Bank Overdraft Case

[davemclaren]

Would you like to hazard a guess?

 

Here's a clue,

 

it rhymes with muff tit.

 

Hmmm. Direct debits are set up by the originator ( in this case your council ) so it is they that define the terms of when it will be taken in line with your signed agreement with them. Unless you pay your council tax by standing order I can't see how you could state when it will be taken. If the council took it out prior to the date they stated in your agreement then you may have a case against them.

[Sheriff Fatman]

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?

 

Nope, I phoned them up explained the situation and they replaced the money in my account.

 

When it was my fault I accepted the blame and the cost, when it was the bank's fault I got in touch with them, talked to them politely, and they quickly rectified it.

 

It seems to me far too many people blame the banks when it is their own fault and shout and ball when it is an easily rectifiable situation.

[this_is_my_story]

Complaining about the size of the charge is pretty stupid too

 

No, it isn't. Whilst the extent of the charges may very well have been laid out in the T&Cs, the whole case to which this thread refers revolves around the fact that these charges were challenged in the first place because they did not reflect the true administrative cost to the banks. In other words, it was an occurrence in which banks were profiting from a situation which they weren't supposed to profit from, which again, was why the case was raised.

 

FWIW, I agree with the mantra that one should live within their means. That much is common sense.

 

However, one seriously has to wonder if the outcome of this case would have been markedly different had it been brought forth during an entirely contrasting economic climate. Call me cynical...

[shaun.lawson]

No, it isn't. Whilst the extent of the charges may very well have been laid out in the T&Cs, the whole case to which this thread refers revolves around the fact that these charges were challenged in the first place because they did not reflect the true administrative cost to the banks. In other words, it was an occurrence in which banks were profiting from a situation which they weren't supposed to profit from, which again, was why the case was raised.

 

FWIW, I agree with the mantra that one should live within their means. That much is common sense.

 

However, one seriously has to wonder if the outcome of this case would have been markedly different had it been brought forth during an entirely contrasting economic climate. Call me cynical...

 

This is exactly my position too. And it's just so, so easy for so many to say "well, I live within my means and have no problem - ergo, anyone who goes through their limit deserve everything they get, and I've no sympathy".

 

The cost of living in the UK is high, frighteningly so in places; wages too often are low. And unexpected expenses come along all the time. What happens if you're unexpectedly evicted from your flat, and have to find the money for a deposit, extra rent for the new place and, if you don't drive, removal men too? What happens if your child suddenly needs money for something urgent? What happens if you need money for school uniform for your child, or smart clothes for job interviews?

 

Meanwhile, what happens if you pay someone by cheque, and they forget to cash it until much later? What happens if you forget about a switch payment (which quite often don't clear for several days for some reason). What happens if something goes wrong at the other end with a direct debit? What happens if your wages don't clear in time? Remember that cash machines only give out money in multiples of ten: for people living on their overdraft limit, this makes life a nightmare. If you get sick, you're screwed. If you're unexpectedly called away to deal with a crisis, you're screwed then too.

 

So many organisations now offer better deals if you pay by direct debit. I think the direct debit culture is a huge reason people go through their agreed limit, and banks must love it. And for people living on their limits, if they haven't been able to go into their bank (with their ridiculous hours of Monday to Friday, 9.30 to 4.30) and withdraw cash manually, they're then left needing advanced degrees in mathematics for when they pay by switch; which is complicated still further by always having to remember when your direct debits are going out, and if the bank will be withdrawing interest.

 

It can be hellishly difficult for far too many people. And once they're over their limits, the banks compound it by charging fees which keep them there. People have been put out of business by this; and self-employed people are often in the position of waiting on payments from others, while still having to cover costs themselves, and immediately.

 

?25 or ?30 for a ****ing letter? Do me a favour. The argument that these charges are what enable everyone in the black to enjoy free banking is a load of nonsense too; no folks. It enables banks to give those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. Had the high court ruling gone the other way, they'd have ended free banking, to enable them to keep giving those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. That these banks have also been bailed out by the tax payer makes the whole thing even more scandalous.

