PDA

View Full Version : Bank Charges



Sylar
23-04-2008, 10:23 PM
Recieved some "insider news" tonight, stating that an outcome to the legal case surrounding bank charges will be announced tomorrow.

Thought a few on here would be interested based on historic threads.

Edit: Found a link to the story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7362856.stm).

MSK
23-04-2008, 11:08 PM
Recieved some "insider news" tonight, stating that an outcome to the legal case surrounding bank charges will be announced tomorrow.

Thought a few on here would be interested based on historic threads.

Edit: Found a link to the story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7362856.stm).Indeed ...:agree:..cheers Scott ...:aok:

Haymaker
24-04-2008, 12:18 AM
my brother did the old writing to the bank asking for it all back. got 3000. nice.

Sylar
24-04-2008, 10:07 AM
And the Ruling is Out.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7364422.stm)

Judge rules in favour of the OFT that the charges imposed are unfair. Banks will still delay payments until they decide on an appeal, which could be up til the end of May.

Cue a ****-storm of abuse heading the way of bank employees in the coming weeks from smarmy *******s who've abused their finances for years with utterly no repurcusions.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who are unfortunate as a result of poor timings, or going slightly overdrawn every once in a while - those charges aren't proportionately fair, but it's the lowest of the low, who use gambling websites, have transactions from pubs on their statements, online catalouges and credit cards all over the place who are charged because of their frivellous lifestyles, when they have no money left to pay for bills and are consequentially punished. Now, they're going to ultimately end up recieving these charges back. I think its utterly disgraceful that people can use/abuse bank accounts in this country with no impunity, and now, as a result, those of us who have NEVER had a charge from their banks will suffer, as the banks will find other ways of imposing fines to keep profit margins up.

I'm going to buy me a ****ing biscuit tin and keep it under my matress! :brickwall


:grr::grr::grr:

MSK
24-04-2008, 10:10 AM
And the Ruling is Out.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7364422.stm)

Judge rules in favour of the OFT that the charges imposed are unfair. Banks will still delay payments until they decide on an appeal, which could be up til the end of May.

Cue a ****-storm of abuse heading the way of bank employees in the coming weeks from smarmy *******s who've abused their finances for years with utterly no repurcusions.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who are unfortunate as a result of poor timings, or going slightly overdrawn every once in a while - those charges aren't proportionately fair, but it's the lowest of the low, who use gambling websites, have transactions from pubs on their statements, online catalouges and credit cards all over the place who are charged because of their frivellous lifestyles. Now, they're going to ultimately end up recieving these charges back. I think its utterly disgraceful that people can use/abuse bank accounts in this country with no impunity, and now, as a result, those of us who have NEVER had a charge from their banks will suffer, as the banks will find other ways of imposing fines to keep profit margins up.

I'm going to buy me a ****ing biscuit tin and keep it under my matress! :brickwall


:grr::grr::grr:Eh, wait a minute ...if a court ruling deems the excessive charges unfair then... the excessive charges are unfair naw !!!! :confused:

SHOW ME THE MONEY !!!!!!....:greengrin

davym7062
24-04-2008, 10:15 AM
And the Ruling is Out.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7364422.stm)

Judge rules in favour of the OFT that the charges imposed are unfair. Banks will still delay payments until they decide on an appeal, which could be up til the end of May.

Cue a ****-storm of abuse heading the way of bank employees in the coming weeks from smarmy *******s who've abused their finances for years with utterly no repurcusions.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who are unfortunate as a result of poor timings, or going slightly overdrawn every once in a while - those charges aren't proportionately fair, but it's the lowest of the low, who use gambling websites, have transactions from pubs on their statements, online catalouges and credit cards all over the place who are charged because of their frivellous lifestyles, when they have no money left to pay for bills and are consequentially punished. Now, they're going to ultimately end up recieving these charges back. I think its utterly disgraceful that people can use/abuse bank accounts in this country with no impunity, and now, as a result, those of us who have NEVER had a charge from their banks will suffer, as the banks will find other ways of imposing fines to keep profit margins up.

