DarthVodka Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Couldnt see this posted elsewhere http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Couldnt see this posted elsewhere http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm Sensible decision. If you don't have the money to purchase an item, don't break your overdraft. Simple. Some of these cretins made out that it was the Banks' fault for them being charged. If they managed their money better and spent what they could afford, they wouldn't have the problem. One erse on the radio earlier was claiming that sometimes you just have to buy something to go over your overdraft like a new pair of shoes for your kids. No you don't - assuming they already have shoes then they can wait for a new pair when you can afford it. I've always gone with the principle that if I can't afford something I'll just have to save up until I can. If I am skint, I'll have a few nights in instead of going to the pub, for example. If the original court ruling had been ratified, it is the normal customers who would have been penalised with additional charges e.g. for withdrawing cash from cashlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthVodka Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Sensible decision. If you don't have the money to purchase an item, don't break your overdraft. Simple. Some of these cretins made out that it was the Banks' fault for them being charged. If they managed their money better and spent what they could afford, they wouldn't have the problem. One erse on the radio earlier was claiming that sometimes you just have to buy something to go over your overdraft like a new pair of shoes for your kids. No you don't - assuming they already have shoes then they can wait for a new pair when you can afford it. I've always gone with the principle that if I can't afford something I'll just have to save up until I can. If I am skint, I'll have a few nights in instead of going to the pub, for example. If the original court ruling had been ratified, it is the normal customers who would have been penalised with additional charges e.g. for withdrawing cash from cashlines. Agree with that. I don't have an overdraft so it makes little difference to me personally (but the fees some of them charge are well over the top, for a few quid over drawn some of them were charging ?60) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab87 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why can't the bank just refuse to pay if u will go overdrawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Think I'll crack open the popcorn, sit back, and watch how this thread develops...... But seriously, folks. Yes, I agree that a lot of people probably could have managed their money better. Yes, I agree that if you want something you save up for it rather than get in debt. I think we now have a society where "Because I'm worth it" is the motto rather than "Because I've earned it".* However...... It was the size of the charges and the inevitable knock-on effect that was unfair. A friend of mine got caught out by a cheque she'd written and forgotten about, which wasn't cashed for a few months. She only went overdrawn by a couple of quid. But she had four direct debits to charities for a fiver each, which the bank still paid - and charged her ?30 per item. So that's ?120 in charges for a simple human error. If you are on a low wage, that ?120 charge would be enough to push you over your overdraft limit again and incur further ?30 charges and so the cycle continues. That's where the banks were unfair about the whole thing. *I can't claim to have made that up, but I wish I had. I think it sums up a lot of what's wrong with society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why can't the bank just refuse to pay if u will go overdrawn? Because they could fleece people for money that way. They were talking about it on Radio 2 today, they said the charges were bringing in nearly ?3 billion per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Couldnt see this posted elsewhere Was amazed it wasn't posted here when I logged on this morning. I expected a 3 page thread by 11am and yet nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It's not just about people buying things they cannot afford Frank, sometimes other things cause it. For example the bank I used to be with would take interest payments (fair enough) but would not tell me when or how much these would be for. On more than one occasion they have refused to pay a bill which I had specifically put money into the account to pay because they had taken their ?5 or whatever and there was a few pounds short however they charged ?30 to refuse to pay the bill but then take out their additional ?30 overdraft fee, leaving me in an unauthorised overdraft and facing more charges the next month. If they can take their fee, why can they not pay my bill? It becomes a vicious circle which, when your already short on money it simply makes things worse and i'm not disputing that they should charge a fee but I think the amounts they take are out of proportion to the "crime" if you like, that is being committed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Was amazed it wasn't posted here when I logged on this morning. I expected a 3 page thread by 11am and yet nothing. half assed attempt - http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66237 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have had most of my charges back already so i'm not all that bothered.Was waiting on around ?500ish but wasn't counting on it so fair game. Does not change the fact that the banks should not be charging ?30-?35 for a charge.Robbing *****. I don't think this is quite over yet and will prob run and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It's not just about people buying things they cannot afford Frank, sometimes other things cause it. For example the bank I used to be with would take interest payments (fair enough) but would not tell me when or how much these would be for. On more than one occasion they have refused to pay a bill which I had specifically put money into the account to pay because they had taken their ?5 or whatever and there was a few pounds short however they charged ?30 to refuse to pay the bill but then take out their additional ?30 overdraft fee, leaving me in an unauthorised overdraft and facing more charges