Hello

I must say I really don't know what the big deal is here. Yes I work at a bank (*ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes), but i didn't always. I've been a student, had all sorts of 'orrible low paid jobs, am not particularly financially minded and have NEVER had a bank charge. Why not try reading statements now and again, is it really so difficult? Why not try saving up for things, instead of putting everything on credit? It seems to me that these days people want everything right NOW, at NO COST, with no responsibility or strings attached. Try acting responsibly, instead of like a bunch of spoilt kids. I concede there are times when accidents do happen, mistakes get made and direct debits sometimes get taken early. However, i would argue this is the exception rather than the rule.

Apart from which:

1. The old argument about unreasonable fees never washes with me. For a start, you could say that about all sorts of costs. Fries from McDonalds cost pence to make, how DARE they charge 2 quid for them etc etc Also, banks are a business, not a charity. You don't get charged for debit cards, printed statements etc. All of these cost money, running accounts costs money, that's life. Of course banks make loads of money, but that's capitalism for ya, get in the real world.

2. If fees were low, people would abuse the facility and start going well overdrawn all the time. It's supposed to be a deterant! Imagine if fees were low; no doubt you'd then all be moaning its the banks fault that you go so massively overdrawn because there would be no deterant not to!

3. All these moans about getting charged for going 50p overdrawn. I remember when my old bank introduced a 'buffer zone'. You could go overdrawn by £10 and they'd let you off. Maybe they still have it, i don't know. So do people use the buffer zone as it was intended? No, they see it as a free tenner, use it up, go more overdrawn and moan when they get charged!

Honestly people, take a step back and sort yourselves out, and take some responsibility for your actions. Seems to me that the culture these days is 'it's always someone elses fault but mine'. You people are like those folks who sue councils if there kids get injured falling off a swing in a local park. Sheesh...

Rant over. Feel free to rant back all you like, i'm thick skinned!

Thanks Dan.

The problem is not with the act of being charged but the amount which banks charge under the guise of covering admin fee's etc. The day it costs £30 to write and post one letter is the day Royal Mail go under.

Reasonable charges which amount to the equivalent of one sheet of paper, one envelope and one stamp is fair. The charges currently being made by the banks do not amount in any way, shape or form to the cost of administration involved but do provide them with an increase in their own profits. This is the problem - that the charges are not supposed to be a profit scheme.

Lotta.

most businesses act lawfully to make a profit, what entitles the banks to operate outside the law ?

Dan, yes Banks are entitled to charge. But the charge must be reasonable They should not try to write off all their bad debts and provide free banking on the backs of the poorer members of society which if you look at their profits is what they are doing. And of course giving very good dividends to their shareholders. Fairness is all we ask

Hello

 

Apart from which:

1. The old argument about unreasonable fees never washes with me. For a start, you could say that about all sorts of costs. Fries from McDonalds cost pence to make, how DARE they charge 2 quid for them etc etc Also, banks are a business, not a charity. You don't get charged for debit cards, printed statements etc. All of these cost money, running accounts costs money, that's life. Of course banks make loads of money, but that's capitalism for ya, get in the real world.

So you admit that the charges are a profit making money machine for the banks then? Which is what the law states they should not be. I think in that statement you've answered yourself asking what the big deal is. It's illegal.

Lotta

Nearly 8 weeks and this is our first!!!

 

Don't be drawn into it - the arguments are futile.

I guess Dan is feeling the heat at work with customers demanding charges back and he wanted to let off a bit of steam

 

You people are like those folks who sue councils if there kids get injured falling off a swing in a local park

yes I intend on sueing a phone company and a distributor, why ?

All because they are acting unlawfully.

Using peoples poors ability to manage themselves is one thing, companies acting outside the law exploiting such people is wrong to.

or do you disagree

I'm not against banks making money or having charges, I'm not saying they are sneaky because they do inform us of charges.

But for anyone to offset this argument by saying card/chequebooks/statements cost money that aren't charged for, then they are either very niave or stupid - the interest you are paid on your savings is automatically adjusted for these and other running costs.

Charges are all profit!!!