I'm going to buy me a ****ing biscuit tin and keep it under my matress! :brickwall


:grr::grr::grr:

what a lot of colin nish.

the only people who can take your money without asking are banks. well not anymore you shower of theiving gits:thumbsup:

show me the money

Sylar
24-04-2008, 10:25 AM
what a lot of colin nish.

the only people who can take your money without asking are banks. well not anymore you shower of theiving gits:thumbsup:

show me the money

If people monitored their spending and lifestyle a little better they won't pay ANY charges. I certainly never have.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of charges, but the customer, NOT the bank is ultimately responsible for incurring charges on their account as you agree to with the terms and conditions of your account. If you're unhappy with the terms and conditions, you shouldn't have opened the bank account, thus leaving yourself open to charges.

Just a thought.

Sylar
24-04-2008, 10:28 AM
Eh, wait a minute ...if a court ruling deems the excessive charges unfair then... the excessive charges are unfair naw !!!! :confused:


If they're unfair, why do customers open bank accounts after being made aware of charge levies before hand? Ignorance or failure to read the terms and conditions is not the fault of the financial institution.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of the charges but seriously hope they do not remove charges altogether. A similar scenario to the credit card situation would be fine, with a reduction to 12 or thereabouts.

MSK
24-04-2008, 10:32 AM
If people monitored their spending and lifestyle a little better they won't pay ANY charges. I certainly never have.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of charges, but the customer, NOT the bank is ultimately responsible for incurring charges on their account as you agree to with the terms and conditions of your account. If you're unhappy with the terms and conditions, you shouldn't have opened the bank account, thus leaving yourself open to charges.

Just a thought.So you think the excessive charges are correct ..?...well i dont ..i think they are a load o bollox & unfair ..yes perhaps some folk should manage their accounts better & im not disputing that fact but 25/30 a pop...away tae f wi ye !!! ...perhaps if charges were maybe 5 or so aye but 25/30 is just utter greed ..utter greed from banks who earn millions o pounds a fekkin second !!!!!

I hope the banks get screwed for every penny !!!

Tae f wi them ....:grr:

Sylar
24-04-2008, 10:41 AM
So you think the excessive charges are correct ..?...well i dont ..i think they are a load o bollox & unfair ..yes perhaps some folk should manage their accounts better & im not disputing that fact but 25/30 a pop...away tae f wi ye !!! ...perhaps if charges were maybe 5 or so aye but 25/30 is just utter greed ..utter greed from banks who earn millions o pounds a fekkin second !!!!!

I hope the banks get screwed for every penny !!!

Tae f wi them ....:grr:

No I don't think they are correct - I think they are disproportionate, as I intimated in the post you've quoted, but I do feel there should some form of penalty in place for those who wish to abuse their accounts (and by that, I mean continually live in the red and maintain a frivellous lifestyle with excess spending - not the normal working guy who occassionally is stung for marginally missing payments or going slightly overdrawn).

I've said to customers for YEARS that I wish they'd do something about the amounts - it's still not going to stop the venom from some customers who will now start the process of claiming back charges - I don't blame them, but very few customers actually take the time to think that those in the frontline (i.e. people like me, who do it part time away from uni) are not responsible for these charges.

MSK
24-04-2008, 10:46 AM
If they're unfair, why do customers open bank accounts after being made aware of charge levies before hand? Ignorance or failure to read the terms and conditions is not the fault of the financial institution.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of the charges but seriously hope they do not remove charges altogether. A similar scenario to the credit card situation would be fine, with a reduction to 12 or thereabouts.Are you telling me there aint no ignorance on the banks behalf either ...i had major problems with banks when i worked wi the Brewery...i had standing orders coming out ma ears but my stupid company couldnt get my pay day right & fekked it up every month ...sometimes i got paid on the last thurs...other times it was the friday & even worse the following monday ...this went on for almost a year so as you can imagine ..my standing orders were bouncing all over the shop.....so charges ..aye plenty ..know why ..?....because the bank of Scotland couldnt give a f !!! ..they would not budge ...!!!!

Yes it was payrolls fault ..i accept that but because payroll was moved to Bedford ..i couldnt physically chap on anyones door so basically i was fekked..

Overdraft was also out the question..

So ..banks ..charges ?...the ignorant, selfish, unhelpful gits can go f themselves ...they will get from me the amount of sympathy & help i got from them ....ZERO !!!!

Sylar
24-04-2008, 10:55 AM
Are you telling me there aint no ignorance on the banks behalf either ...i had major problems with banks when i worked wi the Brewery...i had standing orders coming out ma ears but my stupid company couldnt get my pay day right & fekked it up every month ...sometimes i got paid on the last thurs...other times it was the friday & even worse the following monday ...this went on for almost a year so as you can imagine ..my standing orders were bouncing all over the shop.....so charges ..aye plenty ..know why ..?....because the bank of Scotland couldnt give a f !!! ..they would not budge ...!!!!