the next month. If they can take their fee, why can they not pay my bill? It becomes a vicious circle which, when your already short on money it simply makes things worse and i'm not disputing that they should charge a fee but I think the amounts they take are out of proportion to the "crime" if you like, that is being committed here. If you are short of money and have to watch out for charges, why not set up a second account that is for paying bills and put away what you are due each month at the start of the month, redirecting direct debits to it? That way you will get no last minute charges that prevent the payments. Why does the bank charge you ?5 a month? I have a monthly charge on my current account with HBoS, but thats only because it gives me benefits like home emergency etc. Can't you set up an arrangement with the bank where you have no overdraft, and any attempt to take money beyond your balance will be rejected? That way, when you go to the cashline it will simply tell you to bugger off when you try and draw out ?30 for a night in the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpy rebus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have had most of my charges back already so i'm not all that bothered.Was waiting on around ?500ish but wasn't counting on it so fair game.Does not change the fact that the banks should not be charging ?30-?35 for a charge.Robbing *****. I don't think this is quite over yet and will prob run and run. The reason the charges are at the level they are is to allow those of us that don't spend money we don't have to get free banking. The alternative is that we can all pay a small amount for every DDM, cheque etc. As for the decision, it was a stick-on. Once HM Govt. bailed out the banks, it was never going to allow a claim in excess of ?2B to be found against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Think I'll crack open the popcorn, sit back, and watch how this thread develops...... But seriously, folks. Yes, I agree that a lot of people probably could have managed their money better. Yes, I agree that if you want something you save up for it rather than get in debt. I think we now have a society where "Because I'm worth it" is the motto rather than "Because I've earned it".* However...... It was the size of the charges and the inevitable knock-on effect that was unfair. A friend of mine got caught out by a cheque she'd written and forgotten about, which wasn't cashed for a few months. She only went overdrawn by a couple of quid. But she had four direct debits to charities for a fiver each, which the bank still paid - and charged her ?30 per item. So that's ?120 in charges for a simple human error. If you are on a low wage, that ?120 charge would be enough to push you over your overdraft limit again and incur further ?30 charges and so the cycle continues. That's where the banks were unfair about the whole thing. *I can't claim to have made that up, but I wish I had. I think it sums up a lot of what's wrong with society. That happened to me when I was a student. I managed to get about ?4k back before they stopped while waiting on this outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 half assed attempt - http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66237 Wasn't just me that missed it then as the OP wasn't bombarded with 'Bank of Peebles' type replies Still, 5 posts on that thread since 10am this morning - not the hoo ha I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.A.N.S Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Can you imagine if all the banks had to refund all charges over the past 7/8 years? They'd be in bother all over again. I think this was the thinking behind the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The reason the charges are at the level they are is to allow those of us that don't spend money we don't have to get free banking. The alternative is that we can all pay a small amount for every DDM, cheque etc. As for the decision, it was a stick-on. Once HM Govt. bailed out the banks, it was never going to allow a claim in excess of ?2B to be found against them. My charges were from 4-5 years ago when i had a few money problems.At times yes it was reckless on my part but other times i couldn't avoid it ie too many direct debits i don't mean Sky,Mobiles etc i mean Gas,Electric and not earning enough money. A lot of people can't avoid going overdrawn at times you clearly haven't been in that position so you can't look at it from the other persons point of view. The amount they charge is nonsense. I still don't think this is over and done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If you are short of money and have to watch out for charges, why not set up a second account that is for paying bills and put away what you are due each month at the start of the month, redirecting direct debits to it? That way you will get no last minute charges that prevent the payments. Why does the bank charge you ?5 a month? I have a monthly charge on my current account with HBoS, but thats only because it gives me benefits like home emergency etc. Can't you set up an arrangement with the bank where you have no overdraft, and any attempt to take money beyond your balance will be rejected? That way, when you go to the cashline it will simply tell you to bugger off when you try and draw out ?30 for a night in the pub. I do now have two accounts, that was an old account and I have since switched to a new bank. I was putting in money to cover the bills, but as I say once or twice they took out an interest charge (it was for the auth overdraft) which knocked me into the spiral - all for a few pound they were taking nearly ?90. I could not, at that time, afford to pay off the overdraft at once (I had an arrangement to do it bit by bit per month) but I was not taking out money for the pub etc simply bills and food - I just wasn't earning enough at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That happened to me when I was a student. I managed to get about ?4k back before they stopped while waiting on this outcome. If you had over ?4000 in charges because of going overdrawn, you were not one of those that get caught in the trap by accident. Hell I went through a bad patch for a good few months and my charges never came to more than ?1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why can't the bank just refuse to pay if u will go