At the end of the day the thing that stings the most is when you try very hard on a low income to keep in the limit and do so - then you have a flu bug, unexpected emergency etc, - which with a disabled mother I get quite often, and getting to the bank to pay money in gets put to the bottom of the list - not intentionally. Then you find if you had of got to the bank the day before, the charges would not have occured.

And no one at the bank tries to look at your "case of hardship with sympathy". A banking ombudsman once told me every bank has an obligation to look at every case with compassion - especially if not trying to reduce the charges causes further financial hardship and stress.

When I worked I never went overdrawn - EVER! I'm a responsible person but are the lenders at the banks?

Nicotine deprival is telling. Keep it up! Cold turkey is good for the soul.

Dan has expressed himself in a reasonable way. He is welcome here and so is anyone else from the banks.

We do not want to see flaming or any form of attacks on this forum.

ill tell you a little story dan.

a big media organisation steals my work. it puts it up without as much as a byline, the work is seen by hundreds of thousands of people who then take it and put it on their websites.

i sue this media organisation and despite them having broken the law you know what the courts say on the issue of damages -

"the measure of damages he must pay will be the sums which he would have paid by way of royalty if instead of acting illegally, he had acted legally."

any damages above this level are unlawful. now why should banks be able to do somethign to customers who havent even committed a criminal offence that the courts cannot do to companies that HAVE committed a criminal offence?

Hi Dan, I'd like to tell you a story too. It kind of starts with your nice little quote 'Of course banks make loads of money, but that's capitalism for ya, get in the real world'.

The real world of capitalism is based upon a market economy which is partially sustained by people who take risks with capital in order to create wealth which in turn creates growth within the economy. Fact. Not that people who sit behind the desks in banks don't contribute too!

Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong hey! thats life. But without those who are prepared to take risks, businesses will not prosper and grow. A great deal of a banks income is generated through business clients who have taken that risk. Often in the case of small business, initial start-up capital is raised from personal assets leaving a great deal of instability in personal finance. Often traditional sources of funding have failed. Creative and adventurous people always believe in themselves so much that they are prepared to put everything on the line. Yes those risks have to be calculated and we should not suffer fools gladly. Sometimes there can be a misjudgement in cashflow or a overestimation of sales forcast which can have a dramatic effect on both personal and business finances. By penalisheaing in the way they currently do, banks can easily perpetuate a downward spiral and dampen entreprenerial spirit by forcing one into negative cashflow situation when as stated before personal and business finances are so closely linked.

Is this fair or indeed a healthy attitude to bolster a boyant and progressive economy? Well it depends on whether or not you are a share holder in a financial institution. Fortunatly there are people here who feel, whether they control thier finances correctly or not, that there is simply a question as to whether they are being treated fairly. I'm sure that on occasion you will feel a certain security from knowing that the law is strutured in such a way as to offer you protection from 'unfairness' in dealings with large instituions when you are in the position of consumer. Or perhaps you would rather that these institutions go unregulated?

The majority of the banks in the UK subscribe to the Banking code which one supposes is a form of self regulation and I quote from the guidence notes to that code

'We promise that we will act fairly and reasonably in all our dealings with you by meeting all the commitments and standards in this Code'

'When interpreting 'fairly', consideration should be given to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and to the Data Protection Principles set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998. The concepts of 'fairness' and 'reasonableness' should also be

considered in accordance with other relevant legislation, case law and their normal dictionary meanings'

As mentioned the banking code is subscribed to by the majority of the banks in the UK. It appears to be a voluntary standard for the banking industry much like the 'Investers in people' award that many companies now display to demonstate a commitment to good working practices and adhesion to employment leglislation.

I would put it to you that if your employer was involved in this 'Investors in People' (as are many of the banks coincidently, please do check yours) that you would reasonably expect that they would adhere to the principles therin. So is it therefore unreasonable to expect, as a customer, that when a bank distributes the banking code on a regular basis to its customers to illustrate its affiliation, that the bank should adhere to this code also? I think that this is not unreasonable . Do you?