Yes it was payrolls fault ..i accept that but because payroll was moved to Bedford ..i couldnt physically chap on anyones door so basically i was fekked..

Overdraft was also out the question..

So ..banks ..charges ?...the ignorant, selfish, unhelpful gits can go f themselves ...they will get from me the amount of sympathy & help i got from them ....ZERO !!!!

Are you ignoring my last post or have you just not got round to it yet?

MSK
24-04-2008, 11:12 AM
Are you ignoring my last post or have you just not got round to it yet?Nae need tae get lippy !! :tsk tsk:....what do you want me to say in response to your last post ?..ive explained my previous relationships with banks & its not too good ..you may have gathered that though ...

I will pick up something from your last post though with regards blatant abuse of an account ..

Banks (as you well know) will not lie down to this, a banks aims are first & foremost to screw as much money as they can from punters...secondly they will act as if they actually give a f ...

They will imo either close accounts of persistant abusers/claimants thus making it very diff for that person to open an account elsewhere....or they will reduce the charges substancially to perhaps 5/10 ...

At the end of the day the banks will win ...they always do ..

Now thats the last im gonna say on this matter or i will end up getting a warning from Admin for overuse of the F word.....:grr:

Now im away tae write my letter to the HBOS ....i feel a holiday coming on ...:blah:

Phil D. Rolls
24-04-2008, 11:14 AM
Bunch of ****ing crooks. Bank charges account for 25% of retail banking profits.

I hope they get hit with a massive punitive fine as well, this whole thing has been completely out of order.

Sylar
24-04-2008, 11:29 AM
Nae need tae get lippy !! :tsk tsk:....what do you want me to say in response to your last post ?..ive explained my previous relationships with banks & its not too good ..you may have gathered that though ...

I will pick up something from your last post though with regards blatant abuse of an account ..

Banks (as you well know) will not lie down to this, a banks aims are first & foremost to screw as much money as they can from punters...secondly they will act as if they actually give a f ...

They will imo either close accounts of persistant abusers/claimants thus making it very diff for that person to open an account elsewhere....or they will reduce the charges substancially to perhaps 5/10 ...

At the end of the day the banks will win ...they always do ..

Now thats the last im gonna say on this matter or i will end up getting a warning from Admin for overuse of the F word.....:grr:

Now im away tae write my letter to the HBOS ....i feel a holiday coming on ...:blah:

Despite the length of the conversation and various exchanges, we actually seem to agree on the basic principles. Perhaps the only difference being that you feel charges should be removed entirely. I don't want to see this happen as it will mean you'll end up paying a fee, every time you order a new card, use your card abroad, recieve statements or increase your overdraft.

I agree banks are a profit seeking capitalist evil who will exploit opportunities and weaknesses in their customer base. No question about it. But some customers really do take the preverbial p, and perhaps removing these individuals' accounts would not be so bad - or at least removing their credit facilities and introducing a card which will not allow you to go overdrawn at all!

Wembley67
24-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Despite the length of the conversation and various exchanges, we actually seem to agree on the basic principles. Perhaps the only difference being that you feel charges should be removed entirely. I don't want to see this happen as it will mean you'll end up paying a fee, every time you order a new card, use your card abroad, recieve statements or increase your overdraft.

I agree banks are a profit seeking capitalist evil who will exploit opportunities and weaknesses in their customer base. No question about it. But some customers really do take the preverbial p, and perhaps removing these individuals' accounts would not be so bad - or at least removing their credit facilities and introducing a card which will not allow you to go overdrawn at all!

I presume you work for a bank Scott? Are you going to print this rant off for your appraisal? Your only 22, why do you give a toss about how it works, its giving you a variety of work to do if anything :greengrin

steakbake
24-04-2008, 12:20 PM
Despite the length of the conversation and various exchanges, we actually seem to agree on the basic principles. Perhaps the only difference being that you feel charges should be removed entirely. I don't want to see this happen as it will mean you'll end up paying a fee, every time you order a new card, use your card abroad, recieve statements or increase your overdraft.

I agree banks are a profit seeking capitalist evil who will exploit opportunities and weaknesses in their customer base. No question about it. But some customers really do take the preverbial p, and perhaps removing these individuals' accounts would not be so bad - or at least removing their credit facilities and introducing a card which will not allow you to go overdrawn at all!

