MPs must make next move on bank charges

1

kenp said

No point for the MPs to make a move, most of them are shareholders in the banks, and the thought of them loosing money must be causing them sleepless nights.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

Kevinmhogben said

It was not really a surprise, the banks have demonstrated that they are above the law already.

The financial Crisis showed fraudent use of clients funds, by setting up a system where the banks needed no cover for teking loans on invisable projects.

The Fraudent way in which the banks manipulate funds when transfering monies from one account to another, the lies told to customers... "Money only transfers on Working days" What the computer turs off at a weekend and suspends activities? If these are not working days why do bank call centres insist on ringing at weekends. Does money in countries where the weekend is Friday / Saturday then move money on when Sunday arrives and to where when Saturday / Sunday is a weekend elswhere.....

The banks were told to move our money more quickly and this is largely ignored, sometimes funds are missing for over 10 days with loss of interest to the party that pushed the button, "Transfer Funds immediately" What does that really mean?

Then we hear that the banks intend to remove the facility of the Check, why becaues the individual's signature counts for nothing, the banks do not see a supplier customer relationship, no other single business works this way it is ethically wrong and in terms of a trading organisation completely without control.

Now they see the office of fair trading can not touch them we have a bleak period ahead......confidence in money, not worth the paper it is written on!

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

maxstar said

I put in a claim well before the ruling, and have received a letter from my bank saying that unless I say otherwise within 8 weeks, the complaint is considered as resolved. At the time of me writing the letter, I was in financial difficulty, which has been partially resolved so it looks as if I am alright, when in fact I'm making lower payments over a longer period of time. I do not think the complaint has been resolved, and I'm reluctant to wait for the FSA to make a statement as this may 'cunningly' be just within the 8 weeks when my response period would have expired. Any advice?

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

1

charliemartin said

It seems the banks have no regard for anyone anymore, we can't just let them continue their relentless attack on the poorest in society.

Please join the Facebook FlashProtest, MPs and the courts won't do anything...so it is down to the people....

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=186212372973

Please pass it on and invite as many people as you can.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

65

MrRee said

Personally, I am very pleased that those who cannot manage their money pay for their services!

That is the way I get FREE Banking, CashBack Credit Cards and other generous rewards for being able to add and subtract!

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

excellent news , people should try harder to manage their money ( cut down on fags , booze , flatscreen tv , sky sports etc etc ) , why should people who are careful and only spend what they have should not have to subsidise those who can't be bothered

It may sound harsh but if you break the rules you pay

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

2

ame said

Mr Ree and Herman,

All I have to say is how ignorant and conceited you both are! Talk about selfish and bury your head in the sand. You clearly have never made a mistake in your life, or had any incidents that have been unfortunate and messed up your life for you despite your best efforts. have you considered that there are people out there that are very capable of managing their money but have had things happen beyond their control? Would you like to have to 'pay for a service' of being shafted by someone there to offer a service whilst making money for doing that? This is why we have regulatory bodies you dumb asses! This is why thousands of people have been left in a recession you ignoramuses. As for the comment of 'those who cannot be bothered', my suggestion is that you do some research, speak to the volunteers at the CAB for example before you go commenting and tarring everyone with the same brush. If we were going to do that perhaps you coule crawl back under your self righteous stone and wait for something unexpected to shaft you (as it will as some point in your life) and then see how you like it when someone blames you for whatever it is that you had no control over.

Rant over. Point made.

Should you have to pay if you dont break the rules? There are plenty of people forced to who are not protected by laws, or even morals that others (like yourselves) seem to think are fine.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

1

charliemartin said

This is not about thejustification of a charge for going overdrawn, it is about

the disproportionate, unethical amount of money that the banks charge the

poorest in society.

Lets not forget that the financial crisis the world

is in today is down to this greed and unethical behaviour

What we have

just witnessed is that, despite two previous court rulings upholding the OFTs

case, the Supreme Court has decided that the OFT has no power to even

investigate whether the charges are fair or not.

If the Office of Fair

Trading, a government department, has no say in whether bank charges are fair or

not, then who has?

Apparently the Financial Services Authority has no

jurisdiction in this area either.

So it seems the banks can put what ever

they like in their banking contracts, affecting students, businesses, the

employed, the unemployed.......everyone, and you are not allowed to complain, by

law, it seems.

So what now? The Banks won't listen to their customers.

They won't listen to the courts (or at least they are in their

pockets).

But they will listen to Money. And only Money.

So please Join the protest!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=186212372973

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

2

ame said

The bottom line is that for charging £35-£75 for a penaly charge (whether they want to justfy it or not) it lines the pockets of the fat cats at the top who have basically financially ruined our country with their selfishnesss and internal rules that meant we have had this recesssion. The government circles all back each other up and the summary is that the banks and the economy cannot afford (literally) to suddenly start being fair and reasonable to the general public (who all have bank accounts) so the govt has to back them up in stopping more money being given back to individuals in order to try to save the future.

Its all another case of too little too late. If the regulatoy and gvt bodies had realised years ago the greed and unethical conduct that was going on with ridiculous levels of charges, then the cycle could have been broken. But as those people were gaining financialy from it, there was every reason to turn a blind eye until the shit hit the fan!

