Why dont we just all boycott the banks in the test case

Nathan_Spleen

Tozer wrote: »

Hi Nathan. Not sure that is entirely true at all. Defaulters cost banks (and ultimately ALL customers) enormous amounts.

I think what IS true is that banks rely on people to borrow. Ultimately that is the business case for the good old fashioned building societies - get money in and lend it out.

I agree but what I and Turtle were referring to was the people who PAY the charges, not people who ultimately default.

Sol00

Tozer wrote: »

Banks are also the only organisation that you can 'dip' into their accounts without permission. Hence why they allow the unauthorised overdraft...but charge for it.

If you are going to make a comparison to other organisations, consider popping into M&S for dinner and saying "I'm going to take this now but pop back next to pay.". I think most people would recognise that as theft.

I'm not with you there sorry.

The banks have said themselves, as a previous poster mentioned, that charges do not fund accounts and are not a penalty, yet they contradict themselves by saying that if these are removed altogether they may have to start charging for accounts

I don't think the fact that someone on little income, who struggles to pay bills and may have a bad month should be punished simply because they're on a low wage. That is unfair!

natweststaffmember

I don't think the fact that someone on little income, who struggles to pay bills and may have a bad month should be punished simply because they're on a low wage. That is unfair!



I have just picked on this phrase. I agree with your sentiments but they are not being punished for a low wage BUT for breaching their agreement with the bank. That part of it is fair HOWEVER the cost charged specifically is unfair.
The idea of a boycott, btw is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous beyond the pale. The banks at the OFT test case are not the only banks who charge and a look across all charges forums will undoubtedly reveal a case that is stalled in the courts from every single bank. I do think that people should have more information on Credit Unions and make an informed choice as to their preference.

123oleary

i think the only sensible point made here is that banks can set their fee and help themselves to it. the marks and spencer example - this is theft but marksies still have to follow a procedure - prove their case with the relevant authorities and then follow another procedure to secure payment, they can't just dip into your account. the banks should send you an invoice for their charges and then if you refuse to pay they should follow the same procedure as other people/organisations do

inmypocketnottheirs

At the end of the day banks are simply pickpockets, emptying bank accounts at their discretion. It is time they were bought to task for their unscrupulous tactics.

natweststaffmember

They cannot empty peoples pockets with no cause to do so. The bank do not set up Direct Debits just to bounce them, they do not set up standing orders just to bounce them, they do not delay people paying in their cheques so that the account holder does not have enough funds in their account. The bank does not spend a customers money. I spend my money not the bank. I am responsible not the bank.
The bank ARE at blame for the high amount of the charges but not the reason WHY it has begun in the first place. If you have enough funds in your account the bank cannot "pickpocket" you so I disagree with you on that point.
I tend to agree with your first point re invoicing someone prior to taking charges which only occurs at the moment on fixed charges of going over an agreed or unagreed overdraft, ie for example natwest maintenance charge is pre advised.

inmypocketnottheirs

So charging £35 and debiting the customers account is not pickpocketing?

natweststaffmember

you are looking at the result and not the cause. WHY are they charging £35? Why should a bank not charge you for what is, in essence, a breach of contract?
I think I am on record on this forum and I am sure I have written in my post that the charge itself is unfair.

to quote my own post

"The bank ARE at blame for the high amount of the charges but not the reason WHY it has begun in the first place."

Nathan_Spleen

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

So charging £35 and debiting the customers account is not pickpocketing?

No. Although it might feel like it, charging £35 and debiting your account as per your terms & conditions is not pickpocketing. Not technically, legally or actually.

inmypocketnottheirs

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

No. Although it might feel like it, charging £35 and debiting your account as per your terms & conditions is not pickpocketing. Not technically, legally or actually.

If the terms and conditions are fair and legal then yes. If not then no.