Bank say I don't eat enough!

MABLE

What a load of crap. Surely it depends on where you shop. You can shop at places like Aldi or Lidl who offer excellent quality and could easily spend less than £120.00 a month on food. With us we only go to Marks and Spencers and are food bill is about £800 a month for two people.

squeaky

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote: »

I'm still amazed that the woman thought £90 was per week and apparently didn't think there was anything remarkable about the idea of one person spending that on food for themselves! Isn't that about twice what the unemployed are expected to live on for food, all their bills, clothes and whatever else they need?

I do all that on just short of £80.

Incapacity Benefit plus the age allowance.

Some other benefits are indeed lower.

Meltdown_2

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote: »

I'm still amazed that the woman thought £90 was per week

Perhaps the sentence should have ended after the seventh word. :rolleyes:
The standard of common sense exhibited by bank staff (both male and female) seems to have dropped remarkably in recent years.

perfectlypoor

We were merely having a conversation. At the end of the day we were trying to sort out our finances. I cannot speak for the OP but for my situation I find it silly that I could not set up a payment plan because I had a shortfall of £110 but if they could have used real amount I spend on food (around £200 a month) instead of their min figure of £370 I would have been able to set the plan up.

djbd1973

Its just goes to show that with the employee having to use the limits of the software instead the figures given, we find out that common sense is simply not common.

I had a similar thing with the usage for my electricity and gas. I switched (after a price comparison that said my usage was cheaper elsewhere) and the woman insisted that I was using on average more than I stated and had a written record of. I foolishly went along with it and 6 months later they owed me lots for an overpayment!

mummytofour

Had the same conversation at college this week as we are studying poverty gov guide lines are £25 per person per week. Just to add that when I went to cccs they said our food bill should be over 700 a month... we are a family of 7, !!!!!! do you get for 700 a month?? We spend about £65 per week.

impy78

mummytofour wrote: »

Had the same conversation at college this week as we are studying poverty gov guide lines are £25 per person per week. Just to add that when I went to cccs they said our food bill should be over 700 a month... we are a family of 7, !!!!!! do you get for 700 a month?? We spend about £65 per week.

Pate du foigras, maybe???

earthmother

This made me think - we were on a DMP in 2003, and I just had a look, and were were allowed (well, we claimed on the SOA and no-one argued) a shopping budget of about £63 a week (plus nappies) for 2 adults and a toddler.

Now, we are 2 adults and three children (21mths to 6.5yrs), and we probably spend about the same, if not less (some weeks only about £45), plus nappies again - I know some OSers would think this was still high, but I wonder whether a creditor would query it - from the figures being quoted here, they probably would.

Is there somewhere these guideline figures are available to look at? I'd be interested to see if we're 'officially' on track, lol.

skylight

But on another foot, the guidelines are there to protect people. DCA's cannot then force a stupidly low amount of money for basic living expenses just to get that last pound, or blood from a stone out of you. Guidelines are there to protect the more vulnerable and as a person at a computer, how would they know which group you fell into?

The extra amount can also be a "buffer zone". Its not good to have SOA's down to the wire. We've been there, done that and thats what got us into this mess in the first place!!

Perhaps you coud go back to Lloyds and re-negotiate??? Perhaps use middle figures and if you have money left over (as you will with your budget!) you can simply pay extra at the end of the month?

impy78

charlotte664 wrote: »

But on another foot, the guidelines are there to protect people. DCA's cannot then force a stupidly low amount of money for basic living expenses just to get that last pound, or blood from a stone out of you. Guidelines are there to protect the more vulnerable and as a person at a computer, how would they know which group you fell into?

The extra amount can also be a "buffer zone". Its not good to have SOA's down to the wire. We've been there, done that and thats what got us into this mess in the first place!!

Perhaps you coud go back to Lloyds and re-negotiate??? Perhaps use middle figures and if you have money left over (as you will with your budget!) you can simply pay extra at the end of the month?

Oh yes, i understand that the guidelines are in place for a perfectly good reason, and they need to be there.

It just made me laugh that this woman couldn't even question that people may actually live outside those guidelines.

I mean, I did over estimate in a lot of other areas like booze and stuff, cause I thought better exaggerate than underestimate.