 

I've no issue with lower level bank employees, incidentally: there are a number of them on here, and they're just doing their jobs. But what the banks themselves do is outrageous, and legalised theft as far as I'm concerned.

[Miller Jambo 60]

This is exactly my position too. And it's just so, so easy for so many to say "well, I live within my means and have no problem - ergo, anyone who goes through their limit deserve everything they get, and I've no sympathy".

 

The cost of living in the UK is high, frighteningly so in places; wages too often are low. And unexpected expenses come along all the time. What happens if you're unexpectedly evicted from your flat, and have to find the money for a deposit, extra rent for the new place and, if you don't drive, removal men too? What happens if your child suddenly needs money for something urgent? What happens if you need money for school uniform for your child, or smart clothes for job interviews?

 

Meanwhile, what happens if you pay someone by cheque, and they forget to cash it until much later? What happens if you forget about a switch payment (which quite often don't clear for several days for some reason). What happens if something goes wrong at the other end with a direct debit? What happens if your wages don't clear in time? Remember that cash machines only give out money in multiples of ten: for people living on their overdraft limit, this makes life a nightmare. If you get sick, you're screwed. If you're unexpectedly called away to deal with a crisis, you're screwed then too.

 

So many organisations now offer better deals if you pay by direct debit. I think the direct debit culture is a huge reason people go through their agreed limit, and banks must love it. And for people living on their limits, if they haven't been able to go into their bank (with their ridiculous hours of Monday to Friday, 9.30 to 4.30) and withdraw cash manually, they're then left needing advanced degrees in mathematics for when they pay by switch; which is complicated still further by always having to remember when your direct debits are going out, and if the bank will be withdrawing interest.

 

It can be hellishly difficult for far too many people. And once they're over their limits, the banks compound it by charging fees which keep them there. People have been put out of business by this; and self-employed people are often in the position of waiting on payments from others, while still having to cover costs themselves, and immediately.

 

?25 or ?30 for a ****ing letter? Do me a favour. The argument that these charges are what enable everyone in the black to enjoy free banking is a load of nonsense too; no folks. It enables banks to give those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. Had the high court ruling gone the other way, they'd have ended free banking, to enable them to keep giving those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. That these banks have also been bailed out by the tax payer makes the whole thing even more scandalous.

 

I've no issue with lower level bank employees, incidentally: there are a number of them on here, and they're just doing their jobs. But what the banks themselves do is outrageous, and legalised theft as far as I'm concerned.

 

Superb post mate and the truth about rip off charges.

[Sheriff Fatman]

No, it isn't. Whilst the extent of the charges may very well have been laid out in the T&Cs, the whole case to which this thread refers revolves around the fact that these charges were challenged in the first place because they did not reflect the true administrative cost to the banks. In other words, it was an occurrence in which banks were profiting from a situation which they weren't supposed to profit from, which again, was why the case was raised.

 

FWIW, I agree with the mantra that one should live within their means. That much is common sense.

 

However, one seriously has to wonder if the outcome of this case would have been markedly different had it been brought forth during an entirely contrasting economic climate. Call me cynical...

 

It's not supposed to reflect the cost of administration, it's supposed to try and make people think twice about spending money that isn't their's to spend in the first place.

[The Old Tolbooth]

I received an email from RBS telling me about new terms and conditions to my bank account which are being enforced, I feared the worst at first but when I read through the new terms it turns out they are slashing their charges, and introducing new rules surrounding them, but nothing too drastic which will affect me.

 

One thing that really nips my tits though is a deeds release fee when people move their mortgages away from lenders, I've seen this as high as ?299, when in fact it costs somewhere in the region of ?40 to actually get the deeds released from the solicitor, the extra charge is simply banks being greedy with their own pie in the sky admin charges, the whole system needs looked at regarding charges and fairness, we're forever being told to treat customers fairly (TCF) in the mortgage world, however I wonder when the banks are going to start adopting this.

