges consistently awarded 100 per cent refunds and the banks have refused to challenge this in law?

nickmack

Phaelok wrote: »

In law, if a charge is deemed to be a penalty, the entire charge is unlawful.

oh dear LOL.......

In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, it says, 'An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.'

This means a particular clause can be unenforceable, however 'The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term'

ampersand

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

So let me get this right:

We have a 21 year old ''specialist telephone banking advisor'' with ''7 months'' experience and presumabley no financial or legal qualifications whatsoever telling us she enjoys nothing more than being able to ''punish'' people - a position that is by law is only the preserve of judges in a court of law.

I think think this is a wind up.

###########
Quite so, hence my post too, Nathan Spleen.
If we're not right - we should be.
Aly - so young, so mortgaged, so wise already, so rich in life experience-everything's pretty in Aly-land. Long may it remain so.

Take a look at 'EVICTION NOTICE SERVED' THREAD ON DEBT-FREE WANNABE(and don't even BEGIN to pre-judge)and maybe you'll join the Supporter's Club.
Real-life people are very welcome. But have a cuppa handy - 93 pages, as I write.
You may have seen/heard mumoftwins on 3C Radio last week and/or Anglia.
#######
It's what Martin's site is REALLY for.

Edinburghlass_2

Drunkstar wrote: »

You shouldnt ever be verbally abusing anyone for doing their job unless they are the ones making the rules. To think its OK to be having a go at someone like the OP for doing her job is deplorable and nasty, remember all she is doing is trying to earn her wages. Its the bank as a company and its directors that should be the target of ire.

Absolutely but the OP does need to brush up on her customer skills when discussing her customers, in public, as ignorant, arrogant and piggish. I'd also point out to the OP that all of the banks do read the forum and its perhaps somewhat unwise to put as much information about yourself as you have done.

and to everyone else, please lets keep this calm and polite, no need for verbal abuse to anyone or indeed from anyone.

shamrock7

BANKER_GIRL wrote: »

Well the bank i work for would not charge that amount. But certainly i feel that not looking after what is coming in and coming out is irresponsible behaviour, especially since i know how many measures the bank puts forward to stop this happening that people will not take up. People do not even look at their statements, they flip straight to the charges page and dont even ask why they have been charged, so yes i feel that going overdrawn for 67.99 should be charged for. But I know my bank would not charge that much. And no i will not disclose what bank i work for.

Funnily enough someone like you should go a long way in the bank.I also worked for a bank where I was treated like dirt and paid a pittance. I left because I got a job where I was treated fairly and paid much much more. I've now successfully reclaimed nearly £3000 aswell amounted in a time where unfortunately life wasn't that good to me. I say walk in someone else's shoes for a while before you judge people.Obviously you have the right personality for the job you are in so I say get on with it. You have the right morals.;)