Banks & Charges

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6918140.stm

So, opinions? Thoughts?

Personally, if you go overdrawn, you should be charged. I would stop charges because of charges, but nothing else.

Hearing of people getting thousands upon thousands back is disgusting IMHO.

If the banks lose the case the honest and regular savers will lose more, the lost revenue passed on in standard bank charges, surely, now to be introduced. I think a tenner is fair if you are late with your payment by a week or more.[url][/url]

Ziggy! wrote:

If the banks lose the honest and regular savers will lose more, the lost revenue passed on in standard bank charges, surely, now to be introduced. I think a tenner is fair if you are late with your payment by a week or more.[url][/url]

It won't affect savers.

We will see the end of free money transmission accounts though. It happend with credit cards (charges reduced to £12 max, so balance transfer fee's brought in).

And a tenner? That aint gonna happen.

WEll it had to happen....

I agree about individual responsibility and if you go overdrawn you should be charged, but it gets ridiculous when you are charged several times for one small slip up...(I got hit with over £128) once for having exceeded my overdraft by about £15) despite having several savings accounts and all my life savings with the same bank so I could have moved £15 with three mouse clicks! Banks have to modernise too and understand their customers! Even a warning text or sms would have been something...not three letters or whatever.

(I got that back!)

I have no problem if I exceed my OD limit and am charged a £5 or something. But to be charged the amounts we are is where customers are, quite rightly, revolting.

I dissagree.

People being careless and effectively using money that is the banks - not their own - is wrong.

Where will everyone revolt to when as standard, it costs about a tenner a month to HAVE an account?

In some countries, people are charged per transaction they do. Why should people who can control their spending be punished?

helencbradshaw wrote:

I have no problem if I exceed my OD limit and am charged a £5 or something.

Actually, this helps the point. You don't mind that amount IF you go overdrawn. I think people SHOULD 'mind' the amount they are charges, as it is less likely to make them do it again. And, you got the charge back because it was a slip up and you have a good relationship with the bank.

Why is that wrong?

Because it isn't very good Customer Experience Management; because it was Stressful, Because I could not afford to pay £128 for a little human error (it wasnt like I was living outwith my means, when I could see your point would be valid - I HAD the money and a whole lot more in another account with the same bank!!!)

I got it back but had to sign my life away...because of all these claims. I am staggered at the amount people have claimed back to be honest...hard to imagine charges can get so high. I don't mind if I am charged a fiver as I can afford a fiver or whatever, as I can afford a fiver as punishment for my own error in not checking my bank often enough and moving funds over. (Plus I would be charged interest too....)

I would have preferred it if the bank would have looked at the total value of me to them (I have been with them in one way or another for 32 years!!) Got mortgage (for the sixth time), got savings in several accounts, got two decent incomes going in every month...I would have thought customers like me who haven't moved for 32 years might be worth their weight in gold. Cheaper than getting a new one and all that. I know that bank can see all accounts linked but despite banks moving forward leaps and bounds with technology, their practices are still in the dark ages at times.

(that situation happened when I was in the middle of major house refurbs and we had cheques going out left right and centre, and my hubby posted one but hadnt told me..! I had put something like £30K through my current account in the previous few months paying bills to builders...so to only be £15 quid short wasn't terrible project management on my part either!!!) Which is why I wouldn't have minded a reasonable charge, for my incompetence but £128 was pushing it!


I don't expect everything for free, I dont expect the bank should have to suffer the financial consequences of me going overdrawn, and I shouldn't. But I do expect those charges to be reasonable. £15 doesn't equal £128...

If you slip into debit and get charged a £115 it certainly isnt fair. What are you on about. These charges are designed to steal money, not make the debtor pay on time. Thats whay they are in court. If your mobile phone payment or utility bill is late you get a red letter, not an immediate a £30 fine. Its the bank that authorizes the ove rpayment when you go in debt. Why do you think they do that? This is fraud guys.

I don't disagree with you Helen.

But that is a different issue. And for the record, the bank I am with has what the call a 'pencil limit' of £50 where they don't charge fee's for going overdrawn untill AFTER the customer is £50 over, which would have solved your problem.

Yes, banks could do better with customers, and a lot of them are now embracing CRM models which WILL mean customers getting a better experience.

However, I do see that as a seperate issue.

drewboy wrote:

But that is a different issue. And for the record, the bank I am with has what the call a 'pencil limit' of £50 where they don't charge fee's for going overdrawn untill AFTER the customer is £50 over, which would have solved your problem.

Are you trying to sell to me

drewboy wrote:

Yes, banks could do better with customers, and a lot of them are now embracing CRM models which WILL mean customers getting a better experience.

However, I do see that as a seperate issue.

Unfortunately customers don't. They see it as integral to the issue.

I understand banks have to make money from customers, and I think that in this country we are very fortunate with free banking etc...but perhaps that is the problem, and indeed it would be fairer for everyone to pay a small monthly fee, rather than the few that didnt/cannot/won't manage their outgoings paying enormous fees, which put the majority in an even worse position

Well I don't see why the majority should have to pay for the minorities inability to manage their money.