No doubt some customers do, but why should every single customer suffer just because the bank has such people it does business with? Surely these people need to be singled out by the banks and taken on a case by case basis - no wait, that might mean having to spend money on a staff resource to do it and that would eat into profits.

Also, why do banks seem to think that they should be immune from the effects of a capitalist society? See RBS and their appeal to shareholders for more cash and the recent BOE announcement that the government will support banks' losses.

What a complete and utter racket! I wouldn't mind setting up such a company with such fall backs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7364422.stm

Get in!!!

Sir Albert of Kidd
24-04-2008, 12:43 PM
Whilst I agree that the amount for Charges is a disgrace, I hope people realise that this is more than likely going to spell the end of free banking. Which does mean that people who do look after their finances properly will be unfairly penalised becouse of those that dont. I think that is the point that Scott M was trying to get across.

MSK
24-04-2008, 01:08 PM
Whilst I agree that the amount for Charges is a disgrace, I hope people realise that this is more than likely going to spell the end of free banking. Which does mean that people who do look after their finances properly will be unfairly penalised becouse of those that dont. I think that is the point that Scott M was trying to get across.Perhaps so but lets remember here, its a two way street, banks have to come & go, they are gonna have to show more flexibility in situations like this ..read post 11...that was just one of a number of bad experiences i have had with banks ...i can also say, i am not a serial "system abuser" i have worked all my days & put hundreds of thousands of pounds into those institutions through buying & selling property, wages & savings accounts...only to be treated like a piece of **** !!! ...put it another way ..they will take my money ..they will be my friend but when the going got tough...they dropped me like a stone !!

Thats why i hope they get screwed ...just like they screwed me ...

Sir Albert of Kidd
24-04-2008, 01:17 PM
Perhaps so but lets remember here, its a two way street, banks have to come & go, they are gonna have to show more flexibility in situations like this ..read post 11...that was just one of a number of bad experiences i have had with banks ...i can also say, i am not a serial "system abuser" i have worked all my days & put hundreds of thousands of pounds into those institutions through buying & selling property, wages & savings accounts...only to be treated like a piece of **** !!! ...put it another way ..they will take my money ..they will be my friend but when the going got tough...they dropped me like a stone !!

Thats why i hope they get screwed ...just like they screwed me ...

I do agree with you, I have been in the situation where I have been charged as I didnt have the money in the account to cover a previous charge. These situations are undeniably unfair.

However, there are obviously people that will abuse the system and overdraw their accounts often. It just seems unfair that everyone will get penalised becouse of these few.

s.a.m
24-04-2008, 01:43 PM
Despite the length of the conversation and various exchanges, we actually seem to agree on the basic principles. Perhaps the only difference being that you feel charges should be removed entirely. I don't want to see this happen as it will mean you'll end up paying a fee, every time you order a new card, use your card abroad, recieve statements or increase your overdraft.

I agree banks are a profit seeking capitalist evil who will exploit opportunities and weaknesses in their customer base. No question about it. But some customers really do take the preverbial p, and perhaps removing these individuals' accounts would not be so bad - or at least removing their credit facilities and introducing a card which will not allow you to go overdrawn at all!


When the OFT made their original ruling, IIRC, they said that banks had a right to charge fair administration costs. Pretty sure they said, though, that banks did not have jurisdiction to fine / punish customers, and that they believeed that the amounts being charged represented a fine.:dunno:
You suggest that people who don't like the charges as they stand shouldn't open bank accounts (almost impossible to exist as an adult now without one, but that's another story). Might I suggest, instead, that if banks don't want their more frivolous customers' business (and interest), they refuse to do business with them, rather than penalising the rest of us.

Phil D. Rolls
24-04-2008, 02:48 PM
If people monitored their spending and lifestyle a little better they won't pay ANY charges. I certainly never have.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of charges, but the customer, NOT the bank is ultimately responsible for incurring charges on their account as you agree to with the terms and conditions of your account. If you're unhappy with the terms and conditions, you shouldn't have opened the bank account, thus leaving yourself open to charges.

Just a thought.

I had two blokes in the cab at Christmas, getting a lift home at their company's (customers') expense.

One thought he would be a bit of a joker and spier me about cab fares. Usual stuff about Dick Turpin wearing a mask etc.

Imagine my annoyance, given that they both worked for HBOS, who have the audacity to charge someone 35 for going 1p overdrawn?

