Banks & Charges

drewboy wrote:

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

I was speaking hypothetically...as in an Unfair contract terms point of view.

However, if the bank has to pay your salary for half an hour to reprimand me on my £15 oversight not covered with my offshore fund, then I can see how it gets so high....

Hypothetically, you should have been more carefull

Hypothetically..I have better things to do...than be careful!!! Not all the time anyway.

Hypothetically...I would like a bank that would realise I had £15.01p in my life savings account and would swipe it across for me..at the flick of this "switch" that all banks have.....as I had technically banked with them since I was about 6 and a half!!!

Hypothetically...I would have said, dear bank manager, I had the money ...honest....but I spent it all debating important matters over too many glasses of Sauvignon with Drewboy...! And I do get paid next week.

Hypothetically, I would get one of those clever modern accounts...all in one pot..but then you have to train the other half about incomings versus outgoings being in balance....and its easier to be fined than attempt that discussion in this house..!

helencbradshaw wrote:

Hypothetically...I would have said, dear bank manager, I had the money ...honest....but I spent it all debating important matters over too many glasses of Sauvignon with Drewboy...! And I do get paid next week.

Oh, so now it's my fault!!!!!

But yeah, an all in one account (with the mortgage) is SO the way to go. But that is a whole other discussion!

(p.s - my bank would let you away with £15)

mine did too....eventually..!

I wouldn't. Sort yourself out woman!

I am glad YOU are not my banker!!

Not sure where you work these days but all my utilities etc are paid on time...

helencbradshaw wrote:

I am glad YOU are not my banker!!

Not sure where you work these days but all my utilities etc are paid on time...

I work for myself these days so it's unlikely you'd owe me anything!

Thank god for that!

Drew seen as you work in banking can you tell me why bank base rates differ from the Bank of England base rate. I genuinely dont know and would be interested to find out !!

Depend which bank rate you are referring to.

The base rate is the rate at which the Bank of England set to lend money to the bank (ie, the wholesale cost of lending). If a bank only charges base rate to a customer, they effectively make no money. If they charge less, they make a loss.

Therefore, the difference in the rate a bank charges from the base rate, is gross profit on that mortgage.

(apologies if this doesnt make sense, been drinking for like 13 hours!)

Just out of interest Drew...and dont jump down my throat here..

If you didnt work for the Bank..would you still believe that these Bank charges were fair??. when you have to justify something to customers day in day out you can be brainwashed into believing that what you are telling them is right!..not saying that you have of course

I know when i worked for the Bank..that staff were exempt from charges and the interest rates we paid were no where near what the customers paid.. and we were not supposed to let our accounts go overdrawn but even if we did we were not charged..not sure if that is still the case..

I can see why you think that, but I havent worked in customer service since 2001, and only for a very short time. As an mortgage advisor, I had to justify why I was lending money to customers and if they had charges, they were not likely to get past me in all honesty. If they can't manage their accounts, and pay their bills on time, why should I lend them more money? That was actual bank policy (still is, and is the same in every bank I have worked for).

So, if you think about it, why would a bank deliberately target people to charge them, if it would mean those customers would not pass their own underwriting criteria for additional products? Kind of biting the hand that feed's you if you ask me.

Staff at my old work, and my current one are NOT exempt from charges but we do get preferential rates (not unauthorised overdrafts rates however) and in fact, can be penalised much harder - ie lose of job.

If, when I was a mortgage advisor, I had been charged for abusing my bank account, I would have been subject to a job review as they see it as "if you can't control your finances, how can you advice others on theirs?" - which I actually agree with. Being regulated by the FSA and on their register, I could be subject to fines for lending decisions made while not being able to conduct my own accounts properly.

Even now, if I get a charge, my line manager can be informed about it and I can get questioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6987110.stm

Not only a good thing but this will probably initiate a spate of reduced charges statements from other banks. Wonder if this is in anticipation of any impending outcome of the test case ? Also does it mean 'the end of free banking' claim was a red herring ?

good enough for me.

Its my bank too.

Got a £145 refund today from my old mortgage company Bristol and West - overcharging on exit fees. Ive done my bit

Could you write my letters, I have paid off a mortgage or two in the last six years..keep meaning to check this out

So the test case went against the banks. Lisa will be happy as shes got a claim in for £1200

It will be interesting to see how they then respond, I personally fear the idea of free banking for those who maintain salary credits and do not go overdrawn may go for a while.

As ever the poorest people will be the ones to suffer

It actually went both ways. And was not a judgement on the fairness of the charges, just the the OFT can now investigate it.

The judge also ruled that bank T&C's are fair and not missleading, which is a significant win for the banks.

All claims are still on hold.

drewboy wrote:

It actually went both ways. And was not a judgement on the fairness of the charges, just the the OFT can now investigate it.

The judge also ruled that bank T&C's are fair and not missleading, which is a significant win for the banks.

All claims are still on hold.

Didnt the OFT bring about the case in the first place ?

They were fighting for the right to look into it. That's what the case was about. Not about the charges themselves.

Yes, they won that right, but not as far reaching as they wanted to.

This is only that start of a long process which, once again, the dam ned media is not reporting correctly.

It seems inevitable now though, given that it was the OFT that took the banks to court, that these charges are deemed 'unfair' ??

I agree the whole process will drag on though.