2 minds

[2 minds]

2. People will use any means available to them to gain financial benefit.. all this "take it on the chin", be "responsible for your actions" is well and good.. but nonsense all the same.. If opportunity exists for me as an individual to better my financial status I'd be a mug for not taking it. I'm not a mug. I may manage my finances poorly, I may even border on negligent in your eyes. But Im no fool.

 

 

This is more like it... I can so I will!! I have been to work today and helped alot of customers out with charges, because they genuinly needed help and it felt good to give money back to people who are going through a tough time, but really when I see a standard letter with "I feel my charges are unlawful and I want them back for the last six years" it gets a standard response, if customers write with circumstances or simply oops I messed up, then they get help... I know this has not been the experience of some of you but thats how I work and how it should be

 

Alison 82 - I dont judge people because i can see their accounts, whether I could or not is irrelivant, people do spend money they donthave,ifthey didn't they wouldn't have charges - simple! as for saying bank staff need more training, depends who you speak to, personally I know our T&C's inside out but yes not everyone does a good job as with all industrues. As you can see throughout I do feel that HARDWORKING people trying to earn a living not living out of their means do deserve a break

[2 minds]

The thing that gets me, is sometimes the bank will pay the DD even though you're overdrawn and other times it won't.

 

2 minds, I'm going to shove my court summons right up that fat gooses golden egg laying a$$ and I'm going to have the biggest baddest smile on my face when I'm doing it.

 

Banks say its down to their discression, I do agree make it plain and simple then people know where they stand

 

and have you met my manager then??

[dave]

This is more like it... I can so I will!!

Which is exactly the behavior of the banks.

 

It's my opinion that they knew/know that punitive measures for breaching a contract are unlawful - let's face it - they have huge legal departments with people that know the law - yet because they were in a position of trust, and therefore one of credibility, plausability and integrity, they chose to abuse it and break the law knowing that people would think, "it's the bank, this doesn't seem lawful, but it's the bank, they wouldn't do anything outside of the law."

 

Indeed, it was reported in some papers that they were in "astonishment" and that LTSB must have just 'mislaid' their papers and that is how that chap won his case against them by default - the paper went on to say that "the bank's contracts must be watertight and therefore the chap was just lucky."

 

People STILL believe it, even though we have lots and lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

...and so they [the banks] have - because they can. So now that people can take their unlawfully taken money back - they will.

 

If someone stole your TV and then the police caught them would you say, "I can have the TV back, but just because I can doesn't mean I should."?

 

Of course not.

 

In this case the theives have been caught - and people are taking what's theirs back.

 

It's simple.

 

Your argument appears to be that people deserve the charges, through whatever reasons. Some people may deliberatly have abused the system - I'm sure that no person WANTS to be charged, but they may have taken money because thay can.

 

Still no reason for a bank to believe it is above the law, regardless of the circumstances that put them in a position where they can.

 

If banks want people to stay within their limits, then that's their call - make the balances true (and don't let people overdraw in the first place) - in one day, I had three different balances from three different sources (bank teller, ATM and Internet banking), making it impossible to know if I had the funds or not - deception, in my opinion - a deception designed to either:

 

a) trick me into spending money I haven't got so that I am charges,

 

or

 

b) a deception to leave me in a position where I don't know how much money I have, and to be on the safe side, leave my money in the bank so that they can gain the libor rate overnight at my expense.

 

Now, if I have to carry a notebook around with me and count my money at every instance, then what good is a bank to me? None - if I have to be my own bank, then I will. Sadly, in 1984 the law changed giving the choise of how employees were paid to the employer and so now the banks are in a cartel/monopolistic position where your average employee does not have the choice of using a bank or not - and they abuse it with a passion.

[2 minds]

Which is exactly the behavior of the banks.

