Halifax charges -£39

catalonia13

O I get it now, the pennies finally dropped, silly me.

What you are saying is, its OK for the Banks to make their millions of profit out of the 'have nots', those of us that simply do not have £39 spare at the end of any week for anything, let alone bank charges, those of us that couldn't go out in the car yesterday because there was no petrol left, those of us who have to say, I'll get your new shoes/school shirt/socks etc. next week, next week, next week, those of us who try bloody hard to keep our heads above water, not too mention food on the table for our children, who sunk when we tried so hard to swim and are now having to learn to swim again, (and I won't even go into the 'those of us that do not get any child maintenance from our ex's) thats ok, but what the banks obviously must not do is make their profit from those 'who have', because that would be deemed as 'subsidising the 'have nots', right, of course, get it. What a lovely society we live in!

Dare I humbly suggest that maybe, just maybe,the banks do not have to make quite so much profit (from anyone)......!!

dchurch24

When will people learn the money isn't your's to use

These same people also quote 'don't spend money that doesn't belong to you' - I never have, and yet I have still incurred these charges - the banks charge you for NOT paying DD's etc...

How is that obtaining credit? I had no overdraft and there was no money paid out of the account by the bank.

I think banks should steeply hike-up the un-authorised interest rate and stop the unauthorised charge

I quite agree. That is the only fair way of doing it. You then pay for credit at an agreed rate. What I object to is paying for NOT OBTAINING credit AT ALL.

catalonia13

I quite agree. That is the only fair way of doing it. You then pay for credit at an agreed rate. What I object to is paying for NOT OBTAINING credit AT ALL

Ditto!

dchurch24

Catalonia13, are you prepared to take it to court?

I also have a letter that I have written to my MP asking him to ask the OFT to investigate these charges in much the same way that they did for the credit card penalties, that you could 'doctor' and send to your MP if you would like a copy.

sportbeth

Fedz wrote:

Another angle is that if you don't pay the charges you stand a high chance of a having a black mark against your name at credit reference agencies.

Sign-up for a bank account, mis-use it, get charges, refuse to pay the charges for your mis-use and you'll end up with a closed bank account and a default on your credit record.

And what happens when you "misuse" it through no fault of your own???

I was totally screwed over by an employer last year who turned out to be a con-man. When my paycheque bounced I was left with a black hole of bank charges that escalated to over £500. The bank refused to help me, 8 months on they have admitted it was their mistake, refunded the charges but I still have to sort out the mess with my credit rating.

At that time I was truly terrified, and when I didn't have money to even feed myself I knew that these charges were escalating out of control. I can understand now how people get too desperate to cope through no fault of their own and the banks just make it worse.

I really don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who gets into trouble is vagrant criminals with no respect for the organisations they've banked with for years.

I've spent 8 months dealing with this mess, and for 27 years before that I was a decent law abiding citizen. I understand that the banks need to make a living, fair enough, but the charges should reflect the actual loss that's all.

£5 for an administrators fee to look at an account, type a letter and take the time to post it is reasonable. £35 x 9 hitting your account in one day if you're in the poo isn't. (my worst bouncing day last year, one of which was for a £4 direct debit to cancer research.)

Fedz

I am not totally heartless and without sympathy. Each case is based on it's individual merits and this has to be communicated with the bank but whether you like it or not the bottom line is it wasn't the banks fault your previous employer was a 'con-man'.

I would never, ever assume everyone or anyone is 'vagrant criminals' as it's not a criminal offence to owe money.

My above stark comment you kindly quoted and replied too is regarding the wanton, deliberate and or flouting of banks advertised charges that we all sign-up too and agree too as customers due to lack of accepting ones own responsibilities and or self discipline.

Kind regards

catalonia13

cifpower wrote:

Banks should jack up the unauthorised O/D rate and cancel DDs and SOs which bounce more than twice and withdraw chequebooks if more than 2 bounce. If a Maestro or Delta card is abused more than twice it should be withdrawn and replaces with an Electron or Solo or cash card.

Of course they should, wouldn't that teach us all a valuble lesson and really put us in our place - can you just hear the sarcasm in my voice!

catalonia13

dchurch24 wrote:

Catalonia13, are you prepared to take it to court?

I also have a letter that I have written to my MP asking him to ask the OFT to investigate these charges in much the same way that they did for the credit card penalties, that you could 'doctor' and send to your MP if you would like a copy.

To be honest, I am hoping it won't come to that, the very thought of taking a Bank to court scares the hell out of me but I would appreciate a copy of that letter please, thank you.

