bank charges

[????]

Us people who manage our money properly get free banking thanks to those of you who breach an agreement you agreed with your bank around how much you could borrow through them without permission. The feckless are subsidising the prudent that strikes me as fair - in most other countries you have to pay for all withdrawhals, cheques etc, - we (almost) uniquely have free banking be coming the way of the prudent soon - thanks to people not being able to keep to a contract that made with their bank in order to borrow that banks money and then moaning about their inability to control their finances........

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Happy New Year smug git.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

But it's a hidden charge, it's not free banking.

By law the banks are only allowed to recover their costs that occur when cheques bounce, etc, and that has been estimated as a few pounds at most. They are not allowed by law to demand punitive fees from their customers. They have been stealing the money with no legal basis for years, and using the money they extort to offer free banking to everyone else.

[????]

Seasonal greetings feckless fool

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Well, if we're going for alliteration: pompous, pungent, purblind, puritanical, pyloric, purulent, putative prudent person.

Yours prolixly

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Us people who manage our money properly get free

> banking thanks to those of you who breach an

> agreement you agreed with your bank around how

> much you could borrow through them without

> permission. The feckless are subsidising the

> prudent that strikes me as fair - in most other

> countries you have to pay for all withdrawhals,

> cheques etc, - we (almost) uniquely have free

> banking be coming the way of the prudent soon -

> thanks to people not being able to keep to a

> contract that made with their bank in order to

> borrow that banks money and then moaning about

> their inability to control their finances........

Cunt.

[lozzyloz]

That's verging on the oleaginous!

[????]

Brendan

A huge pint of foaming bothered for me please

[Bellenden Belle]

CWALD is absolutely correct in her analysis.

Don't forget we are still charged interest charges when we go overdrawn - and you could argue ??? that that interest covers your "free banking" - not to mention our mortgage repayments - oh and all those investments that banks make with the money you give them.

In the days before computers, when your trusty bank manager would sit down with a quill and write a missive when you went overdrawn you could justify paying for the twenty minutes he might have spent licking the stamp. It's all done by computer now - and so we are now talking pence not even pounds.

Hubby got 90% of six years of charges paid back back in January - thanks to Martin Lewis' template letters. We never went to court - just threatened it and refused their halfway house settlements. Keep watching the site for info.

[peckhamboy]

Actually, CWALD is totally wrong in her analysis. At the moment, there is nothing illegal about the charges, which is why the test case is going on - to determine once and for all whether the banks can make those charges and, if so, whether they should be limited in some way. The banks have been settling most of the claims that came to them because it is cheaper than defending every claim, but of those that did make it into the county court, only some actually succeeded.

Chances are that the banks will be allowed to continue charging their fees, but at a reduced rate I reckon, so if any of you have massive claims outstanding I wouldn't bank on recovering more than 60% at most.

Saying that, I think the fees are excessive. But they're not illegal (not at the moment, anyway).

[Keef]

To be fair ???? sometimes you don't have much choice.

I was up most of last night with a bastard toothache, having broken a tooth. I now have a dental appointment later that I don't have the money for, it being January and all that. I will knowingly be drawing money from my account, knowing that I'll be charged for it, but I don't see as I have a lot of choice.

Dentists are also thieving c**ts! :X

[mockney piers]

Must be nice in that ivory tower there Quids.

[Brendan]

If you ask your bank not to let you go overdrawn they have to set you account up that way. That is what I have always done and I have never had any trouble.

???? - Your assumption that free banking is protected by the money made from penalty charges is a load of old bollocks spun by banks to justify another tidy little earner that they have created. Has no one ever told you not to believe everything you are told, especially when it comes from people in a position to profit from it? You are not only wrong but you come across as a bit of a dick in the way you put your argument forward.

