Natwest bank charge...how much?

[ncf355]

Tell me the difference between the above and a bank charge? If you write a cheque without sufficient funds to pay, then that in effect is theft. You would have obliged the bank to pay the cheque on your behalf despite knowing the funds were not available.

=

 

Then the same bank takes 3/4 working days to clear a customers cheque that somehow on the continent is cleared within 2-3 hours, repeats this across several million cusotomers and earns the interest from lending this money to others in the form of loans/mortgages

 

Yet despite making this money and money from the billions sat in personal accounts (effectively loaned to the banks by those personal customers) that gain next to nothing in interest, they claim they will have to start charging for personal accounts if the OFT win?

 

End to free banking? I'm sorry, when did it start?

 

I'm of the opinion that the banks are already paid handsomely for their "service" (providing a computer that our money can sit on electronically for a given time), as their quarterly accounts seem to back up every time

 

There is not, and never will be, justification for this daylight robbery

 

Moral or otherwise

[Darren]

I will watch with interest, my big concern is that we all end up shafted if / when fee based banking is introduced to finance the costs of providing current accounts...then everyone is the loser.

 

Like you said before 'its a cut throat business' one of the banks will stay fee free as Abbey do for businesses, while the others still charge.

 

Maybe HSBC as they announced £12b profit today.

 

When my business account was with Abbey it was 'free banking' I chose to leave and open an account that charges fees, this last year cost £98.30. even if personal banking costs got this high would you really be complaining of paying less than £2 per week.

 

When I watch programmes like rogue traders, it makes me mad seeing people getting ripped off, while there are some that would watch and think 'I can do that'. Its those bankers that give the rest of us a bad name. the thing is when banks started ripping people off in this way, instead of the other banks thinking 'I hate seeing people getting ripped off' they thought 'We can do that' and add to our £12b profit (would have been alot more if they didn't invest so much in the states)

[pebs]

Result!

 

Spoke to nat west the other day, the woman I got would not help at all with charge.

 

Rang back today and got the most helpful, friendly woman who apologised and has refunded the £38 back to my account!!:grin:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Result!

 

Spoke to nat west the other day, the woman I got would not help at all with charge.

 

Rang back today and got the most helpful, friendly woman who apologised and has refunded the £38 back to my account!!:grin:

 

Well done for you.

 

But why won't they do it for me for being 14p short!! And it was my first 'offence' as they called it??!

[pebs]

Try ringing back to see if you get another person, the woman the other day was adamant there was nothing she could do.

 

The woman today was lovely and said as it was the first time this had happenened on my account she would gladly refund it for me:grin:

 

I think it just depends what mood thier in when you ring.

[slick132]

Hi Pebs,

 

Delighted to hear of your refund - It's mad that your successs depends on the person you speak to and their mood that day !

 

Well done.

[pebs]

Thanks, I am having a good day today and tomorrow looks good too because it will be 6 years to the day that I was issued with the only default on my file so you know what that means......:grin:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Thanks, I am having a good day today and tomorrow looks good too because it will be 6 years to the day that I was issued with the only default on my file so you know what that means......:grin:

 

Unfortunately the legislation pre 2003 is that they are on there for 10 years! You just missed out!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Btw pebs, I'm just kidding you! I'm not having a good day so you shouldn't either...

[pebs]

Btw pebs, I'm just kidding you! I'm not having a good day so you shouldn't either...

 

Lol:-D

 

Ive been counting the days since November when Activ Kapital refused point blank to remove it:mad:

 

I think a balance transfer from my 39%apr capital 1 card is on the horizon now I`ll have no adverse credit!

[saintly_1]

Threads merged

[pebs]

Its the Halifax, I closed the account with them in October last year as it was only a cardcash account and they would not even give me a cheque book that I could just use for postal payments etc even though I had an account with them for 15 years. They have sent me statements going back to Dec 1997. I managed to get a current account with the Nat West instead.

 

The interest debit charges are not for an overdraft as they would never give me one.

Edited July 23, 2008 by pebs

[Trajan]

its just absolutely scandolus, the OFT must do something urgently about these charges. Its unbelieable.

[yourbank]

The OFT test case is something they have done. That is currently going on.

[Jase1982]

With NatWest you have the added ammunition that the banking code (to which they claim to subscribe) requires them to give you 14 days notice of any charge before taking the charge.

 

Unfortunately, by the term 'charges'....overdraft charges / bounced DD, or SO are not included under that terminology....Don't ask me how, but I tried that one with Natwest and I hit a dead end.

[Jase1982]

 

"If you came took them from my van then no, but that is theft. If I came to your house and you asked to use my tools and do the job yourself then I would probably let you, but the charge would stand. (normally around £45). The £450 would be for customers who tell me they don't mind the banks charging over 10 times the amount it actually costs them and would be happy to pay me that."

 

Tell me the difference between the above and a bank charge? If you write a cheque without sufficient funds to pay, then that in effect is theft. You would have obliged the bank to pay the cheque on your behalf despite knowing the funds were not available.

 

 

I think the difference with bank charges is that there isn't any compliance on either side. Theft would be, breaking into the bank and robbing it. To compare bank charges to theft is a bigotted attitude.

 

I agree with most, free banking already exists in some form or another.

 

I'm all for an account fee if the charges are, clear, transparent, fair, did I mention fair?! clear?! lawful?? how about, if the charges don't bring further charges...resulting in a mass build up of debt, which won't go away...in fact each month it increases, ruins your credit record and hinders any chance of leading a normal life for the next 10 years?....all for going £1 overdrawn because the banks can't or won't improve their system so as to not allow their own system to take money that doesn't exist.....resulting in charge upon charge, as mentioned above.

 

I don't see how the banks can win in court in the long term because surely they have an admission of guilt by refunding several hundred million of pounds to consumers?? I'm sure their excuse would be, they were offering a gesture of good will....?

 

However, believe me Natwest are much better than Smile....They charge per day, despite knowing most people get paid at the end of the month...so they deliberately remove funds on the 21st, knowing full well, further charges will rack up. So as mentioned above, going £1 overdrawn in January 06 cost me £1200 in 18 months and a black mark against my credit rating....I did operate responsibly, which is why Smile couldn't wait to have my business....2 years later, I have a Natwest basic account and I still have a debt with Smile, made up of their charges, which is yet another battle.

 

I can't speak for any other CAG member, but all I want is to be treated with respect and to be able to know exactly what I am signing up to when I sign up to it. I want proper communication and dialogue between the consumer and the banks.

 

Sorry for the rant guys...

[yourbank]

The argument about refunding in court is not relevant because all were done as gestures of goodwill without accepting liability. The Legalities of a case is what is important.

I agree with the idea of dialogue between consumers and the banks, in fact, I am sure that the time would right at the moment. However, I have dared not to suggest this idea on CAG for want of being shot down. I certainly have mooted the idea on other sites because it is clear that things are not clear.

 

I do agree with most of what you have said. The problem is that as we stand today, LEGALLY, bank charges are lawful. The bank lost one argument and I am certain they will lose the historic terms argument but the appeals will follow.