Banks & Charges

Seriously, read the rest of the thread cause I am getting sick of repeating myself here....

There are charges over and above the 'pushing a button' cost you mention. If you worked in a bank and didn't knwo this, then your boss did a terrible job at telling you how things work. No, it isnt £35, but its not as low as some suggest - by a long shot. It just depends what you do and don't add in.

£1.3billion is PEANUTS to a bank.

And I think I remember the program you refered to - it was seriously biased and sensationalist. The woman you refer to having, found out afterwords, to have been a disgrunted employee. I have worked for three banks and not once have I EVER been told to target low earners.

In fact, I am currently working on a marketing campaign where it is exactly the oppoiste. My bank has also dropped that kind of demographic and are going much more into generational marketing - nowt to do with how much someone earns, but what life stage they are at. I take offense at the fact that it is put forward that in my job, I target people who cannot afford what we give them, cause I can assure you I don't.

Quote :

There probably are a lot of people who issue cheques knowing there are insufficient funds to cover it...but we live in a society where debt is a huge problem..mainly because the money lenders/Banks have made it all too easy for people who should not be allowed to borrow money, have it..and there the ones they like best..the ones who they get their yearly profit sharing from!

There is no 'probably' about it. None at all. The vast majority of charges that happen are because of this. To blame society for that is the easy way out of admitting people just don't have self control.

And no, banks need deposits to make their real money. Low earners don't get big overdrafts, or big loans, they get basic bank accounts that have very few features. If the banks can be accused of anything, its trying to get RID of people like that. At the very least, they are restricting them to call centres and online cause thats the cheapest way to service them. The are NOT where profit share comes from.

freaklikeme wrote:

And i still dont believe it costs £35 to return a BACS payment or any other payment for that matter..well...obviously it doesnt..because otherwise all these people wouldnt be able to claim their money back would they?!

£5 tops according to a financial expert in my paper the other day "and thats being generous" and thats where these charges stop becoming damages and start becoming penalties and that is the crux of the matter.

Thats rubbish. What makes this guy an expert? It sells more papers and makes a much better headline to say that. What paper was it?

I fully believe it to be higher than that, and damn right it's a penalty. I can still see no reason why there shouldn't be one.

Quote :

Moneysupermarket.com has warned that bank customers
could be charged £300 a year under a payas-
you-go system. The financial website said people
could be charged an average of 32.9p for every direct
debit and 34.2p for standing orders. Withdrawing
money could cost 23.9p, while customers could also
be expect to pay a monthly banking charge of £4.13

Taken from the weekley competitors intelligence report I get at work.

WormThatTurned wrote:

£5 tops according to a financial expert in my paper the other day "and thats being generous" and thats where these charges stop becoming damages and start becoming penalties and that is the crux of the matter.

£5 is too low. Sorry. I've process mapped things like this and the number of touches mean that £5 wouldn't cover it. I would seriously question the credentials of that financial expert.

freaklikeme wrote:

Sorry Plipplop but...Bull to most of it...Council Tax is a bill..like your electricity, water rates and gas and so on...if you choose to live in area that charges you £2000 per year then on your head be it..there is nothing unfair about that..

Not true. I can choose how much electricity, water and gas I use - I can economise or be frugal about what I do to limit the bill. With council tax I have no say.

freaklikeme wrote:

As for stealing..piffle..How can you steal your own money..which in effect it is..because the minute you credit your account the monies you owe are taken straight back...from your own pocket.

OK. Let's look at the definition of theft. Dictionary.com says:

"the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another"

When you take the money, it's not yours. You don't have permission to take it. Ergo, it's theft. You can get all emotional and indignant about it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

freaklikeme wrote:

And you CANNOT justify charges just by telling people at the outset what you charge!!..to justify means to be just and right , to justify something as necessary, to be reasonable and provide proof..and we all know that the end does not always justify the means

OK - justify might be the wrong word. But nobody is being misled. The fees are stated in black and white. You make a personal choice whether to incur them or not.

And for the record, when my bank makes a mistake I get an apologetic goodwill payment (usually £50.) So for customers who manage their accounts properly, it can work both ways.

freaklikeme wrote:

As for likening people who have cheques bounce on them to shoplifters..for gods sake!!

See previous definition of theft. It's an old-fashioned premise but I like to know I have enough money in my account before I write a cheque.

I love the emotional outburst at this one too. Everyone accuses the banks of being thieves and rip-off merchants. I reckon they should do the same in return.

freaklikeme wrote:

There probably are a lot of people who issue cheques knowing there are insufficient funds to cover it...but we live in a society where debt is a huge problem..mainly because the money lenders/Banks have made it all too easy for people who should not be allowed to borrow money, have it..and there the ones they like best..the ones who they get their yearly profit sharing from!

Oh, I knew it would be the banks' fault again.

What happened to people taking accountability for their own actions?

drewboy wrote:

Seriously, read the rest of the thread cause I am getting sick of repeating myself here....

Just because you keep repeating yourself..doesnt mean you are right!

I worked in the Bank when everything was branched based..i saw the job through from beginning to end..and i know how much time went into it..15 minutes max..letters are pre stored on the computer..enter a customer address and the returned items details and print it and post it..grab a few forms enter some details on it and process it through the computer system..at a later date when computers were introduced there was no form writing..you literally looked down a stop list every morning..and yes..PRESSED A BUTTON to return the item..all linked directly to the customers account..item was reversed instantly and the letter was issued from a central postal department..a letter to the claimant of the money was generated and that was it..nothing more..So dont tell me that nowadays it takes longer..not in this world of technology..