A interesting point has been made that we shold not then have signed the terms and conditions if we are not happy with the coditions set out within them. However it seems increasingly that we have little choice in the matter as aspects of our daily financial life reqiure more and more automation and the banks have little to distiguish between them. The guidence notes for subscribers to thebanking code itself states

'The banks subscribe to the code and agree that there is clear and considerable benefit to customers if firms doing similar business are subject to similar regulatory requirements and it helps promote

a level playing field for firms. Accordingly, we would encourage any firm offering banking products and services to subscribe to the Codes.'

So where does that leave us? Accept the terms of the bank unconditionally and never challenge them on the deviation from the terms and conditions which they have set for themselves? Allow them to flout the law which sucessive Governments have set in place to protect the consumer? I think not.

I hope you will understand a little better my own reasons for pursuing the money that has been wrongfully taken from me and from others like me. I would deter you from making sweeping generalisations about people whose circumstances you are unaware of. By all means extoll the virtues of capitalism (of which I am a big fan), do read Marx and Engles in order that you fully understand its principles !!!

And apart from anything else I am a little suprised to hear a bank employee critisizing people on this forum who subsidise the wage bill in your industry to the tune of 3bn a year. After all there is an old saying

'Never bite the hand that feeds you'.

Hello

 

It seems to me that these days people want everything right NOW, at NO COST, with no responsibility or strings attached. :

Hi

Dan your words have hit the nail on the head the banks do want ot right NOW at NO cost ,with no responsibility or strings attached.

That is what we complaining about. Thankfully we have the law to protect us against large corporations taking are money with no Reasonability for there actions

I was in a situation about 12 months ago where i went overdrawn for the first time, not a big deal you may say but the fact of the matter was i was on such a tight budget that i couldn't afford to put the money in the account to clear it till next month, but by then i had 2 payments of my dd to be made PLUS a 30 quid fine, couldn't pay it all that month so next month had 2 dd PLUS two seperate 30 quid fines.

I got to the point that i couldn't keep up with it all and 90 quids worth of fines were the norm every month, the only way I got out of it was having to change shifts and work nights and i'm only just getting over it now.

So is a bank justified in adding charges to an account which is so obviously in trouble?, i would like to think not.

People shouldn't be penalised further for being in financial difficulty.

Dearest Dan

If someone broke into your house and stole your possesions that you worked hard to pay for, would you not do what you could to get them back??

You’re stealing! You are taking money that does not belong to you (your no better than thouse bank robbers!)

If you don't want people to go over their agreed overdraft limit DO NOT AUTHORISE THE TRANSACTION, if you did that theses claims would not need to happen, why is this so had for you bank staff to understand; or are you all just blinded by all the pound signs so you can all have a ‘good old knees up’ for your work do!!

On one hand you say "It seems to me that these days people want everything right NOW," then on the other "but that's capitalism for ya, get in the real world. " Its these people that set the pace "in the real world".

And lastly if you expect people to save than to use credit THEN STOP THROWING CREDIT AT PEOPLE, especially students and graduates-ahhh but then you would not make you billions of profit from us irresponsible people-silly me .

Do you have no shame?

why are we even commenting on Dans comments?

For all thouse who have doubts about taking action, for all those who have doubts about getting their money back, read his comments again.

This is the best they can do, not one of his agruments hold water.

Dan, all you or the banks have to do is give us a breakdown of your charges, then everyone will go away, we would not have an agruement, go on Dan prove the charges are legal, tell us the true cost of returning a DD.

Because Dan was the only one brave enough to air his opinon rather than the rest of them that sneak around as guests.

At least we all have a clear conscious and have the LAW on our side

Just out of interest which bank are you with Dan? Bet it’s the Halifax- always giving us extra!

perhaps dan would like to explain why my bank wouldnt refund money taken from me that wasnt my fault - about 700 quid in 2005 because of that spiral the self employed face as someone else described.

perhaps he'd like to justify how the bank made an agreement with me and then broke it and then claimed there was no agreement and then claimed i hadnt broken an agreement which didnt exist. perhaps he'd like to explain how they manage to cash cheques in the wrong currencies, perhaps he'd like to tell me how they lose cheques completely (jsut as well i keep reciepts isnt it!).

to be even more explicit some moron working at the bank managed to cancel my debit card because the balance he could see on his computer was wrong. that's right, my cleared funds were greater than they thought and their system being slow in updating put me in default when i was in credit. how does one keep track of their finances when even bank staff are unable to do that?

once he's finished explaining that litany of mistakes and how the bank refused to refund charges caused by their complete incompetence he can try to justify how the banks don't even bother keeping to the banking code that they themselves promote - you know that thing that says they will give you 14 days notice before taking charges...

to get my money back i had to sue them.

I have a major problem getting my mind round returned direct debits, exceeding the overdraft limit:

If I go to the cashpoint and try to withdraw money that I haven't got, the machine will not pay. Why does the system not pay a DD, cheque etc if there is no money? Surely not beyond the IT Team? Or do the banks just like the profit from the charges?

They set up the Direct Debit Garentee for just this purpose.

Can you really argue it any other way, its just a way of charging people.

Hello everyone

Thanks for all your comments, it's been an interesting read. Before I carry on I feel I ought to make a couple of things clear;

- Yes, i do work for a bank and thought in the interests of being upfront and honest ('rare words from a banker' I hear you murmer) I'd better admit it from the get go. However, I dont work in areas directly (or otherwise) involved in charges or customer services/complaints so i'm approaching this from a laymans point of view really. I like to think I'd hold the same views no matter who I worked for though. So please don't think of me as any kind of 'official spokesman' (i'm sure my employers would be horrified at the idea!), more as the annoying bloke down the pub.

- I found this forum through the Moneysavingexpert.com website and am a big fan of exploiting every loophole possible in getting one over on the banks or other businesses if at all possible. For example, I find the idea of banks moaning about customers switching between 0% APR credit cards hilarious. They deserve all they get (and yes, 'my' bank does offer them too!).

- If banks make mistakes, then dammit i want my money back. The chap who posted above me is right to be upset, i would be! But most of the time when i'm chatting to mates or people who like to have a pop when i say i work for a bank, they are just moaning about charges that were entirely avoidable if they had been bothered to check what was going in and out of their account!

- Legally, I'm pretty sure you're right about charges being in excess of the cost to the bank, although i have no idea really. That's still an interesting thought though, what if it did only cost the price of a stamp and a letter e.g. about 50p? Surely if that was all the banks could legally charge, people would waste no time in racking up debt, as there would be no immediate consequences to stop them doing it. It'd be like people hanging on to library books for years!

So i suppose my 'beef' (awful phrase) is maybe more with the amount of regulation and over-zealous laws when it comes to every area of modern life these days. To my mind, if a company wants to charge £30 for a letter if someone breaks their rules, then let it. Don't break the rules! As long as a company clearly sets its terms for what it's charges are, then let the buyer beware and all that. Ok, it's not easy to get by without a current account these days, but it can be done. Just keep all your money in an old style saving account and pay as you go! I know people who do it, its a right pain but just about still do-able.

The point Alison made about a system to stop customers going over their authorised overdraft was an interesting one (although i thought some of her other comments were a bit much! I have a tiny amount of shame lurking in me somewhere, it tends to appear the morning after our multi-million pound "work do's"). I've always thought that would be a good idea but i suppose the issue then is that customers would complain if a direct debits or other important payments got bounced back and that caused even bigger problems! A thorny problem indeed, I suppose if you really wanted to go down that route then revert to the ol' savings account routine?

Anyway, that's all my ramblings for now you'll be pleased to hear. I'm off on my hols at the weekend (paid for by saving up a wee bit every month until i could pay for it in full i might add!) so if I don't reply for a couple of weeks that's why. I haven't gone off in a huff or anything!

Until next time...

Dan

Ah a holiday man!

Please...would you tell me what one of those is like?

payment holiday on a mortage, now we know what that one is.....

please run by me the type of holiday you are referring to ?

I'm very confused :?

Until next time...

Thanks for the post. Have a nice hol and do come back and post again.

You are very welcome