What is the justification for that 35? Is it to cover the expense of the computer generated letter telling me I now owe them 35.01? The fact is the law says you can only recover losses, not make a profit from the situation.

The banks, despite their own self-image of being happy clappy hippy types who just love to give out money (see HBOS adverts), are in fact nothing better than money lenders who use violence and intimidation to collect debts.

Question: if I borrow 1p from the bank, and have to pay them back 35.01 - what is the rate of interest.

The banks frequently push the law to the limit (and beyond). How else do you explain the fact that when you cash a cheque it takes 5 working days to show up in your account? Even though the bank have the funds after 3 days (by law I believe). Nothing more than common theft.

Some people rob you with a six gun, others with a fountain pen.

Sylar
24-04-2008, 02:56 PM
When the OFT made their original ruling, IIRC, they said that banks had a right to charge fair administration costs. Pretty sure they said, though, that banks did not have jurisdiction to fine / punish customers, and that they believeed that the amounts being charged represented a fine.:dunno:
You suggest that people who don't like the charges as they stand shouldn't open bank accounts (almost impossible to exist as an adult now without one, but that's another story). Might I suggest, instead, that if banks don't want their more frivolous customers' business (and interest), they refuse to do business with them, rather than penalising the rest of us.

Where the hell did I say that?!? I suggested that those who have proven incapable of handling an account which functions with credit facilities should have them removed, but that's about it. If you're referring to my "hide money under my matress" comment, that was tongue in cheek as there really are no options to banks. I agree whole-heartedly with the last part of your post!

Wembley: I work PT with HBOS (don't worry HNA6 - I hate them as much as you do!!!!) when not at Uni - I personally don't give 2 hoots about the charges being removed - i'm sure I said i'd empathised with customers and wished a reduction in charges for a long while now, and, from a customer perspective, it's good as it will in the long run, mean less complaints. I doubt i'll be there long enough to see the "long run" right enough as i'll be leaving to do my PhD next year and forget about the financial industry for good. The reason i'm a tad fired up just now, is the prospect of going into work for the next time, to be bombarded with abusive customers who think it's justifiable to have a go at ME regarding these charges - it's too easy for customers to shout and roar over a telephone at the poor folks who take all the **** for the policies and fee's imposed by the fatcats.

My only concern is (as someone nicely pointed out above), that banks will now try and find other ways to obtain money from people and this will stem from basic fee's for the services we all currently take for granted - I don't see how that's fair to someone like me, who's never been charged before. However, so long as they are nominal fee's, then fair enough. I have an account established in the US and pay a maintenance fee there, but nothing extravagant.

Sylar
24-04-2008, 03:00 PM
I had two blokes in the cab at Christmas, getting a lift home at their company's (customers') expense.

One thought he would be a bit of a joker and spier me about cab fares. Usual stuff about Dick Turpin wearing a mask etc.

Imagine my annoyance, given that they both worked for HBOS, who have the audacity to charge someone 35 for going 1p overdrawn?

What is the justification for that 35? Is it to cover the expense of the computer generated letter telling me I now owe them 35.01? The fact is the law says you can only recover losses, not make a profit from the situation.

The banks, despite their own self-image of being happy clappy hippy types who just love to give out money (see HBOS adverts), are in fact nothing better than money lenders who use violence and intimidation to collect debts.

Question: if I borrow 1p from the bank, and have to pay them back 35.01 - what is the rate of interest.

The banks frequently push the law to the limit (and beyond). How else do you explain the fact that when you cash a cheque it takes 5 working days to show up in your account? Even though the bank have the funds after 3 days (by law I believe). Nothing more than common theft.

Some people rob you with a six gun, others with a fountain pen.

I completely agree with you! Those are the situations which highlight how disproportionate charges are. I hope you pointed this out to them!

However. I spoke with a guy last night at work who was 423 over and above his OD limit. He was complaining because he was being charged 105 for 3 failed direct debits. By the same token, it was a series of payments to William Hill, betting on football over the weekend, which had taken him overdrawn, and he had the audacity to complain about charges. THOSE are the sorts of cases where i feel there is a need for some form of deterrant.

Phil D. Rolls
24-04-2008, 03:13 PM
I completely agree with you! Those are the situations which highlight how disproportionate charges are. I hope you pointed this out to them!