Im sorry..i dont mean to sound rude about all this...but we all have our own humble opinions..and obviously we wont all agree..but if the Banks acutally sat down and broke down the process of returning an item i cant possible see how they can come to an figure of £35 or more for returning an item unpaid

Again, you are missing the charges from the BACS system. You might have done the job in the branch, but even back then there were central processing departments responsible for what happened WHEN you pressed that button. More that you are not taking into account.

And again, I have said that it wouldn't come to £35. I know that. However I fail to see why banks shouldn't be allowed to charge punitive charges for people abusing their facilities. With emphasis on abusing.

Can you imagine what will happen to people who rack up the current charged caring EVEN LESS and then just writing checks willy nilly?

This is one case where consumer groups (glorified which hunters half the time) are really going to make things worse.

I appreciate what you are saying Drew..

Like any other discussion..its each to his own personal view..and i fully comprehend a lot of what you are saying.

Dont want anyone to think im argumentative...LOL

Just love a damn good debate

xx

drewboy wrote:

Thats rubbish. What makes this guy an expert? It sells more papers and makes a much better headline to say that. What paper was it?

I fully believe it to be higher than that, and damn right it's a penalty. I can still see no reason why there shouldn't be one.

It was the financial expert bloke from the Scotsman paper, cant remember his name.

Look, Since there's no way it can cost a bank £35 pounds to send an automated letter, that charge is patently unfair. In fact, in the eyes of the law, many UK bank charges are penalty charges instead of contractual damages. And penalty clauses, by law, must not exceed the cost of the breach. That fine point of law means that most bank penalty charges are not legally enforceable and can be challenged by the consumer which is what has been happening and why the OFT have got involved. Personally I feel if banks reduced the charge to something closer to £12 - £15 I dont think anyone would complain and this whole thing would go away.

For the last time, it is not just a letter. No, it will not be as high as £35, but it is NOT JUST A LETTER.

I got a letter through from my bank, they are now calling the fee to go into an unauthorised overdraft an "Instant Overdraft Arrangement Fee" and charging the same amount.

drewboy wrote:

For the last time, it is not just a letter. No, it will not be as high as £35, but it is NOT JUST A LETTER.

I got a letter through from my bank, they are now calling the fee to go into an unauthorised overdraft an "Instant Overdraft Arrangement Fee" and charging the same amount.

Lol...have you gone purple in the face mate ??

Dont have a heart attack on my account...

An "Instant Overdraft Arrangement Fee"..sounds interesting..so does that mean you can go overdrawn by issuing an unspecified number of cheques/direct debits..and only get the one above mentioned charge?? or are they charging this fee and then a fee for each individual item that has taken you into an unauthorised overdraft.??

Its all fees..fees...fees..

There like these bloody speed cameras..popping up everywhere..so someone can make a quick buck!!

drewboy wrote:

For the last time, it is not just a letter. No, it will not be as high as £35, but it is NOT JUST A LETTER.

I got a letter through from my bank, they are now calling the fee to go into an unauthorised overdraft an "Instant Overdraft Arrangement Fee" and charging the same amount.

Go on the Drew, what actually does it entail mate?

drewboy wrote:

For the last time.

You said that last night

WormThatTurned wrote:

drewboy wrote:

For the last time.

You said that last night

I think its me that keeps making him say it....

I can't say what it actually entails down to the last penny, I know I can't.

I do know that it entails more than just a letter!!!!! The banks ALL have to pay to use the bacs system and if something is bounced, they have to pay the initial fee, then the fee to bounce it, then to re-present it. Then the company that had it bounced will go for it again etc etc. Then, the cost of having a debt management department has to come from somewhere, paying for people to man the phones when people phone about them (for the umpteenth time - its recorded that they have been told what they will be charged). This will not be as much as £35, I know that too.

Regardless, my point has always been that the fee's/charges/whatever they are called, are fair because people are told up front and have the chance NOT to encure them.

No one so far has offered a decent reason why people should be allowed to get away with continually abusing someone elses money. (well, not without blaming society for it, which doesn;t wash with me).

As is PLAINLY obvious, this issue really, really bugs me.

drewboy wrote:

I do know that it entails more than just a letter!!!!!

Drew hun...let it go!! LOL

drewboy wrote:

No one so far has offered a decent reason why people should be allowed to get away with continually abusing someone elses money. (well, not without blaming society for it, which doesn;t wash with me).

And they won't because they can't.

the issue has been covered....it is down to fair contract terms, which is covered in law.

I agree...people sign an agreement with a bank and they need to uphold their end of the bargain..

but, when contracts are breached..the injured party can claim costs or actual losses, and that is the basis of the dispute. contracts still have to be "fair" and appropriate...charging on charges and charging interest on charges is not fair! Charging interest most certainly is.

I dont think society is to blame, i dont think we can blame our "debt culture" etc...nor do I think individuals can abuse "someone elses" money...(albeit banks actually get more money when we do "abuse" it...if you think about it..thats loans for you!) BUT I do think that getting a £35 letter, and a £30 charge, AND extortionate interest for missing a £15 DD is taking the proverbial somewhat. Indeed this could by why so many cases are settled, as the banks definitely didnt want to go to court for a while at least.

Do I think the consumer will win ultimately and banking will become cheaper? NO, we will be paying for banking in different ways. But I dont agree with the current charging system one bit (and I havent just reclaimed £6K either...!)

echoing many of my sentiments there Helen

helencbradshaw wrote:

the issue has been covered....it is down to fair contract terms, which is covered in law.

For me, that's not true. I would challenge what the law is saying. I think banks SHOULD be able to charge £35 a piece.

We have a standoff

Just like the banks vs OFT I guess !!

I the banks can prove that they have lost £35 as a direct result of me going £15 overdrawn...that would be fair and covered in law already.


If they can't....well....here we are!

You got that back Helen, so sorry, not a fair example!