overdrawn? They could, but then this would effectively remove the assurances that retailers require in order to accept debit card payments, for example. As for the ruling itself, seems fair enough to me. Anyone opening a bank account agrees to the T&Cs involved, and if you don't like them, you should sign up for another banking service that is more palatable in relation to your own financial circumstance. Or keep your cash in a shoebox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 half assed attempt - http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66237 Cheers mate:43: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Cheers mate:43: More the contribution not the OP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Can you imagine if all the banks had to refund all charges over the past 7/8 years? They'd be in bother all over again. I think this was the thinking behind the decision. Bingo! I think that you are spot on HANS. You would think though that since we, the people, own a large percentage of some of themain banks then pressure could be placed on them to adopt sensible overdraft charges and to put the kybosh on ATM withdrawal charges immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Couldnt see this posted elsewhere http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm Tremendous news. All those who were at the lash then whined about getting caught out* are spewing now. Congratulations to the banks. * More than a few of whom are on JKB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Wasn't just me that missed it then as the OP wasn't bombarded with 'Bank of Peebles' type replies Still, 5 posts on that thread since 10am this morning - not the hoo ha I expected. You shouldn't count my post in there; it wasn't at all constructive. fwiw, I agree with Therapist's sentiment. I have been working for about 25 years and have kept my spending within what I could afford. I've had loans and overdrafts but only for essentials and early on. Because of a prudent approach, I've lived largely credit free (mortgage being a significant exception, but managed) and I resented the paying back of bank charges. There's an argument that, perhaps, the banks were overcharging for the services they provided. That may be the case but they were hardly hidden charges. As the other thread was getting round to discussing, if folk claiming hardship and getting charges back 'own' any of: big car, big telly, computers, Playstations, designer clothes, gaudy jewellery, fancy sneakers (feel free to add more); have had foreign holidays or, in any way, lived a 'luxury' lifestyle, then they can gtf. we now have a society where "Because I'm worth it" is the motto rather than "Because I've earned it". Marvellous quote - it's a shame that the majority who have whined about the bank charges will fail to understand the nuance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You shouldn't count my post in there; it wasn't at all constructive. fwiw, I agree with Therapist's sentiment. I have been working for about 25 years and have kept my spending within what I could afford. I've had loans and overdrafts but only for essentials and early on. Because of a prudent approach, I've lived largely credit free (mortgage being a significant exception, but managed) and I resented the paying back of bank charges. There's an argument that, perhaps, the banks were overcharging for the services they provided. That may be the case but they were hardly hidden charges. As the other thread was getting round to discussing, if folk claiming hardship and getting charges back 'own' any of: big car, big telly, computers, Playstations, designer clothes, gaudy jewellery, fancy sneakers (feel free to add more); have had foreign holidays or, in any way, lived a 'luxury' lifestyle, then they can gtf. Marvellous quote - it's a shame that the majority who have whined about the bank charges will fail to understand the nuance. Should never have bought my black rubbers out of woolies. All downhill from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have been working for about 25 years and have kept my spending within what I could afford. I've had loans and overdrafts but only for essentials and early on. If the complainants had approached their bank first and arranged a loan or overdraft they wouldn't have been hit with these charges. But they thought they could merrily go "kite flying" and have, quite rightly, paid the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Too many people are completely missing the point here. The argument wasnt that people were suddenly shocked to be charged, and that they should be allowed to handle their affairs badly! The counter argument isnt that people should handle their affairs better. End of. The argument was that the charge made by the bank were a completely unfair amount, and a complete and utter RIP OFF. There is no denying that. Yes people should manage their money better. However, the charge shouldnt be a skelping by the bank. Banks shouldnt be able to put people in extreme debt, and yes it has happened to some people. Like one of the posts said earlier, all it takes is a couple of quid, through human error, and your are suddenly hit with 4 x ?30 charges, and then the cycle gets out of hand. Keep a charge in place, but make it fair. Sure, some will argue that its not much of a deterrent, however at the end of the day, the banks are still going to make some sort of profit, even if the charge is a lot smaller. Your not telling me it actually costs them much money when someone does go over their limit. The deterrent will still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If the complainants had approached their bank first and arranged a loan or overdraft they wouldn't have been hit with these charges. But they thought they could merrily go "kite flying" and have, quite rightly, paid the price. Not everyone can get a loan or overdraft. The previous post is spot on. I phoned Lloyds one day after a charge which they returned. I asked what the ?30 charge went towards and absolutely nobody could answer me. They were sure it wasn't a rip-off when I suggested it went towards a 30p letter. They were sure then, gob****es. The recession and government bailouts pretty much ended the chance of this lawsuit succeeding. Three or four years earlier, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have no problem with over-draft charges, I