Bank charges _ when can you claim?

[Deek]

Isnt it funny how everyone always goes a ? over!!!

 

As for the case this does not mean the charges are illegal, it simply gives the OFT power to investigate and decide if they are illegal and set reasonable tariffs - like the ?12 they introduced on credit cards

 

The banks can appeal too

 

This is a far way from over

 

:arf:

[MacDonald Jardine]

having read a bit about all this and looking to make a claim myself am i right in thinking any claims just now regardless for any amount will just be acknowledged and then put on hold or are some claims getting proccessed? And what is the full information you have to suply? All statements for up to 3 years i read somewere?

 

The banks are arguing for all cases to be put on hold pending a decision in the current cases. Some Sheriffs are agreeing to it, some are not.

Technically the pending decision won't be binding on Scotland anyway, so you could still have some Sheriffs making different decisions until it gets to the House of Lords.

 

You'd need to supply any papers showing the charges you are claiming back and an explanation of why you are entitled to that.

Try the Govan Law Centre website which I think has styles.

 

It would also have to be raised within five years of the oldest charge you are claiming back.

[Ray Winstone]

Banks are thieving bandits.

 

I have been charged twice for going over my arranged student overdraught - 28quid the first time then 20 quid the next!

 

Questions raised are as follows:

 

1) Why is it the amount of the charge changed? Is it because they just make it up as the go along?

 

2) Why do their charges come out of my account immediately when the reason I got charged in the first place was because a standing order from my parents takes 5 days to be transfered from their account to mine! - obviously the answer is because they take your money and use it before sending it to your account - but it obviously is possible for immediate transfer!

 

3) Cheques - same as electronic transfer - how in gods name in this day and age to they take 3 - 5 days to clear - unbelievable.

 

I am away to phone the bank for a rant and see if they will give me my charges back!

[Walter Payton]

Do people actually realise what an overdraft is? It's a "free" buffer zone the bank have already given you to protect you from those unexpected payments. If you go ?1 over your ?500 pre-arranged overdraft, you've not spent ?1 that wasn't yours- you've spent ?501 that you've never even earned. If people can't manage their finances better or see that overdraft as their "right" and decide to live on the edge of that (effectively losing that "free" buffer zone) IMO they deserve the penalties they get.

 

Why should the bank have to roll over and take it when people spend money that's not theirs?

[Ray Winstone]

Do people actually realise what an overdraft is? It's a "free" buffer zone the bank have already given you to protect you from those unexpected payments. If you go ?1 over your ?500 pre-arranged overdraft, you've not spent ?1 that wasn't yours- you've spent ?501 that you've never even earned. If people can't manage their finances better or see that overdraft as their "right" and decide to live on the edge of that (effectively losing that "free" buffer zone) IMO they deserve the penalties they get.

 

Why should the bank have to roll over and take it when people spend money that's not theirs?

 

A student overdraught is there as a way of borrowing money interest free - which you then have a year to pay back when you start earning money after finishing or leaving University.

 

It is slightly different from a standard overdraught as it is a stopgap while you are earning little or no money - therefore it is money that you will 'earn' eventually.

 

Banks simply compound people's problems by charging excessive amounts.

[pablo]

Get in ! The good guys win.

[Deek]

Do people actually realise what an overdraft is? It's a "free" buffer zone the bank have already given you to protect you from those unexpected payments. If you go ?1 over your ?500 pre-arranged overdraft, you've not spent ?1 that wasn't yours- you've spent ?501 that you've never even earned. If people can't manage their finances better or see that overdraft as their "right" and decide to live on the edge of that (effectively losing that "free" buffer zone) IMO they deserve the penalties they get.

 

Why should the bank have to roll over and take it when people spend money that's not theirs?

 

Without a cheque book how can you overdraw. Surely with automation if you don't have sufficient money in your account, you will not be able to pay a direct debit, withdraw cash or carry out a card transaction.

