Sick Of Hearing About Bank Charges

[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.

[dave]

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

That particular woman did go into her bank to explain, and contrary to popular belief, they were NOT sympathetic and did not delay or reduce the charges.

 

However, to answer your other points - I cannot make anyone liable for a penalty for a breach of a contract - no profit is allowed to be made from such a situation, so to attempt to get the third party to pay it would be futile.

 

The fault lies soley at the feet of the bank for imposing an unlawful penalty in the first place. I can't chase the employer for repayment of a penalty that is unlawful.