Bank Charges ... am I missing something ?

[theHotHead]

Hello all. I'm not sure what is what regarding bank charges, I never really understood the entire argument.

 

I requested my bank charges back from Nat West last year and my request was put on hold much like everyone else. But as far as I see there are 2 issues:

 

1) Fairness of unauthorised borrowing charges

2) Fairness of being charged for DDs/SOs that were not even honoured.

 

The first issue I don't really have a problem with, granted being charged £38 everytime they honour a DD/SO that takes me over my agreed limit is a bit steep, but I can accept that.

 

What I don't accept is the second issue, being sent a letter saying I am being charged £38 for a DD/SO the bank did not pay anyway and so didn't take me into any additional unauthorised borrowing.

 

So my question is, the bank charges that people have claimed or are trying to claim, are they issue 1, issue 2 or both ?? I can't see how issue 2 can possibly be justified by any bank if they don't even honour the payment anyway !

 

Have I missed something ???

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

I would say both, they cannot justify charging you that sort of money, when it costs them peanuts.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[theHotHead]

Thanks Scott.

 

So this High court ruling, does that cover ALL claims, I mean, like I say, I'm not bothered that I got charged a hefty amount because the bank honoured a DD for me that took me over my allowed borrowing, but I am bothered that I won't be able to get back money for charges pertaining to DDs that the bank didn't even pay !

[PGH7447]

SO your saying that because they paid out a DD that took you over the limit they can STEAL £38 of you because you did not ask them to do this.

 

Personally I would rather they had not paid the DD and had not stolen £38 of me

[maroondevo52]

Yes, all these charges are unfair, I know where your coming from regarding them paying your D/D but £38, they're having a laugh. People have claimed the lot back, including myself with Interest.

 

The High Court ruling was not about whether these charges are fair or not, but whether the OFT could decide if they were.

 

Have a look at this 'link'............

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[theHotHead]

I know the charges are extortionate, but I was trying to play Devil's Advocate.

 

At the very best they could make the argument that they were out of pocket as a result of honouring a DD for me, fair enough. But sending me a letter telling me they cannot pay a DD and then charging me £38 is NOT justifiable in any way shape or form, unless they hired a champion racing Eagle or a Peregrine Falcon to deliver the letter to me with scones and a cup of tea from the Ritz !!!

 

I did a rough check of my charges over the last 6 years and its around £3k, mostly when I was a student and most of that was not for honouring DDs at all.

 

Good to know that the High Court decision hasn't ruled out the unfairness of the charges so fingers crossed.

[maroondevo52]

I've noticed recently that the Allience & Leicester have been paying some of my Standing Orders, even though I did not have the money in the account to cover them, charging me £25 a pop.

[jdes26]

im sure the banks will start backing off when new templates come in 2 play..... they dont like it up em

[Fiscalawareness]

hi hot head

 

first thing i would do is cancel your direct debits and standing orders

 

then u cannot be charged, the whole thing about banks and mortages crads etc wanting you to pay be DD is cost saving and charge based.

 

I pay all my bills when i want within a few weeks over the phone or by internet banking all except TV licence, ive saved alot of money and whenever i see my bank manager he asks why i dont use the DD facility.

 

To expensive i say and in truth just one DD bounce a month means over £300 of fees a year.

 

Plus if u bounce both ends u get two charges one from each side of the DD.

 

So its not a viable option , net banking means its no longer needed