 

For example if you had ?5 credit in your account and a direct debit for ?6 was due to be paid, you should not be able to pay the direct debit. But the bank allows it knowing fine well you will go over your limit and they can then apply charges.

 

To me this is theft and they have been found out.

[Brandt]

I phoned the royal bank to ask about how i went about it. The frosty woman from the bank says that you must provide 6 years of bank statements (which they print and send to you free) and send them to the head office. Got about ?1000 in charges over 6 years, mainly due to travelling, but at least it was worth it. You just know that you will be marked in your bank like! You wont get anymore loans or overdrafts!

[Say What Again]

I don't have an overdraft.

 

I had a cheque due to clear on Monday for ?58, I also had money coming off my account on Monday to the tune of ?80. The cheque, added to what I had in my account already, would have given more than ?80 needed.

 

The cheque cleared on Monday as planned - but AFTER the direct debit was asked for, resulting in a fine of ?28 (I think).

 

To be fair to the bank, I went in to the branch and they cancelled the charge, but ?28 for that? FFS!

[Walter Payton]

Without a cheque book how can you overdraw. Surely with automation if you don't have sufficient money in your account, you will not be able to pay a direct debit, withdraw cash or carry out a card transaction.

 

For example if you had ?5 credit in your account and a direct debit for ?6 was due to be paid, you should not be able to pay the direct debit. But the bank allows it knowing fine well you will go over your limit and they can then apply charges.

 

To me this is theft and they have been found out.

 

If you weren't able to have an overdraft past 0 balance and banks refused to pay the ?6 debit because you only had ?5 credit, people would soon be complaining the banks were acting "imorally" because their refusal to honour the transaction meant they were unable to pay for food/fuel/rent etc.

 

The current system is perfectly fair IMO, and the only way you get caught out is you consider the overdraft "your money" and live on the edge of it.

[Walter Payton]

A student overdraught is there as a way of borrowing money interest free - which you then have a year to pay back when you start earning money after finishing or leaving University.

 

It is slightly different from a standard overdraught as it is a stopgap while you are earning little or no money - therefore it is money that you will 'earn' eventually.

 

Banks simply compound people's problems by charging excessive amounts.

 

Maybe you view it that way, but it's not what it's there for. You've not earned that money but the banks offer it as a stopgap. Fair enough take advantage of it up to the pre-agreed limit, but I don't think you can have any complaints if you spend money that you haven't earned without prior consent. That's where the theft comes into it IMO and should be penalised.

[Ray Winstone]

Maybe you view it that way, but it's not what it's there for. You've not earned that money but the banks offer it as a stopgap. Fair enough take advantage of it up to the pre-agreed limit, but I don't think you can have any complaints if you spend money that you haven't earned without prior consent. That's where the theft comes into it IMO and should be penalised.

 

Or the banks could simply prevent you from borrowing more than your arranged overdraught?

 

But they would not do that because they WANT you to get charged!

 

Maybe now they will put a stop to it.

[Deek]

If you weren't able to have an overdraft past 0 balance and banks refused to pay the ?6 debit because you only had ?5 credit, people would soon be complaining the banks were acting "imorally" because their refusal to honour the transaction meant they were unable to pay for food/fuel/rent etc.

 

The current system is perfectly fair IMO, and the only way you get caught out is you consider the overdraft "your money" and live on the edge of it.

 

I disagree.

 

I dont have any charges as I dont go overdrawn.

 

But you are saying it is ok for the bank to allow a payment making you overdrawn, then charging you ?28 for this as they are acting morally.

 

That is surely theft. It would appear morals only work in the bank favour.

[Walter Payton]

Or the banks could simply prevent you from borrowing more than your arranged overdraught?

 

But they would not do that because they WANT you to get charged!

 

Maybe now they will put a stop to it.

 

How do they stop you going over the overdraft without refusing to pay? Do you honestly believe people would be happier if they were suddenly without power at home, all because the bill payer hadn't managed their finances properly and the bank wouldn't honour a debit that took him past the agreed overdraft?