[barrymarshall]

these charges are built into the banks profit-making structure. They will know that a certain number of accounts will go overdrawn by an average of x% and have the cash reserves. If these numbers are out it doesn't cost them much to borrow the money - we are talking about 0.05% over the Libor rate or thereabouts. It is well known in banking circles that the real profits don't come from interest but the fees and charges. So it's not the feckless paying for the sensible, but the inherent nature of the system.

[Keef]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you ask your bank not to let you go overdrawn they have to set you account up that way. That is what I have always done and I have never had any trouble.

I've done that in the past too. Only problem is, if you tell them you don't want to be able to go overdrawn, and they set it as a ?0 limit (meaning that the cash machine will not let you have a penny overdraft), it has a negative effect on your credit rating, as this is something they usually do as a punishment rather than because people are trying to be sensible and have requested it.

[Brendan]

I have an agreed overdraft with the bank but also a block on allowing it to go over the limit. It took me countless phone calls and arguments and eventually a meeting with my bank manager to get it done though. It?s not that they can?t do it but rather that they don?t want to and that lying to and withholding information from their customers is part of their corporate policy.

I even tested it once. I deliberately tried to draw out more money than I had and it didn?t let me. Although I am not sure what it will do with a direct debit. I?m not really willing to test that one.

[mockney piers]

I took me about 6 months to get my credit card cancelled as I didn't want it anymore. Everytime I tried they'd send me a new one with another one or two grand on the limit. I think it was about 20 grand limit when they finally agreed to kill the account.

[blinder999]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Must be nice in that ivory tower there Quids.

I also have never paid a bank charge in my life, as I have always stuck to pre-arranged lending limits. I do not think pointing this out means I'm in an ivory tower.

I think they're right to have punitive charges in place - discouraging people from borrowing more than has been agreed is a good idea. It certainly makes me very careful about what I spend.

If the banks are no longer allowed to profit from these charges, I think it's a fair assumption they will try and make up the money elsewhere - by charging us all for other services.

[Brendan]

How about just NOT LETTING PEOPLE BORROW MORE THAN THEY HAVE AGREED?!?!?!?! Instead of trying to profit by taking money from people because they don?t have money. Can you not see the problem with that concept?

I have not been a victim of their scams either but it doesn?t mean I have to agree with them.

[blinder999]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How about just NOT LETTING PEOPLE BORROW MORE THAN

> THEY HAVE AGREED?!?!?!?! Instead of trying to

> profit by taking money from people because they

> don?t have money. Can you not see the problem with

> that concept?

I am much happier with the system as it is, because, if (for whatever reason) my salary didn't end up in my account one month, I wouldn't end up defaulting on my mortgage. No need to shout by the way.

[Keef]

I know people shouldn't go over their limit if they can help it, and should take responsibility for themselves, but as Brendan says, the banks could make it impossible for people to go over limits, then they still get the interst from the overdrafts, but they are behaving in a morally correct way.

Just heard on the news that someone has posed as the chairman of Barclays, and drawn ?10k from his account!!! Good on ya fella!!! >:D<

[Brendan]

blinder999 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am much happier with the system as it is,

> because, if (for whatever reason) my salary didn't

> end up in my account one month, I wouldn't end up

> defaulting on my mortgage. No need to shout by the

> way.

Well then why don?t you just have an agreed overdraft for such eventualities?

I do

[Brendan]

Interesting reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jan/10/bankcharges.banks

[Ultraconsultancy]

Brendan I think I'm right in saying the banks can freeze pending claims as some of the earlier refusals have ended up in court, so everyone is waiting for a precedential judgement. So you can still lodge a claim, but the banks can reasonably put it in pending until those initial cases are settled. again I'd say subscribe to Martin Lewis's MSE to keep up to date.

Has anyone had success with similar reclaims on small business current accounts?

uc

[blinder999]

> Well then why don?t you just have an agreed overdraft for such eventualities?

Of course I have an agreed overdraft. I use it most months. But if my salary didn't go in, it's possible that I would exceed my agreed overdraft.