 

It's my opinion that they knew/know that punitive measures for breaching a contract are unlawful - let's face it - they have huge legal departments with people that know the law - yet because they were in a position of trust, and therefore one of credibility, plausability and integrity, they chose to abuse it and break the law knowing that people would think, "it's the bank, this doesn't seem lawful, but it's the bank, they wouldn't do anything outside of the law."

 

Don't be too sure!! they didn't know this was coming

 

Indeed, it was reported in some papers that they were in "astonishment" and that LTSB must have just 'mislaid' their papers and that is how that chap won his case against them by default - the paper went on to say that "the bank's contracts must be watertight and therefore the chap was just lucky."

 

Banks are scared to go to court, I know they are

 

If someone stole your TV and then the police caught them would you say, "I can have the TV back, but just because I can doesn't mean I should."?

 

Of course not.

 

In this case the theives have been caught - and people are taking what's theirs back.

 

It's simple.

 

 

But its not so simple, there's no agreement between a burglar and the owner

 

If banks want people to stay within their limits, then that's their call - make the balances true (and don't let people overdraw in the first place) - in one day, I had three different balances from three different sources (bank teller, ATM and Internet banking), making it impossible to know if I had the funds or not - deception, in my opinion - a deception designed to either:

 

a) trick me into spending money I haven't got so that I am charges,

 

or

 

b) a deception to leave me in a position where I don't know how much money I have, and to be on the safe side, leave my money in the bank so that they can gain the libor rate overnight at my expense.

 

Now, if I have to carry a notebook around with me and count my money at every instance, then what good is a bank to me? None - if I have to be my own bank, then I will. Sadly, in 1984 the law changed giving the choise of how employees were paid to the employer and so now the banks are in a cartel/monopolistic position where your average employee does not have the choice of using a bank or not - and they abuse it with a passion

 

Yeah if you tried checking yoru balance and they couldn't give you it right and you spened a few extra quid, then any charges you get as a result should be returned, however if you knew you had somehwre in the region of £20 and youwent and done 6 VP's for £30 then thats different

[dave]

Don't be too sure!! they didn't know this was coming

No, but they were pushing it as hard as they thought they could, and overstepped what people would put up with.

 

Banks are scared to go to court, I know they are

Yes, quite probably.

 

But its not so simple, there's no agreement between a burglar and the owner

I think you missed the point with this one - the burglar acted unlawfully and was caught out - you, quite rightly, would expect to have your TV back.

 

The banks have acted unlawfully and have been caught - quite rightly, people expect their money back.

 

The point wasn't about the breach of contract issue - that is taken for granted in this example.

 

If the burglar was your landlord, and you thought he had a right to come in and take your TV because he had it written into the tenancy agreement, it would still not make it lawful and when and if he was caught out, you would expect your TV back.

 

 

Yeah if you tried checking yoru balance and they couldn't give you it right and you spened a few extra quid, then any charges you get as a result should be returned, however if you knew you had somehwre in the region of £20 and youwent and done 6 VP's for £30 then thats different

 

The banks have a duty to look after our money - they are failing. If I check my balance and it's incorrect - I have no way to gauge when it is correct - just as the banks like it - when faced with that sort of organisation, people will choose to live and living in this country costs money. If they don't know if the bank is going to accurately let them know what money is in their account, why should people spend it accurately?

 

The answer to all this is woefully simple - the banks dissallow payments when there are insufficient funds. If a DD bounces, the bank has to act within the law and just cover it's costs - not make a profit.

 

No-one would argue with that - it's fair. To argue against it, is futile. The law is the law, and fairness is fairness.

 

I didn't ask the bank to 'look after' my money - no more than I like lending it to them at very small interest rates.

 

The banks will not go bust just because they are forced to act lawfully and fairly. If they do, then bad luck. Any other business that stuggles still has to obay the laws of the land - why not banks?

[2 minds]

see your point with the TV howveer if I had said to the landlord if I owe u rent the you can charge me or take my TV, then he can watch eastenders on me

 

I can understand the bank should be responsible but when does the customers responsibiltiy kick in, if the system allows customers to exploit it for example gauranteeing cheques when is the bank wrong for giving the facility or the customer wrong for exploitoing it??