 

I don't have a problem with charging, but there has to be some middle ground and common sense for people.

[Shaggy2]

This is exactly my position too. And it's just so, so easy for so many to say "well, I live within my means and have no problem - ergo, anyone who goes through their limit deserve everything they get, and I've no sympathy".

 

The cost of living in the UK is high, frighteningly so in places; wages too often are low. And unexpected expenses come along all the time. What happens if you're unexpectedly evicted from your flat, and have to find the money for a deposit, extra rent for the new place and, if you don't drive, removal men too? What happens if your child suddenly needs money for something urgent? What happens if you need money for school uniform for your child, or smart clothes for job interviews?

 

Meanwhile, what happens if you pay someone by cheque, and they forget to cash it until much later? What happens if you forget about a switch payment (which quite often don't clear for several days for some reason). What happens if something goes wrong at the other end with a direct debit? What happens if your wages don't clear in time? Remember that cash machines only give out money in multiples of ten: for people living on their overdraft limit, this makes life a nightmare. If you get sick, you're screwed. If you're unexpectedly called away to deal with a crisis, you're screwed then too.

 

So many organisations now offer better deals if you pay by direct debit. I think the direct debit culture is a huge reason people go through their agreed limit, and banks must love it. And for people living on their limits, if they haven't been able to go into their bank (with their ridiculous hours of Monday to Friday, 9.30 to 4.30) and withdraw cash manually, they're then left needing advanced degrees in mathematics for when they pay by switch; which is complicated still further by always having to remember when your direct debits are going out, and if the bank will be withdrawing interest.

 

It can be hellishly difficult for far too many people. And once they're over their limits, the banks compound it by charging fees which keep them there. People have been put out of business by this; and self-employed people are often in the position of waiting on payments from others, while still having to cover costs themselves, and immediately.

 

?25 or ?30 for a ****ing letter? Do me a favour. The argument that these charges are what enable everyone in the black to enjoy free banking is a load of nonsense too; no folks. It enables banks to give those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. Had the high court ruling gone the other way, they'd have ended free banking, to enable them to keep giving those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. That these banks have also been bailed out by the tax payer makes the whole thing even more scandalous.

 

I've no issue with lower level bank employees, incidentally: there are a number of them on here, and they're just doing their jobs. But what the banks themselves do is outrageous, and legalised theft as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sums it up perfectly.

 

I've been charged five times in the last six years (three times, ie ?90, on the one day) due to miscalculation.

 

I have always been within my agreed overdraft at the end of the working day in question. This used to be enough but they changed the rules so that you must have money in the bank at the end of business the day before. When you realise you're overdrawn and go to rectify it you've already been charged. Even if you do realise the day before it's not always possible to get to the bank by closing time.

 

They are barstrads and there is absolutely no doubt that the money men and govt. in this country could not afford the banks to lose yesterday.

 

I want to take responsibility for my miscalculations but like everyone else I feel ?30 per transaction is outrageous for a couple of quid.The ?90 charge was because I was ?4.00 overdrawn I think. If I'd only had two dd's that day I would not have been charged. How unfair is that? The third one takes me over and they can charge me three times!!!

[Radioactive Mince]

More the contribution not the OP

Cheers mate

 

Mince

[Miller Jambo 60]

Sums it up perfectly.

 

I've been charged five times in the last six years (three times, ie ?90, on the one day) due to miscalculation.

 

I have always been within my agreed overdraft at the end of the working day in question. This used to be enough but they changed the rules so that you must have money in the bank at the end of business the day before. When you realise you're overdrawn and go to rectify it you've already been charged. Even if you do realise the day before it's not always possible to get to the bank by closing time.

 

They are barstrads and there is absolutely no doubt that the money men and govt. in this country could not afford the banks to lose yesterday.