just think the punishment should fit the crime. Because my council tax sometimes comes out on the last day of the month, and sometimes on the first day of the month I was overdrawn one month until I was paid. I was only over-drawn ?4 for under 24 hours, and the bank charged me two charges of ?28 and ?35. Yes it is right that I was charged, since the buck does fall with me. But why should I pay the same for that as someone who is hundreds or thousands of ?s overdrawn? It just doesn't seem fair. As the banks know they make mistakes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If the complainants had approached their bank first and arranged a loan or overdraft they wouldn't have been hit with these charges. But they thought they could merrily go "kite flying" and have, quite rightly, paid the price. Don't make me laugh - as I said above I had an arranged overdraft for which the interest was what they were knocking me into the unauthorised one. I did not get a loan as I was trying to be responsible and not take on anymore credit - I would never have been able to afford the monthly repayments. More debt is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not everyone can get a loan or overdraft. Then if you are not able to get an overdraft or loan, don't overspend. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Then if you are not able to get an overdraft or loan, don't overspend. Simple. At times it can't be avoided mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Then if you are not able to get an overdraft or loan, don't overspend. Simple. Only in Therapist land it seems. Mistakes happen. Anybody going mental with money deserves all they get. I have some sympathy for people who don't earn much and get stung. That could potentially lead to huge financial problems for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You've also got instances whereby banks apply for the direct debits to be taken out early, normally when the end of a month falls on a weekend, and sometimes peoples wages haven't cleared yet and they get hit with charges through no fault of their own, I have a few clients who this has happened to and it's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why can't the bank just refuse to pay if u will go overdrawn? There are charges for refusing to pay items too. Usually the same as they are for allowing you to go overdrawn. I'm happy with the decision today, it's not going to just go away though unfortunately and could drag on for another couple of years yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It's not just about people buying things they cannot afford Frank, sometimes other things cause it. For example the bank I used to be with would take interest payments (fair enough) but would not tell me when or how much these would be for. On more than one occasion they have refused to pay a bill which I had specifically put money into the account to pay because they had taken their ?5 or whatever and there was a few pounds short however they charged ?30 to refuse to pay the bill but then take out their additional ?30 overdraft fee, leaving me in an unauthorised overdraft and facing more charges the next month. If they can take their fee, why can they not pay my bill? It becomes a vicious circle which, when your already short on money it simply makes things worse and i'm not disputing that they should charge a fee but I think the amounts they take are out of proportion to the "crime" if you like, that is being committed here. Your statement will tell you how much they are going to charge you in interest and when they are going to take it. You can't have bothered looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Muller Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Whats Martin Lewis going to cook up next by asking people around Britain to re-claim next? ? Parking fines? Bridge Tolls? Court fines? Martin Lewis has created false hope and people thought they were getting money back for charges and now ZERO. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beats Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Whats Martin Lewis going to cook up next by asking people around Britain to re-claim next? ? Parking fines? Bridge Tolls? Court fines? Martin Lewis has created false hope and people thought they were getting money back for charges and now ZERO. Nothing. Apart from the millions that has already been claimed back you mean! After a little check on the net it would appear the banks have already paid out 1 billion! Not exactly ZERO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Ross Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Whats Martin Lewis going to cook up next by asking people around Britain to re-claim next? ? Parking fines? Bridge Tolls? Court fines? Martin Lewis has created false hope and people thought they were getting money back for charges and now ZERO. Nothing. A lot of people have got money back because they claimed (me over ?1k) so not like he's done no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Too many people are completely missing the point here. Keep a charge in place, but make it fair. Sure, some will argue that its not much of a deterrent, however at the end of the day, the banks are still going to make some sort of profit, even if the charge is a lot smaller. Your not telling me it actually costs them much money when someone does go over their limit. The deterrent will still be there. I've not missed the point, Sten. I alluded to the fairness of the charge and how the banks are managed is a whole different area for complaint. If successive governments had paved the way for fair competition in the banking sector, there wouldn't have been this collusion to create crazily high charges. However, when the first refunds were issued, all I heard was a collective "woo-hoo!" from folk who had been bailed out for their irresponsibility. I fear that the number of genuine claims of unfairly levied charges (the fact that they were levied rather then that level of the levy) is miniscule in proportion to the number of chancers who have been given a get out of jail free card. Unlike Therapist, I'm not perfect in every way and have, once or twice, been known to be slightly irresponsible but I'll accept the consequences. Not everyone can get a loan or overdraft. As I wrote earlier, if you're living a life with the basic essentials (no car, fancy telly, designer