 

Dont hate me.. pls I do have a heart, just see things from the otherside too

[Guest Lueeze]

If the Bank didnt abide by the Law in the 1st place Us Customers shouldn't need to accept any responsibility.

 

This charging issue wouldn't have come about in the 1st place if they had acted Lawfully!

 

Its what came 1st chicken or egg...

 

We could all dispute this till we are blue in the face.

 

The main point of this arguement is that if the Bank were not OVERCHARGING we wouldn't be here now trying to claim this money back!!!!

 

Do you agree they have Overcharged or are you defending that too?

[kotum45]

This is more like it... I can so I will!! I have been to work today and helped alot of customers out with charges, because they genuinly needed help and it felt good to give money back to people who are going through a tough time, but really when I see a standard letter with "I feel my charges are unlawful and I want them back for the last six years" it gets a standard response, if customers write with circumstances or simply oops I messed up, then they get help... I know this has not been the experience of some of you but thats how I work and how it should be

 

How can you possibly think that you have the right to talk about people's circumstances. "Because they were in trouble so you felt good about giving it back"?????? IT IS THEIR MONEY THAT YOUR EMPLOYERS HAVE STOLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Besides whether they are in trouble or not you have to and you are going to give everyone's money back one way or another.

 

Why don't you go into a rich man's account and transfer some to yours and when he gets into trouble you can give it back to him... That way you will feel good about yourself?????

[dave]

Ha - I don't hate you. In fact, it shows guts to come here and air an opinion that no-one on this forum is going to like - for that you deserve respect and you are more than welcome here.

 

Plus, I'm quite enjoying it ;-)

 

The thing about responsibility is that it's much harder for the customer to be responsible when the bank isn't. The bank can be as irresponsible as it likes and the only outcome is that the bank makes more money.

 

If the bank has sewn a community of irresponsibility, those that carry on in the same manner can hardly be blamed.

 

As an extreme example, say the Iraq govt. encourages terrorism (which I neither believe or disbelieve, before we get into a discussion about that one!), then it can hardly complain and hold it's hands up in despair if a terrorist attack is carried out against it.

 

If the banks (and governments) have created a system that revolves around money and our fiduciaries are blazey (sp?)* about that money (and banks have been - some DPA requests have resulted in some people being sent another's personal bank statement info with names, addresses etc... on more than one occassion for instance) then it creates a system whereby everyone has the same respect for that money - i.e. spend now, pay later - it's someone elses problem.

 

The fact that the banks have a very, very bad public image doesn't help much either.

 

When faced with not being able to afford to buy a new shirt, dress, shoes, etc... and banks come out and say, "oh, this year we've 'earned' 11.9 billion quid", most people will say, "well, I need it more than they do.".

This is the society that has been created (quite a lot by Ms. Thatcher et al), and thus the banks play on it. They're not stupid, far from it. But now they've been caught doing something that they shouldn't have been, and the knock on effect of that is that even those that have 'abused' the system (and let's not forget, the banks 'let' them abuse the system, an abuse that they could stop instantly) can legally claim their money back.

 

If the banks had played fair from the beginning then we wouldn't be the thorn in their side that we are fast becoming.

 

* BLASE, Dave (shd be an accent on the "e", blame the French )

[2 minds]

lueeze - yes I do agree they are too much, or can be depending on the transaction (and whether it is cleared or returned) and whether someone is exploiting the system

 

Kotun -OUCH!! if you read the whole thread you will see where I am coming from!!

 

Dave - I enjoy it too, I'm either brave or stupid I'm still trying to work that out (most people who read this thread would probably answer that for me!!) .I really can see where most people are coming from, trust me if you saw some of the stuff I see you would probably understand me some more......

