Halifax charges -£39

Paul_Herring

HelenR wrote:

THE_ROCK84 wrote:

And what about the cost of damaging the banks rep because of unpaided DD and cheques! £30 is easy justified in my opinion.

Which bank do you work for ?

Don't encourage him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

MarkyMarkD

catalonia13 wrote:

I have never ever stated that my lack of funds was the Halifax's fault, to the contrary, if you read my OP.
Nor do I think one email (so far) constitutes 'harrasing them', I am, again if you read my OP, objecting to the extent of the charges, I don't object to, and would expect to pay for, a reasonable amount for their inconvenience.

I have also discussed, quite amicably, and certainly not demanded, this matter with the CEO of the company responsible for the late BACs who will refund me any charges, be it £39 or a lesser amount without question. OK?

I didn't say that you DID say it was Halifax's fault either.

So you are just wasting Halifax's time complaining about something which they haven't done wrong and which isn't going to cost you anything anyway? [sarcasm]Way to go![/sarcasm]

I can't understand why you've been amicable to the person responsible for this situation, but think it's a good idea to be un-amicable to the innocent party namely Halifax.

I tell you what, I'll pop down to Tesco and offer them £100 for a new TV, because I don't want to pay them £150. It doesn't matter that the price is £150, and that they tell me the price is £150 before I decide to buy the TV. I'll just drop my £100 on the counter, and walk out with the TV because it's what I consider a fair amount to pay. I'm sure they'll think that's OK as well.

Or is that somehow different to signing a contract with a bank for a bank account which states they'll charge £39 for exceeding my authorised overdraft limit, and then, when I take advantage of the service offered and indeed do exceed that overdraft limit, saying "no, I think £39 is too much and I want my money back"?

D'oh!

catalonia13

Markymarkd - I think you have missed the whole point of my OP (which is the same issue raised by many others on this Forum and elsewhere) so I would politely suggest you go back and read it properly.

If you have something constructive to say, fine, but if all you want to do is argue and 'have a go' (which it would appear is your sole intention) then go do it elsewhere, this is not the place.

Walletwatch

catalonia13 wrote:

Markymarkd - I think you have missed the whole point of my OP (which is the same issue raised by many others on this Forum and elsewhere) so I would politely suggest you go back and read it properly.

Am afraid I wholly agree with Marky and I think his analogy is a 100% correct. In the first place, Halifax isn't responsible for the mistake - and if it is not your fault, then you should go and hold it against the person from whom you were expecting the credit to come in by that particular date. Are you saying that you did not sign up to those T&Cs clearly stating the charges? Or are you saying that you don't really care what you sign up to, you hardly check anything before you do sign on the dotted line? In which case, sorry for being blunt, but you deserve to be socked these charges, just so you are more careful the next time round, and don't end up spending money that's not yours.. yes, I know you've responded to that one before, but that is the harsh reality - you went ahead and wrote out a cheque for an amount that you did not have in your account, and that to me is an irresponsible way to conduct one's financial affairs. Learn from your mistake and do not do it again.

catalonia13 wrote:

If you have something constructive to say, fine, but if all you want to do is argue and 'have a go' (which it would appear is your sole intention) then go do it elsewhere, this is not the place.

Well, I think Marky's trying his best to help you and saying something constructive, and not 'have a go' at you as you put it. Am afraid if you're the one that is at fault, you cannot always expect everyone on a public forum to empathise with you - while not many people will disagree that the charges levied by banks are unreasonably harsh on most of the occasions, IMHO, the purpose of this site is more to suggest ways in which you can save and make money staying well within the T&Cs that you sign up to, rather than challenge the T&Cs themselves.

Nor do I see who gives you the licence to act as a traffic policeman, directing who should post on this forum, and who should 'go do it elsewhere' as you put it. You've got to take the stick from people who think you're in the wrong.

cifpower

Just read this thread and must ask - who is this M Thompson who "thanked" all of The Rock's posts?

With regard to bank charges I understand they are there to deter people from bouncing cheques and having unpaid DDs. But these charges are in terroriem which is illegal in contract law and, as a result, unjustified. They could easily charge a hell of a lot more interest or the true cost of the loss or if it happens twice cancel the DD or SO or prevent cheques from being used. This would have a more deep impact IMO.

tinalives

................................

THE_ROCK84

tinalives wrote:

cifpower wrote:

Just read this thread and must ask - who is this M Thompson who "thanked" all of The Rock's posts?

He's a poster who has the same attitude towards people standing up to these charges as The Rock does.

Yeah so what? Children cant handle truth hey? haha, heard someone got a warning coz of me!! SHAME :rotfl:

WOW 20 THANKS!

catalonia13

[QUOTE Yeah so what? Children cant handle truth hey? haha, heard someone got a warning coz of me!! SHAME :rotfl:

WOW 20 THANKS![/QUOTE]

children.................!?

You (and all of us) are entitled to your/our own opinions, but some are better left unsaid (unless they've been specifically asked for) and Martin has stated at the top

"please BE NICE TO ALL money savers"

you have no idea of the state of some peoples finances or even life in general and people who are already down do not need to be put down further, if you've been at the bottom it's a long hard trawl to get back up again.

HelenR_3

catalonia13 wrote:

children.................!?

You (and all of us) are entitled to your/our own opinions, but some are better left unsaid (unless they've been specifically asked for) and Martin has stated at the top

"please BE NICE TO ALL money savers"

you have no idea of the state of some peoples finances or even life in general and people who are already down do not need to be put down further, if you've been at the bottom it's a long hard trawl to get back up again.

yes , but more amusing is, anyone who names themselves after a wrestler and was obviously born in 1984 really cant be calling anyone else `children`

THE_ROCK84

Abuse Reported