 

I'll say it again- why SHOULD the banks allow people to spend money they haven't earned without consent and without penalty?

[Walter Payton]

I disagree.

 

I dont have any charges as I dont go overdrawn.

 

But you are saying it is ok for the bank to allow a payment making you overdrawn, then charging you ?28 for this as they are acting morally.

 

That is surely theft. It would appear morals only work in the bank favour.

 

What I'm saying Deek is people should take more responsibility with their own finances. Nobody takes money from my bank account without my prior consent. If I've opened the account with the bank with the full agreement that these are the consequences if I authorise a debit from my account without the funds to cover it, I'm the only person that can be blamed.

 

Are parking fines immoral if they're for outstaying the prepaid parking ticket?

[Say What Again]

How do they stop you going over the overdraft without refusing to pay?

 

I may be wrong (it has happened before) but I'm sure my mate was charged by the bank for not having enough money to cover a direct debit and they didn't pay it. He was charged for them having to return it unpaid or something along those lines.

 

As I say, that me be slightly wrong.

 

He's with RBS.

[Ray Winstone]

I may be wrong (it has happened before) but I'm sure my mate was charged by the bank for not having enough money to cover a direct debit and they didn't pay it. He was charged for them having to return it unpaid or something along those lines.

 

As I say, that me be slightly wrong.

 

He's with RBS.

 

That happened to me - there was not enough money to cover my rent because it had taken 5 days for an electronic transfer from my parents account to come into mine meaning I was short when the rent came out.

 

The direct debit for the rent did not come out of the account and I got charged once for the 'bouncing' of the direct debit and then again for going over the overdraught limit (even though technically I had not)

 

Absolutely outrageous!

 

They are quick to take money away from you but when it comes to giving it to you (eg electronic transfers and cheques) they take their sweet ass time!

[neobis]

Some interesting quotes on the BBC article:

 

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

 

"This does not necessarily mean they [the charges] are unfair" - Mr Justice Andrew Smith

"This judgement means the OFT should be able to decide what a fair charge would be for unauthorised overdrafts."

"Instead, monthly or annual charges could be introduced as standard for running an ordinary current account."

[Phage]

Isnt it funny how everyone always goes a ? over!!!

 

As for the case this does not mean the charges are illegal, it simply gives the OFT power to investigate and decide if they are illegal and set reasonable tariffs - like the ?12 they introduced on credit cards

 

The banks can appeal too

 

This is a far way from over

 

If you are suggesting that people are making up or lying about going only a pound over there limit then I think you are wrong.

 

Makes sense to me that a little over is a lot more likely than a big bit over. Granted some people might get stung and go a 30 pound standing order over their limit but most people are going to think right I need 30 squid in there and then when it comes off and they have miss calculated and end up a few pence or a pound over the limit.

[The Old Tolbooth]

I personally think that banks make way too much money in charges and this needs to be addressed, however if the banks lose this case, then it will penalise the innocent people who have never been in overdraft territory in their life!

 

Banks never lose, even when they do! (If that makes sense) All they will do is treat everyones personal accounts like a business account, and charge you for using their banking facility (ie 40p per direct debit, 50p per standing order etc) and will soon recover their losses from this from everyone else, with interest! I would imagine there will also be a monthly servicing charge of say ?5 or so.

 

I hope the banks win also, but the OFT review their charges system.

[davemclaren]

In France it's a criminal offence to overdraw without permission - I believe.

[Deek]

In France it's a criminal offence to overdraw without permission - I believe.

 

I dont see how you can overdraw without the banks permission Dave unless you issue a cheque guaranteed.

[davemclaren]

I dont see how you can overdraw without the banks permission Dave unless you issue a cheque guaranteed.

 

Cheque card is probably the only way nowadays. Or a cheque you have credited bouncing late.

 

Overdrawing without permission is stealing someone elses money.

[Deek]

Cheque card is probably the only way nowadays. Or a cheque you have credited bouncing late.

 

Overdrawing without permission is stealing someone elses money.