 

Yes the banks need to be more responsible a certain bank faced with a black horse has shown that with numerous cases of irresponsible lending, but lets say they take an attitude of well you dont earn 30k plus lets give u an account with no facilities so you cant abuse it... then there'd be uproar. I can getpeople being hacked off because they get charges hundreds a year and the banks make a hefty profit, but thats business. If you were a shareholder you'd be happy!! Tesco make how much profit yet we still but fruit and veg there rather than grow it ourselves, because athough its costly its covenient and someone else does the work!

[Guest Lueeze]

Your Brave 2 Minds! Lol!

 

Do you agree that if the banks hadn't imposed these stupid charges in the 1st place then we wouldnt be in this situation now? Yes?

 

Like everyone has said if they had applied charges in relation to cost say for me £5 a time we would perhaps believe the banks were trustworthy. They have lost all our respect by not following the law.

[kotum45]

I will answer that for you 2minds.....you are stupid

[Guest Lueeze]

Well the good thing is that at least we can see the other sides point of view, and you are being reasonable to a degree 2 Minds, but i suspect if you didnt work for a bank you would probabally sway our way much more!

[dave]

The difference between Tescos and the banks is, a) we don't have a choice about using banks and b) goods for sale are bound by the SOGA

 

If we didn't like Tescos prices, then we would shop elsewhere - the banks charges (although all unlawful) are very similar in amount - a fact that makes it a breach of the 1999 CCR's in itself.

 

A price that is agreed is a very different thing to being penalised for a breach of contract.

 

Secondly, I would have been seen as a serial abuser when I had my trouble with Abbey - despite numorous attempts to get them to play fair.

 

I had no choice but to overdraw to get to work - the bank was taking 400 quid per month, leaving me no choice but to overdraw to buy my train ticket - and thus incurring more charges, forcing me to do the same the following month and so on and so on.

 

Because of this, by your admission, I wouldn't have been treated with sympathy - a breach of the banking code.

[2 minds]

Kotum - ur a right charmer!!

 

Lueeze - thank u! I have changed my opinion a bit talking to all of u and reading what people have said but I still see things from "the other side" alot needs to be done to make charges "fair" and maybe to make info more available or more accurate (just for you that - Dave!) and then customers can be sure they use whats in their accounts.

 

Would help if shops got rid of floorlimits, cheques couldn't be guaranteed, and customers pay by diff mandates they have more control of

 

Dave - I would like to think had you approached the bank with the first set of hefty charges they could've given them back and prevented further charges - thats what I woud have done for a customer in a similar position

 

People do have a choice they could open a Basic account and not get the facilities to go overdrawn or maintain payments themselves from a current account

[joneshousehold]

Well 2minds, I might not agree with you but I do think you deserve some respect. For the record I think you are more likely a fool than brave. You came here to stir us up and it worked but hey you have stuck with it. Anyone who can do that deserves some respect even if it is probably grudging. Mind you, you do seem to have mellowed over the 60+ postings on this thread or is that just my imagination?

 

Have a good day at work tomorrow and make someone happy for us.

[dave]

People do have a choice they could open a Basic account and not get the facilities to go overdrawn or maintain payments themselves from a current account

 

Even basic accounts have these charges for 'bounced' Direct Debits and Standing Orders etc...

 

There is no choice for the customer - we are effectively forced into having to deal with banks, and they abuse that monopoly. Name one bank that does not impose these charges?

 

To my knowledge, there isn't one.

[jonni2bad]

.....I would like to think had you approached the bank with the first set of hefty charges they could've given them back and prevented further charges - thats what I woud have done for a customer in a similar position...

 

And this, 2 minds, is where there has been such a difference between banks, and between different employees. Reading your posts, I'm inclined to believe that your are, at the very least, not a monster- and maybe even quite a decent lass!

