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

Butterfliesarepretty

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.

Hi Banker girl, yes I agree some people do not check their statements. I check mine online regularly. I earn just over £1000 a month, When all my necessary bills have come out and they are the cheapest I can get, I have around £300 to live on for four weeks. that includes food, petrol and birthday presents etc. I have always been good with money but the last two years bills just get higher (I live alone in a two bed terraced) I shop around every month for cheaper bills. My salary has only gone up by less than 3% each year and I also pay £135 a month to my daughter through the csa. I have an overdraft owing with smile (£800) a credit card owing £300 and my present overdraft is £750 owing. there is no way I can make it without my overdraft and if I go over its because I have to pay for things. Eg car breaks down, repair bill was £800!
I am now hoping to get voluntary redundancy where I work which would leave me with a big sum. then I can pay off my debt and improve my situation and get a job similar pay close to home instead of travelling into manchester every day - which costs!

I would never work in a bank and enjoy imposing unreasonable charges on customers who can not afford to live.

Tootsie_Roll

Smasher I suggest you read my post more carefully - I state 'The law has yet to be proved in this instance'. Meaning in realtion to bank charges - otherwise what would be the point of waiting until the results of the test case.

Butterfliesarepretty

Smasher wrote: »

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.

That is so true - why do they just bounce the cheque and so it does not go through. How ridiculous they charge so much. :eek: For eg If I do not have enough money in my account the cash machine says 'NO' but if a direct debit or cheque or standing order goes in - they still process it then flippin charge us for it!!! Its common sense to not let anything be processed through the account and not charge anything!!!:T

Smasher

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

Smasher I suggest you read my post more carefully - I state 'The law has yet to be proved in this instance'. Meaning in realtion to bank charges - otherwise what would be the point of waiting until the results of the test case.

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.

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

The law has yet to be proved in this instance so lets not get overly dramatic.

If I break the terms and conditions of any contract I do not think it is unreasonable to be penailsed when I have clearly, on numerous occasions 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.

taytanya

i once recalll that i had mis-calculated my account by 5p , and a direct debit tried to go out for £6.95 and i only had £6.90 available , so the bank refused the D/D and then charged me £39 for the returned D/D and said they would also charge £29 if the initial charge took me into an O/D .

All for the sake of 5p , and the worst thing was money was due to clear into my account the following day , and they could see that !

WestonDave

But is it a breach of contract. In breach of contract the business relationship terminates - if banks were shutting down accounts and demanding the money back along with an exorbitant penalty then the facts would be comparable. In reality people have been accepting hundreds of these charges with no attempt to terminate the relationship (i.e. move banks) but because MSE has started a bandwagon rolling they now see this as a route to free cash.

Your murder analogy doesn't hold water because by definition if you murder someone you commit a defined action i.e. murder so its against the law which states murder is illegal. What is in question here is effectively are bank charges murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, corporate manslaughter, medical negligence or any other offence arising from death!

bathgatebuyer

This thread is great - it reminds me what it's like to be 21, enthusiastic about my career, convinced that I was right all the time, and completely oblivious to poverty. I'm sure the OP's attitude will change with time and life experience. If that sounds condascending, tough. The world is not perfect, people get in debt, banks charge and make huge profits as a result.

My heart did not bleed when the Halifax gave me all mine back.

Tootsie_Roll

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.

Once again the law has yet to be set in this regard hence the test case. Blindy stating penalty law is no use what-so-ever if it does not apply in this instance - we have to wait and find out - then the precedent will be set.

Your murder analogy is nonsense - the law has already been set.

Smasher

Tootsie_Roll wrote: »

Once again the law has yet to be set in this regard hence the test case. Blindy stating penalty law is no use what-so-ever if it does not apply in this instance - we have to wait and find out - then the precedent will be set.

Your murder analogy is nonsense - the law has already been set.

Which makes my analogy all the more relevant. Scroll up, read again, the law has been set and reinforced on numerous occasions.
Whether it is bank charges or late payment for a standing order of horse manure for your garden. A penalty charge is against the law. The OFT test case is an attempt to resolve the problem caused by unprecedented levels of consumer litigation flooding the county courts and to decide whether the OFT can set the rules. The law on penalty charges is already set in stone..

Just to make it clear once more..
A penalty charge is against the law!

Of course, it could be that the charges are legal after all and it really does cost £35 to bounce a cheque. Do you believe it does?

Tootsie_Roll

Smasher wrote: »

Which makes my analogy all the more relevant. Scroll up, read again, the law has been set and reinforced on numerous occasions.
Whether it is bank charges or late payment for a standing order of horse manure for your garden. A penalty charge is against the law. The OFT test case is an attempt to resolve the problem caused by unprecedented levels of consumer litigation flooding the county courts and to decide whether the OFT can set the rules. The law on penalty charges is already set in stone..

Just to make it clear once more..

Of course, it could be that the charges are legal after all and it really does cost £35 to bounce a cheque. Do you believe it does?

Record got stuck ?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz