Sick Of Hearing About Bank Charges

[Curr946]

I am so sick of hearing and reading about bank charges,

"the bank stole from me, the bank owes me, its my money..."

 

Why does the bank charge you? Because you use money that is not yours without their permission! Would you rather that they declined your card while a large cue of shoppers gather behind you, all whispering that guys/gals cards been declined.

 

Let’s play devils advocate, your car insurance is due and you have no cash in your account, the bank decided not to pay it so your insurer charges you a late fee. Is this unfair? Let’s also say that they decide to stop your cover, now your running around uninsured, your caught fined and your licence taken away. Fair? Whose fault is it?

 

Ok that last bit is a little far fetched but you get my point. In case you didn’t know the banks are having a test case in court about the legality of bank charges. If they loss they will start to charge us for the basics, £5/10 a month charge just to have the account open, 50p for each and every debit card payment, direct debit and standing order and so on. Would that be fair, yes it would as it all cost the bank money in administration work, but it would see an end to what we in the uk call free banking!

 

For you all that can not manage your finances maybe you would be better off with a basic account that dose not offer a debit card, overdraft and cheque book. Pay all your bills at the post office with a bank giro credit slip, oh wait there is a charge! Fair?

 

I have only had one bank charge in the last three years and it was not my fault, the company reasonable paid me the charge back and apologised. It’s called a direct debit guarantee. They were at fault, they foot the bill... Customer at fault, customer foots the bill. Sadly a lot of you can not seem to understand this or maybe you just seeing £ sign running around!

 

I for one do not want to have to start to pay for my bank account because a small number of people can not manager their money and pass blame on to the bank,

NO ONE FORCED YOU TO OVER SPEND!

 

Oh and by the way, banks can and will close your account for continuing to complain about charges and also continuing to go over drawn, its called misuse!

 

Curr946

[tomterm8]

i must admit, I find it hard to understand your post. the arguments the bank have are that late payments, over limit charges etc are all service charges. That is, that you have entered into a contract that allows you, entirely legitimatly, (for example) not to pay on time in exchange for a fee.

 

If the banks are right, then I don't see this behaviour as in any way a breach of the customers contractual obligations to the bank.

 

If, however, as you suggest the customer has breached their obligations to the bank then there is substantial common law that any damages for that breach should be for costs actually incurred, OR for an estimate of liquidated damages which is itself a reasonable estimate of costs likely to be incurred.

 

Banks are not entitled to fine you for breach of contract.

[Curr946]

i must admit, I find it hard to understand your post. the arguments the bank have are that late payments, over limit charges etc are all service charges. That is, that you have entered into a contract that allows you, entirely legitimatly, (for example) not to pay on time in exchange for a fee.

 

If the banks are right, then I don't see this behaviour as in any way a breach of the customers contractual obligations to the bank.

 

If, however, as you suggest the customer has breached their obligations to the bank then there is substantial common law that any damages for that breach should be for costs actually incurred, OR for an estimate of liquidated damages which is itself a reasonable estimate of costs likely to be incurred.

 

Banks are not entitled to fine you for breach of contract.

 

 

Yes but their is no doubt that the banks profit from this "fee" and is clearly printed in the terms and conditions when you apply and i for one do not want to pay a "fee" because this line of "profit" was ended.

[tomterm8]

Oh, so what you are basically saying is that the poorest people in society should finance free banking for the richest?

 

And that you don't want to pay the actual costs of your account you just want someone almost inevitably poorer that you are to foot the bill?

[Tezcatlipoca]

clearly printed in the terms and conditions when you apply

 

You appear rather to be missing the point.

 

I don't believe anybody here takes the view that account misuse shouldn't go completely unpunished, nor that some charge should not be levied to cover any administrative process the banks may have as a result of your debt.

 

However, what people take issue with is that the amount of the charge is disproportionately high to the resultant administrative costs. Since this size is unjustifiable under contract law - a fact proven many times over - its application is an illegal one. If this were not the case, people would not be successfully reclaiming their charges.

 

Let's be quite clear; these large fees are not levied to punish the account holder, but to enrich the bank.

[Curr946]

Oh, so what you are basically saying is that the poorest people in society should finance free banking for the richest?

 

And that you don't want to pay the actual costs of your account you just want someone almost inevitably poorer that you are to foot the bill?

 

no the "poorer" people should run their accounts accordingly and budget within their means.

 

What i am saying is those who wist to spead like it grows on tree on you go but explect to pay the price for it.

[Curr946]

You appear rather to be missing the point.