 

Whilst I do not agree with your position regarding who you might refund and who not - based, it seems, on what they have been spending money on! - I'm inclined to believe that had I encountered YOU rather than the buffoons at my local branch when I was experiencing great difficulty, then I might have been less inclined to fight for my money back now.

 

It simply isn't good enough to say that there are others like you- if there is to be a system in place regarding refunds when asked, it should have been to a strict set of guidlines that could be operated by every employee, at all times. The same rules for everyone, surely?

 

Your system (for want of a better phrase) is that a customer in difficulty has pot luck when they call your company - if they get you, there's a reasonable chance of 'success' - but if they get "Dorothy" on the other line, then hey - she's a strict so-and-so and you've got no chance!

 

The bulk of my charges started when my employer failed to pay me, without notice! £252 in charges later, I then had to find that money the following month, before I could pay my normal bills. Month 2 was slightly better, only £248!

Banks suggest that there is no such thing as charges-because-of-charges, but I beg to differ. No pay again in month 2, despite a promise that I would get both (I was gullible back then...) and the whole thing spiralled.

 

Calls to the bank, visits to the branch, pleading all the way.

 

Nothing. Not even a hint of help. Unless, of course, extending the overdraft to allow me to buy food for my family can be considered truly helping me.

 

Like it or not, this is the industry you work for.

 

I'm not even going to start with the whole legal arguement, as it's been covered in depth already.

 

 

Finally, Dave, unless they changed the terms without letting me know!!!..... HSBC's basic bank account has NO charges for a failed DD etc. Although they do make it clear that repeat offences will result in account closure. Thankfully, I've not had to put it to the test!

 

I'm STILL waiting for several banks to get back to me so that I can produce an up to date guide on basic accounts. Perhaps we're all responsible for making them too busy to respond

[Tinkerbelle]

You are both brave and stupid for coming on here with the views that you hold.

 

Open a basic account so as not to incur charges???:o

 

What planet are you on? I HAD a basic account. That ended up £200 in the red due to the banks charges. They saw fit to bounce a £4.99 direct debit on the SAME day that a cheque cleared that would have covered the DD. I understand you people employ a DEBIT before CREDIT policy so that you can fleece people out of money.

 

I called and asked them VERY NICELY to give it back, and was told to sod off..so I took my business elsewhere and left the account to "rot"... In the end they closed it.

 

So as a result of them being unreasonable and greedy, they had to write off a debt that they created in the first place.

 

And before you even ask, YES I SURE AS HELL will be claiming back any other charges they may have applied previously.

 

I'm quite happy to act responsibly and expect them to. They play dirty and stupid - so will I.

[knobby1]

right two minds time for me to jump in and add a bit to this thread, i`m looking at about 2.5k in the last 4 years in returned direct debits alone ive counted that i had about 90, now heres the thing i have been a compulsive gambler for the last 17 or so years (in recovery now) sometimes there was money to pay the bills sometimes there wassnt, the thing that realy gets to me is when ive just managed to leave enough in and wham £140 of charges for the 4 D/D`s that diddnt get paid last month means the same 4 dont get paid this month and i just love it when they CANT/WONT pay a d/d for £12 but they can make you £35 overdrawn for sending u a letter to tell you they cant let you be £11.60 overdrawn. no excuses from me 90% of it is my fault i get punished when i break the law so its about time the banks did too. i havent had a cheque book or credit card for years because of my problem yet they have let me run up a £1500 overdraft although i only earn about £900 a month (diddnt i read somewhere that an overdraft should be no more that 80% of you net monthly income!!!!!!!) i`m always at the line on my overdraft currently £1.496.87 overdrawn ive got no hope of paying it back and the bank knows this thats why its let me have it more charges for them.