 

Absolutely, it is the banks allowing and condoning people to overdraw that is theft.

[davemclaren]

Absolutely, it is the banks allowing and condoning people to overdraw that is theft.

 

They have to make their money somehow. Banking is a tough business.

[this_is_my_story]

How do you know they outweigh ?

 

Yes techinically speaking they do but the banks argument will be the whole infastructure of running a bank should be taken into consideration. I.e Insurance,reserves, software, legal teams, collection teams etc etc as opposed to the basic costs of the paper and ink for a letter

 

I actually think the banks will win tbh

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6169539.stm

 

From the above article:

The Legal Position

They (the charges) are not permitted to be a profit-making enterprise for any business. He believes if a penalty charge is higher than its administrative cost, it is illegal.

 

Also:

We asked two professors of banking and a former NatWest executive to estimate the banks' costs.The highest figure they concluded that banks could justify was ?4.50 - much lower than what the banks currently charge.

 

Interesting also to note that the banks seem to be willing to refund their charges every time. Why would this be the case, if the banks knew that what they were doing was technically 100% legal?

[davemclaren]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6169539.stm

 

From the above article:

The Legal Position

They (the charges) are not permitted to be a profit-making enterprise for any business. He believes if a penalty charge is higher than its administrative cost, it is illegal.

 

Also:

We asked two professors of banking and a former NatWest executive to estimate the banks' costs.The highest figure they concluded that banks could justify was ?4.50 - much lower than what the banks currently charge.

 

Interesting also to note that the banks seem to be willing to refund their charges every time. Why would this be the case, unless the banks knew that what they were doing was technically 100% legal?

 

According to TCF principles charges have to be proportionate. They are allowed to charge more than just the admin cost as they can make a profit.

 

It's us folk that never overdraw who'll pay in the long run.

[tedp6873]

ok guys and girls just had an email from MArtin at moneysavingexpert regarding bank charges here is what he says now this coming from a man who i have taken RBS for ?1200 bank charges.

 

 

24 April 08. An urgent update on the Bank Charges situation from MoneySavingExpert.com

Today (Thurs) a High Court judge confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years, that consumer contract regulations do apply to bank charges meaning that 'fairness' counts. The next step is for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to assess whether they are actually unfair but as it's the one who took the banks to court, that seems likely. Then it'll try to reach agreement with the banks, and if not, go back to court.

 

To use a football analogy, before we were kicking the ball around the middle of the pitch, now we're at the penalty spot...though the judgement's massive and the nitty gritty may throw more up.

 

What happens next?

 

On 22 May 2008, there will be a case management meeting; at which point it's possible the banks will put in an appeal. Until then, all cases remain on hold. As explained above, my hope is, not long after that, the regulator will lift the hold on reclaiming that was apparently put in place to 'protect consumers' from inconsistencies.

 

Yet now the law is clear and binding - bank charges are required to be 'fair' - so hopefully it will soon allow people who think they're legally unfair to reclaim again, after all, the banks are still charging these charges!

 

If it's on hold, why put in a reclaim now?

 

Simple, the statute of limitations says you can only claim back six years' worth of charges in England, five in Scotland. The longer you leave it, the less far back your reclaim goes... as many people have had lots of charges stretching back over years, this means if you don't put a claim in sooner, you're less likely to get the old ones back.

 

Plus hopefully when the FSA ends the waiver on reclaiming, it means you'll be ahead in the queue, and should be dealt with more quickly.

 

What if my case is already on hold?

 

We’re still waiting for the FSA to end the waiver; as explained above, my hope is that this should happen in the next couple of months. Until then, sadly, you’ll just have to keep twiddling your thumbs. As always, all news will be included in the weekly email.

 

please go to his website and register for his weekly letter.

 

moneysavingexpert.com

( not sure if this is allowed if not can you delete please mods)

[djf]

So next stop -

 

Bank Charges decreased to say ?8-12?

 

A monthly banking fee of ?5+?

 

In the long run everyone will lose out because of this.