 

I want to take responsibility for my miscalculations but like everyone else I feel ?30 per transaction is outrageous for a couple of quid.The ?90 charge was because I was ?4.00 overdrawn I think. If I'd only had two dd's that day I would not have been charged. How unfair is that? The third one takes me over and they can charge me three times!!!

 

Halifax BOS i think mate.

Was the case before Halifax took over that money in your account at the end of the working day was enough.

When i kicked off in my local branch about this the reply from the Bank employee was you dont know the half of it.

Biggest mistake BOS made was merging with the Halifax.

You havent even got a number for your local branch now.

[Jambomo]

It's not supposed to reflect the cost of administration, it's supposed to try and make people think twice about spending money that isn't their's to spend in the first place.

 

No, the reason they are allowed to charge people is that it is supposed to cover the administration costs the bank has from them going over their limit.

 

If people were genuinely just being reckless, overspending and taking the **** with their money then the banks have other recourse to action such as closing accounts, withdrawing the debit card function and only allowing atm cash cards etc It's not as though charging people as a penalty is the only punishment.

[djf]

It's not supposed to reflect the cost of administration, it's supposed to try and make people think twice about spending money that isn't their's to spend in the first place.

 

So why do the banks tell us the charges aren't punitive?

[Miller Jambo 60]

No, the reason they are allowed to charge people is that it is supposed to cover the administration costs the bank has from them going over their limit.

 

If people were genuinely just being reckless, overspending and taking the **** with their money then the banks have other recourse to action such as closing accounts, withdrawing the debit card function and only allowing atm cash cards etc It's not as though charging people as a penalty is the only punishment.

 

Punishment listen to you.

Reckless, so an old person is having a bad week and has breached his limit.

Maybe someone suffering a bout of depression and not coping.

Are they going to refund their criminal charges.

Do you work in a bank or are you just posting for the pleasure of slagging unfortunate people.

[this_is_my_story]

It's not supposed to reflect the cost of administration, it's supposed to try and make people think twice about spending money that isn't their's to spend in the first place.

 

Again, you're missing the point, which is that it was not a situation from which the banks were supposed to profit handsomely. Post #61 also explains this well.

 

It's like me being a mechanic, and you bring your car to me for repair. I charge you ?75 for labour, and ?85 for parts - but instead of the bill totalling ?160, I charge you ?185. That's right, I'll stick on another ?25, just 'cause I feel like it!

 

In general, the actual administrative cost to the banks in most cases was around two or three pounds.

 

As for your argument that banks have any interest whatsoever in making sure that customers don't spend 'money that isn't theirs'.. I'm sorry, but that is utterly laughable. Didn't it occur to you that giving credit to people is a HUGE earner for them?! People may well borrow somewhat irresponsibly, but that's only one side of the coin - the other side being largely responsible for the economic climate in which we find ourselves now.

[davemclaren]

Punishment listen to you.

Reckless, so an old person is having a bad week and has breached his limit.

Maybe someone suffering a bout of depression and not coping.

Are they going to refund their criminal charges.

Do you work in a bank or are you just posting for the pleasure of slagging unfortunate people.

 

Under TCF the charges have to be 'reasonable and proportionate' IIRC. However, that is clearly subject to interpretation.

[I P Knightley]

It's like me being a mechanic, and you bring your car to me for repair. I charge you ?75 for labour, and ?85 for parts - but instead of the bill totalling ?160, I charge you ?185. That's right, I'll stick on another ?25, just 'cause I feel like it!

 

Or a 12.5% service charge in a restaurant?

[Miller Jambo 60]

Under TCF the charges have to be 'reasonable and proportionate' IIRC. However, that is clearly subject to interpretation.

 

You could interpretate all you want Dave, but these charges are unfair .

And how the court ruled for them is typical of this nation.

A POLITICAL farce.

[this_is_my_story]

So why do the banks tell us the charges aren't punitive?

 

[this_is_my_story]

Or a 12.5% service charge in a restaurant?

 

Naw, that'd be ?180 then, innit.

[Jambomo]

Punishment listen to you.