And I can see people caring less about going overdrawn, making consumer spending go up. ergo, inflation and rate rises (more of)!!!

Seriously though, my mate has ME, can't work and survives on incapacity benefit. She manages her money and doesn't get charges and she lives on a TINY income.

Oh, and Phil, re your phone comment? The mobile company would cut you off, and STILL charge the line rental. How is that different?

In my opinion it is reasonable and fair that banks charge for customers going past their overdraft limit. I have no problem with that principle whatsoever.

However the amounts they charge are clearly extortionate. I got charged about £120+ once for going £7 past my limit. My fine equated to my overdraft amount being multiplied seventeen times. Thats hardly customer care, especially if that customer has gone over limit because they are on a tight budget which was my case.

Whilst were on the subject of banks, why do we have to pay to withdraw money from cash points ? Sometimes up to £3. Banks rip customers off at every opportunity. Its about time the office of fair trading came down on them.

yep..its the amount of the fees that most have a problem with, clearly there is overdraft interest etc...which is fair enough (well assuming the rate itself isnt off the chart)

I hate taking money from cashpoints that charge. Drives me to destraction. I also have this peculiar logic that as I am being charged, I will take more than I woul have done normally.. to help soften the blow! Completely illogical I know!

Not sure how they work from the business perspective though...is it the owner of the site where the machine is that gets the fee, not the bank


anyway, enjoyed debating this morning, but I suppose I better go off to work...!

WormThatTurned wrote:

Whilst were on the subject of banks, why do we have to pay to withdraw money from cash points ? Sometimes up to £3. Banks rip customers off at every opportunity. Its about time the office of fair trading came down on them.

Because they are most likely independant machines. All banks are charged to use the ATM network, independent machines probably more so due to economies of scale. I am actually actively encouraged by my work to use our own machines so as to save money.

I dont use them but as I understand it, the government are looking into ATM fees. Mind due I must have heard that a year ago.

ATM fee's are just one of the fee's that we don't pay for at the moment which could easily be brought in. That, and direct debit, standing orders, withdrawels, depaosits, transfers etc etc.

These things all cost banks money. High street banking is NOT a profitable industry.

People are stupid.

If they are not able to charge for those who cost the most in administration then they will find other ways to raise income. First Direct already have criteria to avoid paying a monthly charge, you either have to have a certain amount go into the account or a second banking relationship with them, it is the second banking relationship that makes them the incme. Out of date by a few years but the bank I used to work for said a standard cheque account cost them £76 a year to operate and that was one that incurred no charges at all so it is not profitable on its own, it is the cross sales that generate the income.

Think me and Drew have been over this before! I agree the banks should charge for customers going overdrawn. What I do not agree with is extortionate charging without capping and often without warning.

No call or contact from the banks about the charges often occurs too which leads to further charges and makes it difficult for people to stay "in credit". I would like to see banks apply a "three strikes and your out" type policy to their customers. The were tis a genuine mistake or overdrawal due to say, an unexpected cheque clearance (I have know companies take money early and late leading to such difficulties banks could "warn" customers before taking action.

I know my bank does this with my credit card account (I get an automated call to give me so many days to pay an amount to remain in credit and avoid charges).

The banks make a mint investing customers money, dont worry about that !!

dididave wrote:

Think me and Drew have been over this before! I agree the banks should charge for customers going overdrawn. What I do not agree with is extortionate charging without capping and often without warning.

Most likely!!

Quote :

No call or contact from the banks about the charges often occurs too which leads to further charges and makes it difficult for people to stay "in credit". I would like to see banks apply a "three strikes and your out" type policy to their customers. The were tis a genuine mistake or overdrawal due to say, an unexpected cheque clearance (I have know companies take money early and late leading to such difficulties banks could "warn" customers before taking action.

But we do have things in place for that. Mainly, the direct debit guarantee. If someone using DD takes money out before they are supposed to, it has to be put back right away, and they are liable for the charges.

drewboy wrote:

dididave wrote:

Think me and Drew have been over this before! I agree the banks should charge for customers going overdrawn. What I do not agree with is extortionate charging without capping and often without warning.

Most likely!!

Quote :

No call or contact from the banks about the charges often occurs too which leads to further charges and makes it difficult for people to stay "in credit". I would like to see banks apply a "three strikes and your out" type policy to their customers. The were tis a genuine mistake or overdrawal due to say, an unexpected cheque clearance (I have know companies take money early and late leading to such difficulties banks could "warn" customers before taking action.

But we do have things in place for that. Mainly, the direct debit guarantee. If someone using DD takes money out before they are supposed to, it has to be put back right away, and they are liable for the charges.

Maybe you do in some instances, but obviously not all if it still happens. I know that cheques are becoming a rare thing but surely banks should do more to contact customers before taking what can be seen as aggressive actions.

The fact the banks are going to be able to get away with it with todays ruling is all the evidence you need this is state sponsored fraud.

How can it be fraud? Even if they put the charges up to £100, you can avoid them by, erm, managing your money?

I got charged £100 not long since because for some reason my maternity allowance was paid a month late, but I just called the bank and they reduced the charge to £30, which I was fine with.

P.S- Plipplop please start posting more, that bloke is H.O.T