[this_is_my_story]

Do people actually realise what an overdraft is? It's a "free" buffer zone the bank have already given you to protect you from those unexpected payments. If you go ?1 over your ?500 pre-arranged overdraft, you've not spent ?1 that wasn't yours- you've spent ?501 that you've never even earned. If people can't manage their finances better or see that overdraft as their "right" and decide to live on the edge of that (effectively losing that "free" buffer zone) IMO they deserve the penalties they get.

 

Why should the bank have to roll over and take it when people spend money that's not theirs?

 

1. Yes.

2. May be wrong, but I'd think you'd toil to get an interest free overdraft for a basic current account from any bank now.

3. True, but of the ?500 of the ?501 that you have spent, the bank will already have made money from you.

4. No, they don't. This is because the banks are not allowed legally to profit from these charges, but only to cover the actual administrational cost to themselves.

 

I honestly can't believe that some people are sticking up for the banks here. Yes, people sign up when the terms are there in black and white, and yes, it would be sensible for everyone to live within their means, but these charges are purely and utterly wrong. What stinks all the more is that the banks know that they're in the wrong, yet they persist with it... it's f@*king extortion!!!

[this_is_my_story]

According to TCF principles charges have to be proportionate. They are allowed to charge more than just the admin cost as they can make a profit.

 

It's us folk that never overdraw who'll pay in the long run.

 

Illegally.

[kearney19]

Ive never been so happy for a long time after hearing them idiots at the bank have lost the appeal.

 

What they have done is illegal and Im glad they have been done for it.

 

Im very happy at the prospect of hopefully getting all my money back they have taken from me for being say 5p short.

[Walter Payton]

Ive never been so happy for a long time after hearing them idiots at the bank have lost the appeal.

 

What they have done is illegal and Im glad they have been done for it.

 

Im very happy at the prospect of hopefully getting all my money back they have taken from me for being say 5p short.

 

So you've gone from being ignorant on the matter only 2 pages and less than 2 days ago to being a legal expert on the matter.... Good one.

 

The court yesterday didn't say the bank charges are illegal.

[Domokun]

I wonder what sort of response would be had on a football club's fansite from a town that WASN'T mostly employed in finance.

 

A lot of bankers on this thread.

 

I await the 22nd of May with interest.

[funktasticlad]

The banks are dirty robbing b a s t a r d s, anybody who says otherwise is either a bawbag or works for them.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

the OFT said ?12 was fair for credit cards, that was about 2 years ago now

 

They will not say any less for bank cards so banks may have to reduce fees but like with credit cards this will be recouped elsewere with higher rates, news fees ( transfer fees, atm fees, dd fees, monthly fees etc)

 

Banks profits will not fall, and everyone will be worse off to finance this

 

As for kearney, get a grip mate, if your so bothered about bank charges stop wasting cash getting kb'd at auditions to embarass yourself on national TV and get a proper job

[Therapist]

Banks profits will not fall, and everyone will be worse off to finance this

 

Correct. The vast majority will now have to pay because of the reckless actions of chancers who cannot keep their finances under control then squeal like stuck pigs when they get caught out.

[Therapist]

I await the 22nd of May with interest.

 

:rolleyes:

[Brian Whittaker's Tache]

Excellent News

 

The banks have had it all their own way for far too long.

 

I can now proceed with my case now as HSBC put it on hold pending this decision.

 

Bank charges are stupid and lack common sense as does most of the banking industry as its run by computer these days and not human beings. For example I'm self employed and I do the bulk of my work for a big multinational who being a big multinational every so often lose an invoice or miss you off the BACS run. When they do I get humped by the bank royally. Sorry we can't pay this direct debit for ?8 as you only have ?6 in your account but we'll take ?30 penalty charge off your account for sending you this letter. Cheers!!

 

As I said common sense and a bit of relationship building in banking wouldnt go amiss rather than "dial 0870 and speak to "Terry" in Mumbai"

[davemclaren]

Illegally.