Reckless, so an old person is having a bad week and has breached his limit.

Maybe someone suffering a bout of depression and not coping.

Are they going to refund their criminal charges.

Do you work in a bank or are you just posting for the pleasure of slagging unfortunate people.

 

Mate you've totally misread my post on this thread - I'm agreeing with you.

 

Some of the comments on this thread suggested that people going overdrawn were doing is purely because of overspending and stupidity, I don't agree, sometimes it's by accident. What I was trying to say is that by law these charges are supposed to be taken only to cover admin costs and they are NOT supposed to be a punishment for going overdrawn or a deterrent. At the moment the amount they take is more like a punishment for going overdrawn rather than just covering their own costs.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Mate you've totally misread my post on this thread - I'm agreeing with you.

 

Some of the comments on this thread suggested that people going overdrawn were doing is purely because of overspending and stupidity, I don't agree, sometimes it's by accident. What I was trying to say is that by law these charges are supposed to be taken only to cover admin costs and they are NOT supposed to be a punishment for going overdrawn or a deterrent. At the moment the amount they take is more like a punishment for going overdrawn rather than just covering their own costs.

 

Sorry mate, i do tend to ko when these charges are talked about.

I still cant believe the court has favoured them, and it gives me no confidence in the justice system.

One poster who i normally get on with and i still like has really annoyed me on this topic with his im ok, im all right jack attitude.

We have to remember what a mess the banks were in before the bale out, and that was with the generation of their criminal charges.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Again, you're missing the point, which is that it was not a situation from which the banks were supposed to profit handsomely. Post #61 also explains this well.

 

It's like me being a mechanic, and you bring your car to me for repair. I charge you ?75 for labour, and ?85 for parts - but instead of the bill totalling ?160, I charge you ?185. That's right, I'll stick on another ?25, just 'cause I feel like it!

 

In general, the actual administrative cost to the banks in most cases was around two or three pounds.

 

As for your argument that banks have any interest whatsoever in making sure that customers don't spend 'money that isn't theirs'.. I'm sorry, but that is utterly laughable. Didn't it occur to you that giving credit to people is a HUGE earner for them?! People may well borrow somewhat irresponsibly, but that's only one side of the coin - the other side being largely responsible for the economic climate in which we find ourselves now.

 

I take it you don't use mechanics very often, as there is no way in hell what a real mechanic charges is just the total of what the parts cost and what the labour costs, if they did they would be bankrupt very quickly.

 

Of course the banks have an interest in getting their customers to spend 'money that isn't theirs' that is why they lend money and give out agreed overdrafts. But they have absolutely zero interest in people taking the money without asking and expecting not to be charged for it.

 

The administrative costs of banks lending money with agreements is minute, but you wouldn't expect for a second for them to only charge the admin costs for that, so why should they only charge the admin costs when people take the money without asking.

 

I do agree that the charges have been excessive, but suggesting that they should only be the administrative costs is ridiculous, or people would just constantly go over their limit as they know it would only cost a couple of quid.

[this_is_my_story]

I take it you don't use mechanics very often, as there is no way in hell what a real mechanic charges is just the total of what the parts cost and what the labour costs, if they did they would be bankrupt very quickly.

 

I don't, no. What else exactly do they charge for then, if labour & parts are the only things they should be charging for? Any mechanics here to clear this one up?!

 

Of course the banks have an interest in getting their customers to spend 'money that isn't theirs' that is why they lend money and give out agreed overdrafts. But they have absolutely zero interest in people taking the money without asking and expecting not to be charged for it.

 

I'd argue otherwise, given the fact that the exorbitant charges in question are netting the banks a fortune.

 

The administrative costs of banks lending money with agreements is minute, but you wouldn't expect for a second for them to only charge the admin costs for that, so why should they only charge the admin costs when people take the money without asking.

