The problem lies with us!! Please read and comment.

[seylectric]

But surely if something is unlawful then it's illegal???

[Guest willowb]

Well, I can't explain it so I found this....

 

Offence is something which is formally an offence under the penal laws of the country. The law gives specific punishment for that offence and define that offence. nothing is an offence if not provided in Law. A crime is another term for an offence but may not be formally defined. Illegal is something which is illegal per se i.e. which is not supported by law. It may or may not be an offence. Not legal is something which is not expressly defined to be legal but traces can be found that this act is neither legal nor an offence. Unlawful is something which is against the spirit of Law, which the law does not want anybody to do but which is not formally an offence. beyond law can be anything which is neither supported by law nor is expected from a person to be committed.

 

Hummmmmmm.....never fully understood it myself 'til now!

 

Wxx

[Thailand]

Me neither, thanks!

[kevinjay27]

nobody is disputing that the banks are a business, and have to make money, but it is downright greed and bad management, that have got the banks, into the trouble they are having to deal with at the moment. it doesn't matter who is in the wrong, it's the greed that's hard to stomach, and they have had more than enough time to alter their charges, but wait and milk it for all it was worth. I sincerely hope the words spreads, and they reap what they sow.

[Thailand]

nobody is disputing that the banks are a business, and have to make money, but it is downright greed and bad management, that have got the banks, into the trouble they are having to deal with at the moment. it doesn't matter who is in the wrong, it's the greed that's hard to stomach, and they have had more than enough time to alter their charges, but wait and milk it for all it was worth. I sincerely hope the words spreads, and they reap what they sow.

 

Agreed have tou seen this?

 

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/37557-money-posted-srfrench.html

[cariad mo brwydrwr]

nobody is disputing that the banks are a business, and have to make money,

 

But they do make money in every way possible without having to impose these charges. They make money simply by having our money there in the first place on interest alone. They also make money during the cheque clearing process when they say it takes anywhere between 3 - 7 days for 'the funds to clear'. All they are doing is keeping the money for themselves during this time and making yet more money off it. Britain has the worst banking system in Europe for this. It is possible to clear a cheque the same day, yet they don't do it because it makes them more money. Same applies to BACs transactions. And they charge extra for CHAPs because its specifically a same day service and they don't get to make their money in the 'clearing' time.

 

I have certainly been no angel when it comes to my finances, and to some extent agree that there should be some sort of penalty when spending money that isn't there. However, I do think that individual circumstances should be taken into account. For instance, was the payment for a necessity like rent/childcare/insurance/etc or was it something like a new pair of designer shoes. I know this would mean the banks actually doing some work and treating us all as individuals rather than a number on a computer and may not be economically viable. Why can't they make the punishment fit the crime as it were? And why cant they can see that it's them that causes debt to spiral out of control when they add a charge causing more payments to be missed/refused causing more charges and so on.

 

The banks have a responsibility to those of us constantly living on the edge according to the banking code:

 

"...unauthorised overdrafts, or items being returned unpaid for lack of funds, are in some although not all cases an indicator that the customer is in financial difficulties. The Code and Guidance impose a clear requirement on subscribers to treat customers in financial difficulties sympathetically and positively, and a dispute over the level of default charges should not override this obligation."

 

However, they refuse to treat us as individuals and that is my big problem with them and their charges.

 

When I was with Barclays, they withdrew my overdraft all of a sudden due to my income support not being paid in for a few weeks (unbeknownst to me) and me spending money that wasn't there, amounting loads of charges from them. Admittedly I should have been keeping a closer check on my account, but the first they told me of it was the day they withdrew the OD. I was due to go back to uni after having my daughter, so the day my student loan went in, they kept it all and took away my overdraft leaving me with nothing. This left me with a 6 month old baby and not a penny to feed myself or her let alone clothe us, pay rent, my uni fees or anything. Barclays had no sympathy - they would not consider my individual circumstances. Charges still stood and overdraft would not be reinstated. Its situations like this that cause people to question the point of living when they can see no way out, and end up like that student in Swansea who took his own life because of it.

 

Anyway, personal rant over. As far as I'm concerned there is no reason why transactions can't be instant, and they should reflect this in statements and on-line so we as customers can manage our accounts effectively as far as possible.