However. I spoke with a guy last night at work who was 423 over and above his OD limit. He was complaining because he was being charged 105 for 3 failed direct debits. By the same token, it was a series of payments to William Hill, betting on football over the weekend, which had taken him overdrawn, and he had the audacity to complain about charges. THOSE are the sorts of cases where i feel there is a need for some form of deterrant.
Yeah, but what does his unauthorised borrowing cost the bank? Presumably, they will collect the debt.

The whole thing for me is the dishonest way the banks have approached this issue. They have tried to take the moral high ground, whilst acting in an immoral manner.

How the guy ran up the debt is not the issue - correct me if I'm wrong, but do banks not charge interest on such unauthorised borrowing?

What sticks in my craw is that they claim that the fees are being used to cover the cost of the unauthorised borrowing - that just is not true. It's a measure of how low bankers have sunk, that they actually rely on these charges to contribute to their profits.

IMO there are too many "barrow boys" running banks these days, they see customers as fair game. They are nothing more than bullies, who have relied on people being unable to fight their corner. This whole thing doesn't reflect well on the banks' image.

The honest customers are not being asked to pay for the dishonest ones. They are being asked to make up the shortfall in the banks' profits. Pretty cruddy, because banks make their money by borrowing and lending money. (Well most of the time anyway).

Sorry, but it's just not right. Taxi drivers get called crooks - imagine if we charged a customer 35 for a cancellation, or because they were late for a pre-booked call. Don't think that would go down well. But banks, who the public should be able to trust implicitly, do something just as bad.

Meanwhile, the public see the big defaulters getting away with it, they see the banks employees (senior ones anyway) being paid massive salaries, treating themselves to meals, trips and taxi rides on the company (ie the customer), and it doesn't seem right.

The banks need to have a hard look at themselves, and ask themselves how they have managed to get into a position where their popularity ratings are on a par with the Police and Property Developers.

Greed wot did it, sheer greed.

s.a.m
24-04-2008, 03:30 PM
If people monitored their spending and lifestyle a little better they won't pay ANY charges. I certainly never have.

I agree with the disproportionate nature of charges, but the customer, NOT the bank is ultimately responsible for incurring charges on their account as you agree to with the terms and conditions of your account. If you're unhappy with the terms and conditions, you shouldn't have opened the bank account, thus leaving yourself open to charges.

Just a thought.

[quote=Scott M;1587835]Where the hell did I say that?!? I suggested that those who have proven incapable of handling an account which functions with credit facilities should have them removed, but that's about it. If you're referring to my "hide money under my matress" comment, that was tongue in cheek as there really are no options to banks. I agree whole-heartedly with the last part of your post!

quote]

:greengrin Found it!!:greengrin

Not trying to be a smart-arse, by the way. I know what you're saying. And I would add that it's shocking that people would take it out on counter staff who clearly don't have any responsibility for the decision making. The banks, though, have clearly been at it. You're right that, now that it's been decided that they have no right to take punitive fees out of our accounts, they're likely to extort money in some other way - but that doesn't make it any less wrong that they have been ripping people off.

When I was young( :blah:), they used to put a stop on your account over a certain level of debt. Surely in these days of enhanced technology, serial overspenders could have their accounts stopped? Maybe they view these debtors as good business?

Which brings me neatly to Hearts.....:titanic:

Sylar
24-04-2008, 04:03 PM
:greengrin Found it!!:greengrin

Not trying to be a smart-arse, by the way. I know what you're saying. And I would add that it's shocking that people would take it out on counter staff who clearly don't have any responsibility for the decision making. The banks, though, have clearly been at it. You're right that, now that it's been decided that they have no right to take punitive fees out of our accounts, they're likely to extort money in some other way - but that doesn't make it any less wrong that they have been ripping people off.

When I was young( :blah:), they used to put a stop on your account over a certain level of debt. Surely in these days of enhanced technology, serial overspenders could have their accounts stopped? Maybe they view these debtors as good business?

Which brings me neatly to Hearts.....:titanic:

:greengrin:greengrin

jakki
24-04-2008, 07:14 PM
During a spell when money was very tight, I realised looking at my Telewest statement I would have to put 25 into my account to pay the DD. The day before, I did so. However I had misread the statement and when the DD came off, I was 32p overdrawn. The next month I got a letter telling me so and was charged 35.I went straight to the bank and explain, put another 5 into my account and the bank manager agreed to write off the charge. However the next month I was charged 35 as I had been in the red the previous month.I again spoke to the bank manager who agreed to write off the charge. And what happened the next month, yes the same letter. My final meeting with the manager was me telling him where to stick my account where it would hurt.