 

Why should they profit obscenely from it, though? As said before, it was supposed to be a situation from which the banks were not meant to profit. Without trying to sound condescending, I find it difficult to see which part of that anyone fails to understand.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I don't, no. What else exactly do they charge for then, if labour & parts are the only things they should be charging for? Any mechanics here to clear this one up?! Like any other business there would be other charges on top, including a charge that gives the mechanic a profit over and above their expences

 

 

 

I'd argue otherwise, given the fact that the exorbitant charges in question are netting the banks a fortune. And as said, the charges are too much, but they will not and should not ever just be the admin cost

 

 

 

Why should they profit obscenely from it, though? As said before, it was supposed to be a situation from which the banks were not meant to profit. Without trying to sound condescending, I find it difficult to see which part of that anyone fails to understand.Banks are there to make a profit out of lending money, if peole just see that they can take the money and just pay a piffeling admin charge the bank will lose all its revenue, that will never happen

 

Banks are business like any other, they are there to make a profit, if they can't do it by charging people who take unauthorised overdrafts they will just do it by charging people for their current accounts. The UK is one of the only places in the world where banks do not levy charges on the average current accounts, and it hasn't been that long since they stopped doing so. Why should people who are carefull with their money be penalised because other people who aren't go off on a strop and blame everybody else for their fiscal naivity.

[this_is_my_story]

Banks are business like any other, they are there to make a profit, if they can't do it by charging people who take unauthorised overdrafts they will just do it by charging people for their current accounts. The UK is one of the only places in the world where banks do not levy charges on the average current accounts, and it hasn't been that long since they stopped doing so. Why should people who are careful with their money be penalised because other people who aren't go off on a strop and blame everybody else for their fiscal naivity.

 

The exorbitant charges (ballpark figure, say, anywhere between ?20-30) are a relatively recent trend, and banks made profits before they started applying these charges, did they not? Yes, they did.

 

Don't you think that there's just a slight chance that the (also relatively recent) trend for banking executives receiving obscene bonuses has been in some way paid for by said charges? Oh, so the nicey nicey banks would be nicey nicey to us all if we kept our financial houses in order, aye? No charges for anyone! Free banking for all!! You've correctly said yourself that banks are there to make money... Wakey wakey!

 

To quote Shaun from post #54:

 

"?25 or ?30 for a ****ing letter? Do me a favour. The argument that these charges are what enable everyone in the black to enjoy free banking is a load of nonsense too; no folks. It enables banks to give those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. Had the high court ruling gone the other way, they'd have ended free banking, to enable them to keep giving those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. That these banks have also been bailed out by the tax payer makes the whole thing even more scandalous."

 

I don't, no. What else exactly do they charge for then, if labour & parts are the only things they should be charging for? Any mechanics here to clear this one up?! Like any other business there would be other charges on top, including a charge that gives the mechanic a profit over and above their expenses

 

Aye?! So what exactly are these mysterious 'other charges on top' that 'any other business' would apply? A mechanic, to continue to use that example, obviously needs to charge for parts - but isn't the labour charge, and the labour charge alone, what gives him his profit? You said that mechanics would 'be bankrupt very quickly' were it not for the application of charges - well, what the hell are they, if you genuinely do know about them? And in what 'any other business' do these hidden charges also apply?

 

I'd argue otherwise, given the fact that the exorbitant charges in question are netting the banks a fortune. And as said, the charges are too much, but they will not and should not ever just be the admin cost

 

Why? So far, you've failed to provide a reasonable argument to back that up. The whole case was raised in the first place, for the umpteenth time, because the banks were not suposed to profit so highly from these charges. All to do with the Code of Banking Practice, as far as my understanding goes.