clothes, costly holidays) and you, or the folk you describe, still feel the need for a loan, then you have my sympathy (and all the contributions I've made to the welfare state over the years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Your statement will tell you how much they are going to charge you in interest and when they are going to take it. You can't have bothered looking. Not with all banks, my bank send a letter stating that interest will come off my account within 14 working days of the next statement, so it could be any time within 3 weeks. Plus half the time the statement never actually arrives. I am one of those who have on occasion gone into an unnofficial overdraft. Sometimes by mistake, sometimes by stupidity, very very occasionally because the bank have taken direct debits out before they were supposed to, but the vast majority of the times have been my fault and so I have no complaint when I am charged for doing so. Complaining about the size of the charge is pretty stupid too, the charges are common knowledge. Anybody who says 'but I didn't know it would be that much' is either lying through their teeth or has had their head in the sand for 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Your statement will tell you how much they are going to charge you in interest and when they are going to take it. You can't have bothered looking. I did bother looking. I even bothered so far as to call them and ask them how much and when it would be coming out as all the statement said was that something would be debited but nothing more. They couldn't tell me. It must be said it was the worst bank ever, the one i'm with now is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not with all banks, my bank send a letter stating that interest will come off my account within 14 working days of the next statement, so it could be any time within 3 weeks. Plus half the time the statement never actually arrives. I am one of those who have on occasion gone into an unnofficial overdraft. Sometimes by mistake, sometimes by stupidity, very very occasionally because the bank have taken direct debits out before they were supposed to, but the vast majority of the times have been my fault and so I have no complaint when I am charged for doing so. Complaining about the size of the charge is pretty stupid too, the charges are common knowledge. Anybody who says 'but I didn't know it would be that much' is either lying through their teeth or has had their head in the sand for 10 years. So you didn't have a bad word to say when your bank withdrew money early, and then charged you a substantial amount for being overdrawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have had most of my charges back already so i'm not all that bothered.Was waiting on around ?500ish but wasn't counting on it so fair game.Does not change the fact that the banks should not be charging ?30-?35 for a charge.Robbing *****. I don't think this is quite over yet and will prob run and run. They weren't really robbing *******s as you still enjoy free banking like we all do. Wait until they start charging you like foreign banks and you'll soon appreciate how cushy we had it over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So you didn't have a bad word to say when your bank withdrew money early, and then charged you a substantial amount for being overdrawn? I find this 'banks taking money out before they are supposed to' a bit strange. I'm not sure how or why that happens, is it just a misunderstanding regarding how banks will treat weekends or bank holidays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I find this 'banks taking money out before they are supposed to' a bit strange. I'm not sure how or why that happens, is it just a misunderstanding regarding how banks will treat weekends or bank holidays? Not sure why it happens, but my account definitely went overdrawn because my council tax came out on the last day of the month instead of on the first as it is supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not sure why it happens, but my account definitely went overdrawn because my council tax came out on the last day of the month instead of on the first as it is supposed to. But are you sure 'when it is supposed to'? Most direct debit mandates are 'on or after' a given date as far as I know. Just because it normally comes out on one date may not mean that's the earliest date it can be taken. However, I'm not a DDM expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But are you sure 'when it is supposed to'? Most direct debit mandates are 'on or after' a given date as far as I know. Just because it normally comes out on one date may not mean that's the earliest date it can be taken. However, I'm not a DDM expert. My council tax is definitely meant to come out on the 1st of every month. I set it up that way. I pay money into an account which covers my mortgage, bills and taxes. I pay the money in on the 1st of every month, thereby covering all my payments. For some reason one month (say March), my council tax came out on the 1st as usual, then again on the 31st before my pay had gone in to cover my April bills. This only put me something like ?4 overdrawn as I try to keep a little extra in the account in case something goes up in price. I was ?4 overdrawn for under 24 hours and the bank charged me ?60, for something which, as far as I can tell was not my fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 My council tax is definitely meant to come out on the 1st of every month. I set it up that way. I pay money into an account which covers my mortgage, bills and taxes. I pay the money in on the 1st of every month, thereby covering all my payments. For some reason one month (say March), my council tax came out on the 1st as usual, then again on the 31st before my pay had gone in to cover my April bills. This only put me something like ?4 overdrawn as I try to keep a little extra in the account in case something goes up in price. I was ?4 overdrawn for under 24 hours and the bank charged me ?60, for something which, as far as I can tell was not my fault. So what did the bank say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So what did the bank say? Would you like to hazard a guess? Here's a clue, it rhymes with muff tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5,014
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.