 

They can still make a profit on providing a service ( thankfully ) and managing an unauthorised overdraft is a service. The charges just have to be 'reasonable and proportionate'.

[Chester™]

TBH i can agree with Prancer/Therapist (cant believe ive just said that) and I see the other point of view for those that have been charged. What im not in favour of is these people who have run up thousands of pounds worth of charges through complete financial mismanagement over a lengthy period and are now crying about it. The terms and conditions are clear to me and most people and it seems the judge agreed. Some people (like myself) have never been overdrawn and if I was the famous ?1 over, my bank (HBOS) has a safety net of ?35 in such instances (cant remember that being mentioned) and wouldnt charge you and even then, ive only been there once in my first year as a student many moons ago. Most banks tend to do this (IIRC) unless you dont have a full current account ie the basic. It those who have never been overdrawn and manage their finances efficiently, that will get hit the hardest. Regardless of how much banks make, the slightest bit of common sense will tell you that they will recoup this lost money elsewhere. For an example, look at the idiots who bought houses on flood plains and then claimed. Who paid for it? Everyone else with common sense.

 

But after working for a bank, I do take some pleasure in watching them squirm at this ruling. Some of their practices IMO, are completely wrong and immoral. I left as I couldnt come to terms with the poor practice some indulge in and some of the pressure they put you under to get things such as sales etc. Their treatment on the whole of Joe Punter was and can be despicable. I do have sympathy for those who havent been overdrawn and get hammered with these charges. Ive seen some, who havent been in this position in their account not have the initial charge reversed (which most do as a goodwill gesture), and this included some who have been with the bank for over 30-40 years. I do not agree with the policy of multiple charging on customers who have been overdrawn. Once should be sufficient and if it looks like they cant get back into the black, decent practice would be to bring the customer in for a chat on how to manage their finances better, but they wont do that as they dont make enough money this way. But of course while that customer in for the chat, they could always try and sell them products!!

 

Unfortunately, banks are no longer part of the local community like they used to be (and I heard that every day with the old dears that came into my branch!). Common sense and rapport with customers has left them in the pursuit of huge profits.

 

Thats turned into a bit of a rant. Apologies!

[Therapist]

TBH i can agree with Therapist (cant believe ive just said that)

 

Chin up mate. You'll get over it.

[LizzyHearts2]

I've just sorted out all my statements and have paid ?800... yes ?800!!! in the last 3 years through charges.

 

Now I know that there was some sort of court case going on where all cases have been suspended but has anyone got info on when i would be able to make a claim to get them back.

 

The w ank (i mean bank) in question is halifax btw! ?30 a pop and another ?28 the following month :

 

What were the charges for?? If it's for being in debt etc...i have no sympathy and i believe the bank in Q is very fair with it's charges.

[LizzyHearts2]

Correct. The vast majority will now have to pay because of the reckless actions of chancers who cannot keep their finances under control then squeal like stuck pigs when they get caught out.

 

I agree with u on that! U usually find it's the greedy ones (and there r lots) that start screaming blue murder coz the banks haven't given them every chance...the banks have given them enuff chances and it's time to pull in the reins and start taking contol from every side. Most folk just can't control themselves...I have been offered loads of chances with credit cards etc..i even have a huge overdraft facility on a bank acct and i didnt even ask or want for it....it will never get used so they may as well take it back.

[S.N.T.H.]

Working in a branch, i deal with Charge Appeals every single day.

 

People must realise that we're refunding thousands of charges every day that are deemed Unfair, excessive and/or harsh. But when a customer is taking the pish out of the bank, and entering unauthorised overdrafts (An overdraft is a form of borrowing, and isn't your money in the first place so you should be punished for going over the limit, just as you would if you failed to keep up with payments on your Loan) then they must be penalised for doing so.

 

People moan and moan, and i phone out every day warning customers that they're in an unathorised overdraft and informing them to pay in before X time to avoid getting a charge. This doesn't have to be the case, the bank doesn't have to inform you and certainly doesn't have to give you a chance to avoid a charge on the very day that it would be incurred.