 

I don't believe anybody here takes the view that account misuse shouldn't go completely unpunished, nor that some charge should not be levied to cover any administrative process the banks may have as a result of your debt.

 

However, what people take issue with is that the amount of the charge is disproportionately high to the resultant administrative costs. Since this size is unjustifiable under contract law - a fact proven many times over - its application is an illegal one. If this were not the case, people would not be successfully reclaiming their charges.

 

Let's be quite clear; these large fees are not levied to punish the account holder, but to enrich the bank.

 

well that i agree with, however if the said people were to run their accounts within the t&c they would not have been charged.

 

and they can not say that they were not aware of what those chrages where

[tomterm8]

Curr, if you can't negotiate something, the fact it is clearly written down does not really make much of a difference.

 

For example, can you tell me a single UK bank where there isn't an overlimit fee? Or even any account where that fee is around £2.50 (which it has been shown is the most this behaviour actually costs the bank).

[Curr946]

well banks are starting to bring down the costs but they are still around 15 per payment.

 

lets just do a quick calculation, lets say an average person has 7 month direct debit and use a debit card at least twice per day and lets say the banks charge £5 a month for the account that's £36.50 a month... per person...

 

0.50 per direct debit and card payment

 

it adds up.. i would much rather pay the odd fee than this, not that it would be that expensive but people would really have to watch what they were using there card for even when it was their own money they were spending..

[tomterm8]

While I appreciate your mathematics, in Ireland where excess bank charges for overlimit etc are illegal, free banking does not exist. If you look at the actual charges of, say, the Bank of ireland they amount of 28 c a transaction (about 12 p) or 11.40 (about £5.20) euro per month for 90 transactions. there are exceptions, for example where you keep a positive balance in your account of 500 euros.

 

However, in ireland, you do not have the poorest people in society being driven into destitution - to the point of deciding whether to feed their children OR pay their bank charges.

 

Which is why, personally, I support the irish model, where people pay reasonable amounts for what they use instead of exhorbitant amounts of money when they are least able to afford it.

[Curr946]

yes, i see what you are saying but here in the uk we offer basic accounts, they are designed for people on low incomes or on benefits, and i must say, seeing as you brought it up.. those low income family's really need to get their priorities right. if i only had 100 in the bank to do me a month and i certainly would not have a car at a cost of 30 a month insurance and Internet at a cost of 20 a month and so on..

 

basic bank accounts are their for a reason.

 

i would also say that if you have a bill due call the bank and ask them for a temporary increases on the over draft. 9/10 you'll get it, income permitting

[Mr lex]

I think the expression 'Don't feed the troll' applies here.

[Curr946]

I think the expression 'Don't feed the troll' applies here.

 

excuse my ignorance here but what exactly qualifies me as a troll, i would say that the term is used loosely when someone can not defend their position

 

if you are unable to defend your position just say so..

[charleyfarley]

yes, i see what you are saying but here in the uk we offer basic accounts, they are designed for people on low incomes or on benefits, and i must say, seeing as you brought it up.. those low income family's really need to get their priorities right. if i only had 100 in the bank to do me a month and i certainly would not have a car at a cost of 30 a month insurance and Internet at a cost of 20 a month and so on..

 

basic bank accounts are their for a reason.

 

i would also say that if you have a bill due call the bank and ask them for a temporary increases on the over draft. 9/10 you'll get it, income permitting

 

 

Curr946................the whole premise of your argument is flawed............you are assuming,wrongly, that it's account misuse/the poorest in society etc that these charges affect This is far too simplistic an argument, when in actual fact, it's unexpected changes in circumstances that causes much of the dificulties for many people...........illness/bereavement/redundancydivorce etc........and it's absolutely impossible to plan for these events.

 

So, it's rarely frivolous overspending or mismanagement that causes the problems............it's often just events, and to judge from your posts, you've little or no experience of such happenings.

[Bookworm]

For information:

 

I asked Curr to post here as he was hijacking someone's thread. He did so and apologised to the user. I assured him he would get plenty of responses if he posted in here, so let's do this. No insults, no swearing, there is plenty of scope for debate and - maybe - educating.

If anything, you can always use this thread to hone your arguments for when you get in front of the judge. ;-)

Plain insults or goading will get moderated, from either side.

[tomterm8]

To be fair, charleyfarley, the fact that these charges have a disproportionate effect on the poorest people of society was my argument, not really Curr946's.

