MSE News: OFT delivers 'flaccid' report on future of bank charges

dmg24 wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense!

I think a read of previous posts from ILW and confused90 and the picture does become a little clearer in the context of their debate between each other.

And I've seen accounts where charges mounted up to hundreds up £££'s because of a debit balance of £1.99 because a staff member was meant to cancel a DD and didn't. This can equally happen with a standing order from one account with a particular to another account with the same back.

If the bank is at fault, and you can reasonably prove it they will cancel the charges, but personally I think its a scandal that the system is DESIGNED in such a fashion to make them accumulate in this way. If there were NOT applied to the account this wouldn't happen.

The trouble for people who adopt your position is that it follows logically that you believe there SHOULD be fines and that the charges are for that purpose. But we are expected to believe this is NOT the case, this is what the test case 'confirmed'. This is at odds with my, and your view of reality, but that's what the law says.

I'm willing to bet there are many people pushed into bankruptcy or IVA's because banks and other institutions rejected thier carefully considered and more importantly realistic offers of repayment. Where's the sense in that?

What concerns me so much about the OFT's position, and the verbal support but no firm action from the government is the fact there is NOTHING to stop banks increasing charges in future. Remember this is how we got to where we ware, charges steadily increased over time, banks copied one another.

Then after LITERALLY millions of people took on thier banks (not all were resolved due to test case) and I believe £1 billion was paid some banks made some meagre changes. The most significant changes were made by Natewst/RBS, but the changes by Halifax contain a blatant lie we don't charge interrest) and make many customers worse off. Barclays changes could also lead to MORE charges being levied.

And we're supposed to be pleased that the charges came down a litte? If the OFT believes IT can take credit for that then its more deluded than I thought.

If charges increase the only thing to stop them is public opinion, which is indirect, the OFT doesn't have the power or the willing to do anything, and the Governments lack of action on the issue is equally damning.

I do not think that there should be no charges, but I don't beleive they should be allowed to devastate lives in the manner they have done and continue to do.

In fairness to the banks I have noticed a slight softening of thier position where people go to charities for advice, but in the worst recession for 80 years this is just a drop in the ocean.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

And I've seen accounts where charges mounted up to hundreds up £££'s because of a debit balance of £1.99 because a staff member was meant to cancel a DD and didn't. This can equally happen with a standing order from one account with a particular to another account with the same back.

Bank staff make errors, the same as anyone else. If a Direct Debit is not cancelled and you have gone down the right routes to have it cancelled and you get a charge, the bank will refund it. If you fail to keep an eye on your account or ignore the problem and you get a number of other charges as a result of the one error, they are not responsible for the other charges. It works both ways, customers need to take responsibility for their account management and speak to the bank if there are problems, not kick and scream and stamp their feet and threaten legal action.

davidgmmafan wrote: »

For the billionth time for some people one charge starts the spiral. I cannot for the life of me understand why people find this concept so difficult to understand.

And when this happens do the bank respond positively and sympathetically as they are REQUIRED to do? Hell no they continue to screw them over.

I think you're generalising a lot here David, if a customer is in financial difficulty or feels that the charges are getting out of control and goes to the bank and asks for help, 9 times out of 10 the bank will do what they can to assist. And usually this means helping the customer to assess their financial situation to prevent further charges. The banks are not there to hold people's hand, they are there to make money!!!

Presumably you're unaware that I'm a Customer Relations Manager in the Collections Department of one of the high street banks and that I help people in financial difficulty for a living. Think about it. Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?