 

Additionally, banks constantly offer customers Customer Service Reviews, to look at ways of avoicing charges and saving customers money on their borrowing. Yet it is constantly shrugged off and met with suspicion by the customer. You can't have it both ways.

 

What i would say is, a Direct Debit Agreement is between you and a company, and YOU set it up. The bank is merely the middle party. So if you can't afford to have the D/D then cancel it. It's the same when making Switch payments when there's no dosh in the account. So bloody stupid and people have some nerve, really.

 

When will people start taking responsibility for their finances?

[S.N.T.H.]

Without a cheque book how can you overdraw. Surely with automation if you don't have sufficient money in your account, you will not be able to pay a direct debit, withdraw cash or carry out a card transaction.

 

For example if you had ?5 credit in your account and a direct debit for ?6 was due to be paid, you should not be able to pay the direct debit. But the bank allows it knowing fine well you will go over your limit and they can then apply charges.

 

To me this is theft and they have been found out.

 

You for real?

 

A D/D is an agreement between YOU and a third party. The bank is the middle ground. If you do not have sufficient funds in the account, the bank can choose to honour it (Which is surely what you'd want?) or bounce it, and leave you open to the risk of being charged from the D/D company. Now, when honouring it (and doing you, and your credit rating, a favour) the bank will then charge for doing so, as you're using money which is not yours.

 

It's simple, as i said before, do not set the D/D up in the first place if you can't afford it.

 

You seriously need to do research before posting on the topic as clearly you have no clue.

[Deek]

You for real?

 

A D/D is an agreement between YOU and a third party. The bank is the middle ground. If you do not have sufficient funds in the account, the bank can choose to honour it (Which is surely what you'd want?) or bounce it, and leave you open to the risk of being charged from the D/D company. Now, when honouring it (and doing you, and your credit rating, a favour) the bank will then charge for doing so, as you're using money which is not yours.

 

It's simple, as i said before, do not set the D/D up in the first place if you can't afford it.

 

You seriously need to do research before posting on the topic as clearly you have no clue.

 

Very good. You are right as always of course I have no clue. As most 19 year olds are. Or are you 20 yet?

 

Why don't the bank refuse to pay the D/D if you don't have funds?

 

It is none of their business if you are charged by the other party, or what your credit rating is.

 

They only do it to make money for themselves.

[RobM]

Correct. The vast majority will now have to pay because of the reckless actions of chancers who cannot keep their finances under control then squeal like stuck pigs when they get caught out.

 

Here's a thought. Given that banks have been making ludicrous profits for years now why does it stand to reason that they themselves can't take the hit? They've screwed the economy, they're paying themselves humungous bonuses. Time for some good ole fashioned state intervention with these tossers.

[Therapist]

Here's a thought. Given that banks have been making ludicrous profits for years now why does it stand to reason that they themselves can't take the hit? They've screwed the economy, they're paying themselves humungous bonuses. Time for some good ole fashioned state intervention with these tossers.

 

Citizen Smith alert

 

As for "taking the hit", why should they be penalised if individuals are at the lash and/or cannot manage a simple bank account properly?

 

Do what I do. Don't break the rules and you won't get charged. It then becomes a non issue.

[S.N.T.H.]

Very good. You are right as always of course I have no clue. As most 19 year olds are. Or are you 20 yet?

 

Why don't the bank refuse to pay the D/D if you don't have funds?

 

It is none of their business if you are charged by the other party, or what your credit rating is.

 

They only do it to make money for themselves.

 

 

 

I've stated clear facts and it seems i know far, far more about it than you.

 

The bank can refuse to pay the D/D, it's entirely discretionary. I'm sure you're not stupid and realise that, by honouring it, they're acrtually doing you a favour? You say it's 'none of their business' if you're charged by the third party. Well, i can assure you it is when you're getting a mouthful for it.

 

You've clearly misunderstood the Direct Debit Agreement, and now you've brought up the fact that i am 19 years old. Brownie points all 'round!