[empowered]

Curr - out of interest, I see your occupation is Customer Services. Is this with a bank or building society? If so, your input could be valuable and could help in an intelligent discussion and thoughts about bank charges. I have no intention of being antagonistic!

[dave]

I wouldn't say you've been trolling - it's an honest question.

 

The answers are, of course, in the stickies and announcements and in the rules section of the site.

 

We understand WHY the banks charge - although you do say that it's because we've spent money that isn't ours. This argument falls flat when you consider that they charge more for NOT paying a direct debit than they do for paying it - i.e. spending money that we haven't got.

 

With rising costs throughout the country directly affecting the cost of living, pretty much every normal citizen in the UK is spending money they haven't got - this site has been up for more than 2 years - in those 2 years I have heard horror stories from people - one where a disabled woman and her two kids had to eat dry breakfast cereal for a fortnight (one pack of Tesco's own cornflakes) because her disability benefit had been paid late, meaning her DD for her rent, gas and electricity were paid late. The bank took more in charges over this than was actually due in the account. Yes, I suppose she did spend more than she had, and I suppose she didn't really have to splash out on breakfast cereal.

 

If you breach the contract then the bank will charge you - fair enough - what they are not allowed to do for a breach of contract is make a profit - it's simple contract law 101.

 

Banks have been making profits unlawfully - someone caught them out, and now they claim that they will have to make up the 'shortfall' (Lloyds TSB - the smaller out of the top 5 posted projected profits of over 11 billion today - they won't be losing out anytime soon if they are forced to act within the law).

 

You say, in a roundabout sort of way, that if you were on a low income (100 quid) then you wouldn't spend 30 on a car etc... and that they need to get their priorities right.

 

Well, if I were on a low income, I doubt I would be living somewhere where there is a decent and affordable public transport system. In fact, if I had to catch a bus from where I live to get to work, the earliest would get me into work 1 hour and 15 minutes late every day. I can't see me keeping my job for long if didn't have a car. Incidentally, it's STILL cheaper to have the car that it would be to catch that bus to work and back each week.

 

My first bank charges occurred because my employer paid me late - I initially went to my employer for reimbursement - ....and was promptly told that they don't pay penalties. This is what initially started me thinking - my employer was under no obligation to pay an unlawful penalty any more than I was.

 

Now, if Abbey had been reasonable and realised that I didn't create the situation and had refunded me the money they had taken when I asked, perhaps this mass of publicity wouldn't have occured and instead of it costing them millions it would only have cost them 120 quid. Greed is what caused this - THEIR greed.

 

Each of the top 5 banks in the UK routinely post profits in excess of 10 billion - a good chunk of that coming from people who can least afford it - and they know it, they also know that they are the people least likely to be able to do anything about it, and so the spiral continues.

 

Just because something is written into a contract doesn't make it legal.

 

If I were to have a contract with you, and it was written that if you breached it, I could slap you in the face, and I did so - I could still be arrested for common assault.

 

People, like yourself, often say "be responsible for your own actions" - well, aside from the fact that a lot of the time these charges are a result of someone elses actions (i.e. not being paid on time, businesses taking the wrong amounts via DD (and, yes - it happens, and you try and enforce the DD guarantee and see how easy that is! NOT!)) - I think the same could be said of the banks - they are kicking up because they've been caught with their pants around their ankles for once, and instead of putting their hands up they actually have the gaul to attempt to gain public sympathies with lies like "if we lose this case, we'll have to start charging for accounts" - when their lawyers know, I'm sure, that this wouldn't be legal any longer either. It's called deflection.

 

Imagine if NR had taken responsibility for it's own actions - we'd all have a 1000 quid a year less tax liability.

 

It works both ways. In law, if I break the contract I am legally bound to reimburse any costs incured by the other party because of that breach - I am happy to do that. I am not happy to condone the breaking of the law by making them a profit for a breach - to do so, IMO, would be aiding and abetting something I know to be unlawful.

[dave]

Which is why, personally, I support the irish model, where people pay reasonable amounts for what they use instead of exhorbitant amounts of money when they are least able to afford it.

 

Absolutely in agreement.

[Gogivit]

Curr946

 

1)I am in my bank, talking to the cashier, who checks my balance says I have sufficient funds in my account to withdraw the cash amount requested...

 

Several days later- no other transactions or cheques or direct debits and I receive letter saying overdrawn and to recieve charges!

 

2) Started direct debit with media company, direct debit taken not on the agreed date of between 1st and 3rd of month but debited on 13th of month instead... Resulted in overdrawn account and to recieve charges (bank states until end of test case can not be dealt with!)