Fedz

dchurch24 it would be a nice gesture if you could post a 'doctored' version directly in this thread then interested persons and pro-active MSE'ers could also post to their MP - including myself

Thank you.

MarkyMarkD

dchurch24 wrote:

[rant]These charges are illegal in many ways, and they ALL do it. Therefore, it matters not which bank you choose. It also doesn't matter that some people think that they are fair. They are not, and it is this that makes them illegal, as well as other things.
Some people also think that 'not breaking the t&c's' is the way to go. Well, I just hope that they never fall on hard times and incur very deaf ears when going to the bank to inform them that due to unforceen circumstances and their unfair, illegal charges that their house is going to be reposessed and that their children cannot have shoes that don't blister their feet.
Then stand there and become all high and mighty because the banks haven't yet got their claws into them. Because when they do, and they will - it's in the banks best interests ('model' customers are not what the banks want at all - no money in it) - there will be hopefully no-one offering any constructive advice to them either.
These same people also quote 'don't spend money that doesn't belong to you' - I never have, and yet I have still incurred these charges - the banks charge you for NOT paying DD's etc... how do some people not get this?????
The banks profit from this. They admit it. Well, some do. In public.
Anyone that cannot understand that terms in the T&C's can be illegal must need to return to school. UNFAIR TERMS IN CONTRACTS ARE ILLEGAL.
If I had a contract with someone that said "If you can't speak the alphabet backwards in 5 seconds then I (might) write you a letter telling you that you are stupid, then you owe me 20 quid" and then took it to court when they didn't pay, I wouldn't expect the court to side with me, and this, in essence is what the banks are doing. Yet some people think that people who incur these charges should say to themselves "ah, fair enough. The bank did about 20p worth of work, it's only fair that they should take $39 quid from my account."
Wow. Some people like being trodden on. I suppose that you also believe that the 85%+ tax on fuel is to cut emmissions and congestion too?
[/rant]
Sorry, rant over. Just needed to get that off my chest.

You can rant away as much as you like, dchurch. I don't see the "glaring error" in my post, so you can fantasise that there is such an error if you wish.

I agree that unfair terms in consumer contracts are unenforceable.

I don't agree that bank charges are unfair.

Nor have the courts agreed that bank charges (meaning run of the mill charges like rejected DD charges) are unfair. In one or two undefended cases, they have accepted the plaintiff's case. In one defended cases, they ruled that a loan with usurous interest rates and penalties was unenforceable - but actually not because of the usurous rates and penalties, but because the insurance premium had originally been incorrectly added to the loan.

I believe that you may think that charges are unfair because they are penalties for breaching the contract. It can be argued that bank charges are NOT penalties for breaching the contract. They are contractual charges for using the bank account in a particular way. Writing to a customer to inform them that their DD has been rejected due to inadequate funds, and notifying the recipient of the funds (electronically) that the payment has been rejected due to inadequate funds, is a service. Consumers are free to agree the price of services with their suppliers - for banking, as much as for anything else. They are notified of the charge for those services before they take advantage of them.

If it isn't the customer's fault, they are free to choose to pass the charges on to whoever is responsible (e.g. catalonia's late payer).

If it IS the customer's fault, they are being charged for a service in line with the terms agreed.

The OFT investigation into credit card charges is based on the OFT's belief that the charges are unfair and therefore unenforceable. If this was established fact, they wouldn't need to be having the debate they are having. The OFT also appear to not know what they are talking about - their press release states that people can be charged a fee for paying their credit card bill

on time but by a direct debit or cheque that is not honoured.

Eh? That would mean NOT paying it on time. D'oh! And are they forgetting that it's fraudulent to present a "bouncing" cheque in payment of a debt?

The whole of this debate is centred on the, IMHO, false notion that bank charges are unenforceable if they make a profit for the bank. How can anyone NOT see that this is a nonsense? Banks are profit-making institutions and are entitled to make a profit as much as Tesco (hence my analogy). Just because bank charges are unpopular doesn't make it any more wrong for bank charges to be made at a level which generates a profit for the bank, any more than it's wrong for Tesco to make a profit selling a TV or a tin of baked beans. Banking is a complex business where, in most cases, profitable transactions (e.g. rejected direct debit charges) compensate for unprofitable transactions (e.g. almost every personal banking transaction: free cheques, free cash withdrawals, free deposits, free BACS payments, free internet banking). That's just the same as Tesco - they sell loss leading products at a loss, and they sell products which make them a profit. Over the whole business, they make a profit - the same as banks.