 

Why should they profit obscenely from it, though? As said before, it was supposed to be a situation from which the banks were not meant to profit. Without trying to sound condescending, I find it difficult to see which part of that anyone fails to understand. Banks are there to make a profit out of lending money, if peole just see that they can take the money and just pay a piffeling admin charge the bank will lose all its revenue, that will never happen

 

I'm unsure about what 'piffeling' means. So for the purpose of making my point, I'll assume that in the context in which you've used it, that it means small or insignificant. Tell me then, how did the banks not 'lose all their revenue', as you put it, before they started applying all of these charges? As you've said there, banks make a profit out of lending money - and that's why they indeed did not 'lose all their revenue' before the onset of these charges.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Aye?! So what exactly are these mysterious 'other charges on top' that 'any other business' would apply? A mechanic, to continue to use that example, obviously needs to charge for parts - but isn't the labour charge, and the labour charge alone, what gives him his profit? You said that mechanics would 'be bankrupt very quickly' were it not for the application of charges - well, what the hell are they, if you genuinely do know about them? And in what 'any other business' do these hidden charges also apply?

 

Nope the labour charge is what gives them their wages. The profit is money that is used to buy new equipment, expand the business, have a contingency fund in case of hard times, or make sure they don't get charges for going accidentally overdrawn.

 

As to other charges, let's see, heating, depreciation, business tax, rent/mortgage, bank loan repayments, postage, business rates, electricity, vat, employers national insurance contributions, etc, it's not an exhastive list.

 

These not so hidden, in fact bleeding obvious, charges exist in every single other business on the planet.

[Shaggy2]

Halifax BOS i think mate.

Was the case before Halifax took over that money in your account at the end of the working day was enough.

When i kicked off in my local branch about this the reply from the Bank employee was you dont know the half of it.

Biggest mistake BOS made was merging with the Halifax.

You havent even got a number for your local branch now.

 

yes, i'm with BoS.

 

Are they the only bank that uses the day before rule?

 

I wasn't aware of that!

[Miller Jambo 60]

The exorbitant charges (ballpark figure, say, anywhere between ?20-30) are a relatively recent trend, and banks made profits before they started applying these charges, did they not? Yes, they did.

 

Don't you think that there's just a slight chance that the (also relatively recent) trend for banking executives receiving obscene bonuses has been in some way paid for by said charges? Oh, so the nicey nicey banks would be nicey nicey to us all if we kept our financial houses in order, aye? No charges for anyone! Free banking for all!! You've correctly said yourself that banks are there to make money... Wakey wakey!

 

To quote Shaun from post #54:

 

"?25 or ?30 for a ****ing letter? Do me a favour. The argument that these charges are what enable everyone in the black to enjoy free banking is a load of nonsense too; no folks. It enables banks to give those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. Had the high court ruling gone the other way, they'd have ended free banking, to enable them to keep giving those in charge disgustingly high bonuses, and rake in disgustingly high profits. That these banks have also been bailed out by the tax payer makes the whole thing even more scandalous."

 

 

 

Aye?! So what exactly are these mysterious 'other charges on top' that 'any other business' would apply? A mechanic, to continue to use that example, obviously needs to charge for parts - but isn't the labour charge, and the labour charge alone, what gives him his profit? You said that mechanics would 'be bankrupt very quickly' were it not for the application of charges - well, what the hell are they, if you genuinely do know about them? And in what 'any other business' do these hidden charges also apply?

 

 

 

Why? So far, you've failed to provide a reasonable argument to back that up. The whole case was raised in the first place, for the umpteenth time, because the banks were not suposed to profit so highly from these charges. All to do with the Code of Banking Practice, as far as my understanding goes.

 

 

 

I'm unsure about what 'piffeling' means. So for the purpose of making my point, I'll assume that in the context in which you've used it, that it means small or insignificant. Tell me then, how did the banks not 'lose all their revenue', as you put it, before they started applying all of these charges? As you've said there, banks make a profit out of lending money - and that's why they indeed did not 'lose all their revenue' before the onset of these charges.

 

If i remember correctly in the early 90s with the BOS i was charged about 40p per standing order or DD.

Which was taken from my account.

Cant remember these horrific charges then.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Tell me then, how did the banks not 'lose all their revenue', as you put it, before they started applying all of these charges? As you've said there, banks make a profit out of lending money - and that's why they indeed did not 'lose all their revenue' before the onset of these charges.