[Guest Alison82]

Alison 82 - I dont judge people because i can see their accounts, whether I could or not is irrelivant, people do spend money they donthave,ifthey didn't they wouldn't have charges - simple! as for saying bank staff need more training, depends who you speak to, personally I know our T&C's inside out but yes not everyone does a good job as with all industrues. As you can see throughout I do feel that HARDWORKING people trying to earn a living not living out of their means do deserve a break

 

2 minds, you say you don’t judge people on their account activities then in the next breath you say

 

I have been to work today and helped alot of customers out with charges, because they genuinly needed help and it felt good to give money back to people who are going through a tough time, but really when I see a standard letter with "I feel my charges are unlawful and I want them back for the last six years" it gets a standard response, if customers write with circumstances or simply oops I messed up, then they get help... I know this has not been the experience of some of you but thats how I work and how it should be

 

So which on is it? Give someone a little bit of power and they think they are god!

 

Yes the banks need to be more responsible

 

Yes they do! They were the one who acted unlawfully, not us!

 

but lets say they take an attitude of well you dont earn 30k plus lets give u an account with no facilities so you cant abuse it... then there'd be uproar.

 

I personally would be ok with that but why would you need to resort to extremes, just don’t authorise transactions when the account has insufficient funds; same for cheques on arrival, if there isn’t enough to cover it then don’t pay it and let the customer sort it out, simple.

 

I can getpeople being hacked off because they get charges hundreds a year and the banks make a hefty profit, but thats business. If you were a shareholder you'd be happy!!

 

Yeah, that is business but not at my expense! I was a shareholder (had to cash them in to clear some of my debts due to all the charges) I wasn’t very happy, if I knew then what I know now I would have done it sooner.

 

Tesco make how much profit yet we still but fruit and veg there rather than grow it ourselves, because athough its costly its covenient and someone else does the work!

 

I see you still don’t understand the difference between charges and services!

[2 minds]

Tinkerbelle - Combine basic acc with bare minimum facilities (that cant be exploited such as gauranteeing cheques) and pay your bills by bill payment.... hey presto no charges!!

 

Joneshousehold - I probably have been softer as it goes on didn't want you all to think I'm a complete banker!! Work was busy, funny enough I chatted about charges some more.

 

Jonni2bad - thank u being told "I maybe even quite a decent lass!" with me working for a bank on this site, I take as a compliment.... if your bank was only willing to increase your overdraft that clearly isn't they answer and they deserve all they get.

 

Knobby1 - as with Jonni2bad when a bank offers to increse overdrafts that clearly isn't the answer its just adding to the problem, and again your bank deserve a swift lesson on responsible lending!!

 

Alison - Yes I do understand the difference and Banks also provide a service (sometimes not a great one, I know) its not as simple as not authorising payments, people guarantee cheques and shops have floor limits so the payments have to be made.

[Tinkerbelle]

Tinkerbelle - Combine basic acc with bare minimum facilities (that cant be exploited such as gauranteeing cheques) and pay your bills by bill payment.... hey presto no charges!!

 

Nonsense! Spend a bit more time reading the various threads on this forum and you will see that things are not that black and white.

 

Working at a Bank you should know that Basic Accounts don't come with Cheque Guarantee Cards, and most of them don't even have Cheque Books. You sure you work at a Bank??

 

Yes, there are people out there who abuse the system, but does that mean EVERYONE has to suffer??

 

I'm sorry but your "arguments" are not convincing me that you are non judgemental when it comes to deciding on people's financial affairs. I'm glad I don't bank where you work. You probably would have thought thought it was ok for the bank to charge me 38 quid to bounce a 2.49 direct debit even though funds had cleared into the account on the very same morning.

 

Jesus! You need to get down from Ivory Towers and see the BIGGER picture!!

[Puppet]

alot of fault goes on the fact that most of these fees etc no longer require human interaction. a person not paying 50p then getting levied with a £20 charge is stupid but a computer works on true false logic and there is no maybe

[Guest Lueeze]

If the banks werent greedy (and lets be honest everyone knows they really are VERY money hungry) we wouldnt even have this forum! If the banks had followed the Law we would not be disputing anything.

 

You have to admit that 2 minds....