Why don't banks just bill us?

Borodin

Inappropriate or illegal bank charges aside, is there a good reason why banks should be allowed help themselves to money from our accounts instead of billing us like every other industry? There have been dozens of times I could avoid additional charges simply by paying the bank what I owed them a week or two later, and it would be nice to be able to challenge an incorrect bill before it was paid without my say-so.

I raise this only because I have never seen it suggested, but perhaps I am being naive and the answer is obvious. I am sure the banks would scream if it were enforced, but I can't say I really care that much.

LittleVoice

My banks tell me in advance if it intends taking any charges out of my account. It then deducts the money it has advised me about - and I have time to query the payment. I think they all do that.

YorkshireBoy

LittleVoice wrote: »

My banks tell me in advance if it intends taking any charges out of my account. It then deducts the money it has advised me about - and I have time to query the payment. I think they all do that.

It depends on the reason for the charge, and of course on the bank itself. Whilst many charges are 'pre-notified', NatWest, for example, charge an "unpaid item fee" to the account at the time you make the (unsuccessful) 'informal request' for an overdraft facility (eg, by not having funds to meet a direct debit).

http://www.natwest.com/personal/day-to-day/current-accounts/g5/rates-charges.ashx#charges

Paul_Herring

Borodin wrote: »

instead of billing us like every other industry?

What makes you think that they don't 'bill us' already? With a few exceptions most pay a pittance to borrow our money, but when we want to borrow some back we pay much more.

Just because they aren't 'taking money out of our accounts,' doesn't mean they aren't making any money out of us.

Then there are the accounts that do charge a monthly fee for questionable extras that may be obtained elsewhere at a fraction of the cose.

dunstonh

Inappropriate or illegal bank charges aside, is there a good reason why banks should be allowed help themselves to money from our accounts instead of billing us like every other industry?

Most of the banks do effectively invoice you giving one months notice (or similar) of charges. Certain charges are not individually invoiced because you cannot feasibly do it. However, the fees for those services is published.

There have been dozens of times I could avoid additional charges simply by paying the bank what I owed them a week or two later,

How about paying them what you owe before it gets too late and avoid the fee altogether?

ShelfStacker_3

HSBC tell you what charges and interest are to be applied to your account before it's due; so do Lloyds TSB in most cases.

PROLIANT

I don’t see what the "hoo ha" is about banks making money out of our accounts, we don't pay to have a bank account, cheque book, debit card etc, we get it for free, we need bank accounts for living in today’s world and I am surprised they don't bill us for a service supplied, I pay for my mobile every month, wish that was free, so if my little balance is making money for the bank without it ever decreasing as a result then I am happy with that.

Poosmate

Isn't that what your statements are for?

Mine always tell me how much interest is going to be charged to the account and on what date. I haven't paid a charge for about 6 or 7 years.

Borodin, we all make mistakes and most of us learn by them. You seem to have made "dozens" of mistakes but not learnt anything. Maybe it's time you sat down and actually read your statements and studied your account to find out why this is happening and then maybe you would avoid having to pay charges in the future.

Hope this helps.

Poo

Borodin

Sure the banks usually tell us what they're going to take from our accounts, but the few times I've asked for some flexibility it has been refused, and I now know what to expect. It is equivalent to a mandatory direct-debit, and now that banks staff their branches with people who can do no more than smile and offer you forms I think it is unreasonable.

Even those of you who defend the banks' position will realise that unexpected cash crises can occur, and being able to delay a £30 bank charge by a couple of days (and, gosh! perhaps even disputing it!) could make the difference between another straightforward month or chasing an endless cascade of charges.

Traditionally, banks have made money just by investing and speculating the money that account holders leave with them, but there is an endless thirst for more profits. At present it is in their interest to make accounts as unmanageable as possible so that they can profit from the slightest mistake from their creditors.

I can see no reason why banks shouldn't be prevented from misusing their position as guardians of my money, and be required to invoice me for charges that they raise. In that way at least we have a chance of disputing the amount and negotiating a date of payment, and ultimately contending the charge in court.

For banks to reposition themselves from guardians of my money to companies who instead own that money and simply owe me the amount at their convenience is deeply divisive. My landlord has a key to my rented property, but he is in serious trouble if he ever uses it without my consent and outside of emergency circumstances.

I would welcome proper arguments either way, but all who think I just need to look after my money more carefully, please realise that my finances are not the reason that I am alive. My money is there for me, not vice versa, and I use it to pay for services and items that I need from day to day. A suggestion that my money management should be tuned to compete with financial institutions who have many thousands of employees doing nothing else every day all day all around the world is a ridiculous one. To try to trip me up and grab what money they can if I fall is the behaviour of a mugger, not of a bank.

Borodin

dunstonh wrote: »

Certain charges are not individually invoiced because you cannot feasibly do it. However, the fees for those services is published.

What charges are you thinking of that cannot be invoiced?

dunstonh wrote: »

How about paying them what you owe before it gets too late and avoid the fee altogether?

I would happily do so if I had the money, but a single bank charge is of the order of a week's income for me. As I have said, every other industry will offer at least some flexibility in making payments; banks alone insist on direct debit with no possibility of adjusting the payment date. Everyone it is possible to speak to in branches or at the call centre is at the mercy of the computer and can make no changes.

olly300

Borodin wrote: »

I would happily do so if I had the money, but a single bank charge is of the order of a week's income for me. As I have said, every other industry will offer at least some flexibility in making payments; banks alone insist on direct debit with no possibility of adjusting the payment date. Everyone it is possible to speak to in branches or at the call centre is at the mercy of the computer and can make no changes.

Banks don't offer flexibility because it would cost more and they would therefore charge the customer more than they do already to maintain their profit level.

In reality you shouldn't be writing cheques etc without the money in your account.

I think your real issue is the fact that all banks have current accounts that automatically allow you to use their money when you don't have sufficient funds in your account and then charge you for it.

Would you prefer that the bank refused to honour your direct debit if you where overdrawn instead of charging you, and didn't give you a cheque book? When I was a university student this was a common occurrence for students who couldn't manage their money to prevent them getting more bank charges.