bank charges

[Brendan]

Ultraconsultancy I'm not claiming anything from my bank. I'm just being vocal about my moral objections to the exploitative practices of the money-grubbing fascists.

Just noticed the article when I was reading the news today and thought it may be of interest.

[Brendan]

Blinder, then your original argument about being responsible about the amount of money you have available applies. Why not ensure that your agreed overdraft is there and sufficient to cover any such emergencies?

[blinder999]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Blinder, then your original argument about being

> responsible about the amount of money you have

> available applies. Why not ensure that your agreed

> overdraft is there and sufficient to cover any

> such emergencies?

I've been ok for the last twenty years, so this is not something that keeps me awake at night. All I'm saying is, that if in the event of something financially calamitous occurring, I'm happy that I'd be able to cover it, and worry about the charges afterwards.

My overdraft limit is in fact too high I think - it's tempting to live beyond my means (sadly, the Panasonic breadmaker will have to wait).

[mockney piers]

If you've never done so Blinder then that's very prudent of you and I applaud. The ivory tower reference was due to quid's heavy implication that noone else ever need incur a charge regardless of one's own prudence. It was that that riled.

As 20% of the nation hasn't enough to live on and 5 million are on the breadline, then I thought it a rather arrogant tone to take.

Plus I struggled badly my first few years in London and was sometimes hit by unexpected costs that forced me to soak up a charge from the bank to avoid harsher penalties elsewhere.

I always swore during those times that I'd never forget them no matter how comfortable life became later. I stand by that.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Peckhamboy - I didn't say the charges are illegal, I said the banks have no legal right to levy punitive charges, they can only recover the money they have lost.

That is what the legal argument is about. The banks have to prove that they lose ?30 - ?50 (or whatever they charge) in administrative and other costs, when you go overdrawn, bounce a cheque, fail to have funds to cover a payment etc. They are unlikely to be able to prove this as it costs them nowhere near that amount, so the court may have to decide what is a fair charge.

Anything they charge extra to their costs is a punitive charge and is not legally allowed.

[Keef]

I've worked for a bank, and believe me, ?30-?50 was not a fair reflection of what they were paying me for my administrative work!!!

[????]

Mr Micawber got it right. Nowadays people take no personal responsibility for the shite their own actions get them in...

Brendan, if you want to call me a dick and a **** stop being a keyboard warrior send me a message and I'll give you my address and you can come and tell me to my face .....happy to be disagreed with for not towing the predictable line but not insulted......

[martin]

observer money has good piece today about court case.

will take barclays on either way.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hope Lizzy is reading this as I'm going to disagree with "the gang" and agree with ????'s basic point

Firstly however, I want to agree with the general point about bank's avarice, unhelpfulness and general f***wittery, be it overt or underhand - and the millions of poor that Mockney refers to ARE exploited and anythingelse I say is not a defence of banking practice

I also speak as someone who has an appalling record with money - my first salary when I arrived in England was 2,700 quid a year and although much improved my habits haven't. Basically, I spent more than I earn habitually - this is no-one's fault but my own and I mention it only to say that I believe a large percentage of us in this country do the exact same. So I would separate the argument about exploitation of the poor AND the general mismanagement of money (for now.... but let's return to the poor argument later)

Keef's dentist story sent shivers down my spine because I have done the exact same many, many times. But it is only in the last year I have realised that most of this is my own fault. When I don't have dental bills, or when I don't have rent arrears or when I don't have vet bills... have I ever used the slack to put money aside for a rainy day? Nope...

with all the posters on here who have told of arguments with the bank to limit overdrafts and cards etc - it suggests that other people have cottoned on to this fact long before me and validated ????'s point. We know we are weak and we know who will profit from that weakness... that doesn't excuse our own rage when we, once again, do something we know we shouldn't

As for 5 million on the breadline - we should be arguing about how to solve that problem more generally - not just how the banks exploit them. Many of those people are in full-time jobs. Many of them are in multiple jobs. How can we reward people like this so they have a figting chance against the banks?

[Brendan]

???? - I did not insult you for airing your opinion. I have no problem with that or with your opinion. I insulted you because you came on and were intentionally insulting and patronising towards other people who are struggling with a financial problem. Being gleefully smug and self satisfied because of other peoples oh so deserved misery is neither big nor clever.

What type of reaction did you expect after a post like that?

I?ve PMed you.

[????]

What's so insulting about my post? The reaction I expect back is some counterargument as many who have disagreed with me have done . Being called a 8!%* and then a 'dick' does make you look insulting compared to them...er, and it's not 'big or clever'. Me patronising! You seem to like being Forum Sherrif on behalf of all 'those who are struggling with a financial problem' - were you voted inarticulate and insulting spokesman on their behalf or are you just taking on that roll in a rather patronising 'sticking up for the poor dears' manner?

PMd you too

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh dear - and to think I have to sit on the same side as ???? after that post

I don't even know what

"You seem to like being Forum Sherrif on behalf of all 'those who are struggling with a financial problem' - were you voted inarticulate and insulting spokesman on their behalf or are you just taking on that roll in a rather patronising 'sticking up for the poor dears' manner?"

means...

I mean, I GET that "Forum Sherrif" is meant to be some kind of put down - but why you want to put down someone who makes legitimate post about poverty and the situation that millions of people are in I'm not sure

Then we have "inarticulate" - can we have a show of hands please for everyone who thinks Brendan (i had mistakenly thought it was aimed at Mockney Piers) is inarticulate..... I'll wait..... still waiting.... oops, no just you ????

calling someone patronising mere pixels before the phrase 'sticking up for the poor dears' redefines irony

???? - I agree with your original and basic point that for many people, bank charges are avoidable - beyond that however...

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

????, you may have the ethical/moral highground but we are all fallible. Don't be harsh on Brendan, he merely has compassion.

Yes, you and Sean are right, it is our fault, we cocked up. We are merely trying to claw back something from the odious banks who clobber us left, right and centre and make life that little bit more punitive.

Perhaps you could share the righteousness and help those of us who are not so good at sticking to a budget.

[????]

Er, I was talking to Brandon

[????]

Right, can I clarify,

My post was addressing Brendan - who, trawl back up, first post just called me a "*$$X".

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

???? - Why are you being rude to Peckhmgatecrasher? Or are you just trying to have a go at everyone cos you're pissed off at Brendan?

[SeanMacGabhann]

then talk to Brendan and don't post on a public thread?

And spell his name right?

and why am I doing that Australian thing?

*deep breath*

I suspect there is more common ground here than this argument is allowing - people have adopted a b&W stance and made things personal - as soon as we cool off it'll all be fine

[????]

Sean - you didn't read my post properly, read it again slowly (that is patronising) and my point about the 'poor old dears' was in ICs.......er, that's ironic.....WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSh. I do give in.....the sincerity and worthiness of it all

[????]

And now the sensitivity...... why is "er, I was talking to Brendan" insulting??????

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Hold on to that sensitive side - breathe deeply - share the love.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

or the dough!

[SeanMacGabhann]

????

Fair dues in some respects but where does the

why is "er, I was talking to Brendan" insulting??????

come from. Who said it was insulting? T'was only because you felt the need to post it to those of us not christened Brendan that I picked up on it

and the IC's COULD be construed as easily as patronising - but I see where you were going

Like I say - I think there is less disagreement than has become seemingly apparent

I agree with PGC - let;s all feel the love

[????]

Sean - this is a forum not a democracy, sorry for not being 'on side'. Read the post properly before jumping in next time eh?

[????]

Love and peace all i'm off to bed

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Sweet dreams!