 

3) Motgage payment left my account on a Monday, did not arrive with mortgage company for 3 days, neither bank nor mortgage company knows where money went but I recieved charges for late payment!

 

4) Using debit card in shop and payment authorised, following night checked my account had money in account, withdrew some and then discovered debit payment authorised didnt actually get taken from account there and then, end result overdrawn with charges!

 

If you feel that I am negligent so be it, but I put it to you, that the 4 examples above are all true statements and demonstrate that the banks purposely have set practises that make customers go overdrawn!

 

Finally, when I opened my account the terms and conditions have evolved into a charter of theft on a large scale!

 

In conclusion, when the banks during the late nineties bought out the building societies, they paid hundreds of millions, in order to recoup the payments they decided to UP anything in costs they could which resulted in us the customers effectively paying for their growth!

 

If you feel we are irresponsible I say you are naieve!

[GlasweJen]

Sorry to hi-jack but can someone explain this please?

 

Hi GlasweJen,

 

The attachments that you added in the following post have been un-approved

 

-----

*contents of post in here*

-----

 

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

 

Regards,

The Forum Management

 

I definately didn't attach anything to the message I sent, if there was an attachment can someone tell me what it was so that I can make sure I've not got a virus.

[Gogivit]

You been naughty?

 

Only joking, not sure what has happened to you but I am sure someone will explain.

[Curr946]

Curr - out of interest, I see your occupation is Customer Services. Is this with a bank or building society? If so, your input could be valuable and could help in an intelligent discussion and thoughts about bank charges. I have no intention of being antagonistic!

 

i do but i only deal with savings, i do not claim to know 100% of the banking system. PM me and i will try my best to help you out / ask colleges at work for there take.

 

one where a disabled woman and her two kids had to eat dry breakfast cereal for a fortnight (one pack of Tesco's own cornflakes) because her disability benefit had been paid late' date=' meaning her DD for her rent, gas and electricity were paid late. The bank took more in charges over this than was actually due in the account [/quote']

 

in this case the dss are to blame and should foot the bill, this woman should have called for a crisis loan from the dss until she had been paid out. however in this case if lady had called the bank and explained they would have reduced the charges or delayed them until she was back on her feet, they may even have considered an overdraft. this is a very sad case and you can not help but sympathise in this lady's circumstances.

 

as for the rest of your post i am now starting to see that you have a very valid point however, being paid late, wrong amounts and stuff resulting in charges should be paid back from the third party that caused it. Your employer? Organisation that requested the wrong amount. Maybe its time to put some effort into making them liable under the direct debit guarantee?

[Curr946]

Curr946

 

1)I am in my bank, talking to the cashier, who checks my balance says I have sufficient funds in my account to withdraw the cash amount requested...

 

Several days later- no other transactions or cheques or direct debits and I receive letter saying overdrawn and to recieve charges!

 

2) Started direct debit with media company, direct debit taken not on the agreed date of between 1st and 3rd of month but debited on 13th of month instead... Resulted in overdrawn account and to recieve charges (bank states until end of test case can not be dealt with!)

 

3) Motgage payment left my account on a Monday, did not arrive with mortgage company for 3 days, neither bank nor mortgage company knows where money went but I recieved charges for late payment!

 

4) Using debit card in shop and payment authorised, following night checked my account had money in account, withdrew some and then discovered debit payment authorised didnt actually get taken from account there and then, end result overdrawn with charges!

 

1) this is the banks error and you should get this charge back, this is a valid complaint as the cashier should see whats pending on the account, excluding direct debit payments and checks, but you should.

 

2) this is the media company's fault, complain to them and sen them proof of the charge.

 

3) it went through the bacs system, you would have been advised on the time it takes to arrive, if you didn't make allowances its your fault.

 

4) you should keep tabs on your account and what you are spending, if this is a regular occurences then ask your back on a visa electron card rather than delta (debit as now known) as this type of card is debited instantly rather than being treated as a form of credit as the backs make a promise to pay the retailer as at the time of the transaction there was cash in the account.

 

see these links.

 

debit: Visa Debit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

electron: Visa Electron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[moggieb]

Come on-you have got to know the ins & outs. Curr-not everyone on here are trying to avoid legitimate debt. CAG does not support this. All we are trying to say is that sometimes the banks are wrong to charge as much as they do for straying into the red. Not everyone has access to on-line banking & even the best of us are sometimes caught out. You are obviously perfect-very rare breed indeed:p