 

Well let's see, not that long before they started applying these charges they were charging every single current account holder for the service they were supplying. The banks probably thought it was fairer to charge those that can't be bothered to look after their finacial affairs properly and expect other to cover them until they can be bothered repaying it, rather than the vast majority who kept within their budget.

 

When you get guys like the poster earlier who said he had ?4000 worth off charges, that is not someone who has mistakenly gone overdrawn occasionally, that is someone who can't budget properly and thinks other people should cover their life style.

[this_is_my_story]

If i remember correctly in the early 90s with the BOS i was charged about 40p per standing order or DD.

Which was taken from my account.

Cant remember these horrific charges then.

 

Aye, I'm positive that they're a fairly recent introduction. When I first started earning in '92 and getting money paid into my account, I don't remember any of this ?25 charge bollocks!

[this_is_my_story]

Nope the labour charge is what gives them their wages. The profit is money that is used to buy new equipment, expand the business, have a contingency fund in case of hard times, or make sure they don't get charges for going accidentally overdrawn.

 

As to other charges, let's see, heating, depreciation, business tax, rent/mortgage, bank loan repayments, postage, business rates, electricity, vat, employers national insurance contributions, etc, it's not an exhaustive list.

 

These not so hidden, in fact bleeding obvious, charges exist in every single other business on the planet.

 

I think you'll find that the 'charges' to which you refer are in fact overheads - something which would be liable for the company to pay, not a 'charge' which a customer would pay, and I can't therefore see your point, if we can call it that, at all.

 

As far as your first paragraph is concerned, I really do wonder. You're practically making it up as you go along!

 

Well let's see, not that long before they started applying these charges they were charging every single current account holder for the service they were supplying.

 

I don't remember having any such charges with my account, the same one that I've now had since around 1994.

The banks probably thought it was fairer to charge those that can't be bothered to look after their financial affairs properly and expect other to cover them until they can be bothered repaying it, rather than the vast majority who kept within their budget.

 

This is getting better all the time! Jeez, do you really think fairness features highly on their agenda?! If so, why did they introduce these ?25-30 charges in the first place? They're all about the profit, and that is the bottom line. They squeeze all they can from as many customers as possible, regardless of how a customer looks after their financial affairs. To think otherwise really is highly naive.

 

When you get guys like the poster earlier who said he had ?4000 worth off charges, that is not someone who has mistakenly gone overdrawn occasionally, that is someone who can't budget properly and thinks other people should cover their life style.

 

No, it's someone who, quite rightly, wants to claim back charges that they see as unjust and exorbitant. I really don't want to come across as being $h1tty here, but unless you've got some facts and figures to back up your 'argument', I suggest that you give it a rest.

[Dboy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8425766.stm

 

OFT giving up the fight.......

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/bank-charges-they-think-its-all-over-its-not-quite

 

The money savings expert Martin Lewis still thinks claims are possible

 

Is it all over?

[The Comedian]

Even if the consumer ultimately loses the banks have started to reduce charges so a battle has been won even if the war hasn't.

 

My HBOS account has slashed it's charges but to compensate charges ?1 per day while you are in your authorised overdraft. Fine by me especially as I barely use it and get paid weekly.

 

This is interesting...

 

One point being mooted is that customers should be able to opt out of unauthorised overdrafts, and that seems eminently fair ? why shouldn't people be able to say, "if I go beyond my limit, don't pay out and don't charge me"?

 

Quite and why the hell not?

[hughesie27]

Don't live in your overdraft.

[Dboy]

"This is interesting...

 

 

Quote:

One point being mooted is that customers should be able to opt out of unauthorised overdrafts, and that seems eminently fair – why shouldn't people be able to say, "if I go beyond my limit, don't pay out and don't charge me"?

 

Quite and why the hell not?"

 

I assume because the banking system is run on trust and there will be some poor soul at the other end who is expecting payment who won't get it!