(The charges were put on my account towards the end of the month and the letters would arrive just after the start of the month a mattter of 5 or 6 days)

I had been a customer for over 10 years and had never before went in the red. A wee misreading of a statement cost me 3 months of worry over 32p.I'm sure that there are many people out there that have not got the determination or knowledge to fight the system and will have lost a lot of money because of these practises.

Steve-O
29-04-2008, 12:46 AM
The banks get away with murder because they are barely regulated at all for some reason.

Energy is regulated (Energywatch / OFGEM)

Phones are regulated (OFTEL)

TV is regulated

etc

Who exactly do you complain to about banks if you are getting nowhere with the banks themselves?? The ombudsman would not appear to have much power either.

IMO a regulatory body should be set up and if complaints are not dealt with swiftly then fines should be imposed (i.e. when the bank take weeks to pay you back money they are due you because of some error)

Sylar
29-04-2008, 08:49 AM
The banks get away with murder because they are barely regulated at all for some reason.

Energy is regulated (Energywatch / OFGEM)

Phones are regulated (OFTEL)

TV is regulated

etc

Who exactly do you complain to about banks if you are getting nowhere with the banks themselves?? The ombudsman would not appear to have much power either.

IMO a regulatory body should be set up and if complaints are not dealt with swiftly then fines should be imposed (i.e. when the bank take weeks to pay you back money they are due you because of some error)

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is the regulatory body of financial institutions.

julz
29-04-2008, 08:58 AM
I understand bank charges.
I had a few months a year or so back where i got them in succession
I hated them but I had to deal with them

The ones that really get is is if they pay a DD for you without sufficient funds - you get two charges.

Make them fair. Seemingly it costs them 4 to process everything. 28/30 (RBS ones that I get) are a joke.
I dont think if I claimed I would get more than 150 back, but I'm going to look into it.
I wouldnt even mind only getting the difference back between the charge they gave me and how much the court rules.

Phil D. Rolls
29-04-2008, 03:04 PM
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is the regulatory body of financial institutions.

Is that the blokes who regulated Northern Rock then?

Sylar
29-04-2008, 03:37 PM
Indeed.

Steve-O
30-04-2008, 12:15 AM
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is the regulatory body of financial institutions.

How much authority do they have though?

When I worked in the energy industry, 10 days was the general time that a complaint should have been resolved, yet I have heard of a few cases where banks take 6 weeks to pay money back into people's accounts that has been incorrectly taken!

rainman
30-04-2008, 03:39 AM
I understand bank charges.
I had a few months a year or so back where i got them in succession
I hated them but I had to deal with them

The ones that really get is is if they pay a DD for you without sufficient funds - you get two charges.

Make them fair. Seemingly it costs them 4 to process everything. 28/30 (RBS ones that I get) are a joke.
I dont think if I claimed I would get more than 150 back, but I'm going to look into it.
I wouldnt even mind only getting the difference back between the charge they gave me and how much the court rules.

It's worse over here in Australia.

I went to the ATM and tried to get money out. I wasn't sure if I had enough money in my account and it had no Account balance facility so i just tried to take $20 out (the minimum you can). It gave me $20 so I presumed I had enough in my account. Then I received a letter a week later, feeding me some bull***** that, "as a courtesy to me" they gave me my $20 even though I had insufficient funds in my account. This "saving me the embarrassment of being declined at the ATM" Of course they took what they called "a courtesy fee" of $40 for doing this.

I phoned them and explained I wasn't bothered about "embarrassing myself" standing alone at an ATM and I specifically asked for no overdraft limit so they grudgingly gave me back the fee taken. It seems they're at it over here as well, they know they can get away with it and are willing to chance their arm until somebody pipes up.

p.s. Flight over to Oz was bought courtesy of RBS refunded charges accumulated over 5 years at uni. :thumbsup:

Phil D. Rolls
30-04-2008, 10:33 AM
Indeed.

Makes you wonder how banks can get away with unfair practices, cos those guys are really on the ball.

Remind me, who is it that funds the FSA - surely not the banks?

Corstorphine Hibby
02-05-2008, 09:27 PM
Makes you wonder how banks can get away with unfair practices, cos those guys are really on the ball.

Remind me, who is it that funds the FSA - surely not the banks?

Hark at the ' regulated cab driver '