Now we own the banks, we still have no say in our economy and still have no choice really but to have a bank account and risk being ripped off. This county has a long way to go before morals come back and I hate to say it, but have no faith that the people who can make a difference will. Its down to people like Martin Lewis to stand up for the public!

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

8

lindleytvr said

To those who sit in their Ivory Towers, making their smug and arrogant messages - I hope you never experience your employer going bust owing you money, or the major wage earner being ill with insurance refusing to pay out, or someone causing you injury rendering you unable to work.

NEVER assume that people's financial difficulties are always of their own-making - there are often honest reasons why people have financial problems and the extortionate charges imposed by the banks just compound their misfortune.

The 'I'm-all-right-Jack' attitude is a major cause of the ills in the UK at the moment. The sooner we realise that we're part os a wider society, the sooner our lives will improve.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

1

kenp said

It would be interesting how much it is costing having this useless FSA. I believe (and stand to be corrected) they are funded partially by the banks,if so and with this latest episode the FSA should be scrapped.If it is funded entirely by the tax payer then I think we all know the answer.

Mr Ree and Herman keep quite unless you know all the facts of people circumstances.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

2

Delta224 said

Well, Mr Ree and Herman have kept quiet for a couple of hours or so :)

Yes, the FSA have not done us any favours. If they are partially funded by the banks (and I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case) then they are hardly an impartial regulatory body so I agree with kenp.

Although the OFT have had the best intentions, I was wondering whether their wading in to the situation to make the 'super claim' has done more harm than good for individual claimants. About 2 or 3 years ago, before this FSA waiver, many people were getting their money back by just threatening to take their bank to court and the bank made their "goodwill" gesture often just before the case was due tobe heard.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

point 1 ) it was not the banks that ruined the country it was 12 years of blair / brown squandering our money and wasting every penny of it ( no improvement in education or health service , or anything else come to that) , and of brown encouranging the banks to undertake reckless lending and changing the law to ensure that they did.

Point 2) , people who are charged always say "it's not my fault" , well it because you have spent money that you don't have ,live within your means seems to be ignored by a lots of the this crowd . With all of the social security these days no one needs to spend more than they have whatever some people seem to think.

I believe that in France if you overdraw 3 times then your bank account is closed and you cannot open another one anywhere else as it is recorded on a central database , they are obviously a lot more financially sensible in France. Some people would argue that unauthorised overdrafts are theft and should be prosecuted rather than just charged

Point 3) there are electron and solo accounts available in the uk that you can't overdraw so if you think you might be tempted then these accounts won't let you.

point 4) banks don't generally make money out of current accounts , they make it in other ways.

In answer to one comment , I was made redundant and owed money and had to live very tightly for some time but I knuckled down , reduced spending to what I could get by on and never considered running up debts and overdrafts as an answer .

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

1

kenp said

I agree fully on what Hermen is saying in point 1 of his post.

Some people get into debt for many reasons and sometimes not by their recklesness.How the banks can have the gall to charge people £35 for going overdrawn by one day beggers believe and the cost's like these for sending out a computer generated letter is not justified.

Many years ago when Bank Managers were Managers you could sit and talk to them if you had problems, but now days (from personal experience) these so called cretans and overpaid Graduates entering the banking system are much to be desired and could not care less about the customers.

All my dealings with most of the banks over many years the worst one in my book has to be HALIFAX, except when they were a building society.

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

I don't know what people from crete have to do with this ("cretans")

yes bank managers do vary , but these days they are under imense pressure compared to the old days when they could do business on the golf course , I know a few branch managers and they are stressed beyond belief with short staff and high demands , and they don't make the policy.

Yes I agree that some people do get in financial trouble through no fault of their own and by accident , but this tiny minority is being taken advantage of by the people who think the world owes them a living for doing nothing

Report on 22 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

1

oZmo said

I largely agree with Herman, a high proportion of the people who complain about bank charges are the ones who just weren't watching their account/managing their money well.

I have worked in a large bank and have seen all sorts of charges scenarios, the ones who complain loudest are usually the ones who have £30,000 stored in their instant access savings account but forgot to transfer money accross for the large cheque they wrote last week, I feel this is their fault and they should be penalised, why should all the other customers fund this persons cheque for a week whilst they wait for the bank to tell them they're overdrawn? Yes it is a genuine mistake but I'm sure after one lot of charges the person should know not to do it again.

The bank I worked for also has a policy of always refunding a charge if the customer asks (once in any 12 month period), for example one returned item fee (£20), or up to 10 days unplaned overdraft (£75) as long as they are less than £25 over the agreed limit (this usually covers the people who forget/make a mistake with one small debit card transaction). To help stop these mistakes happening again we then have a text message service to offer which costs £2.50 a month but will text immediately if an account goes overdrawn, as long as the money is paid in that day there will be no charges.

For the people who simply cannot get money paid in and end up getting charges we then have a customer support team, if the charges we put on an account are going to cause any financial difficulty or cause any further charges then the support unit will usually look at waivering/refunding some or all charges (even over the £25 criteria) and make a payment plan to help the customer back on their feet. Financial difficulty is taken very seriously and the bank won't knowingly cause it or let it happen. The problems arise when people bury their heads in the sand/don't read any mail, if you suspect you will have difficulty talk to the bank, don't wait untill your charges are at £1000 and you physically can't make payments. I appreciate it's easy to get into difficulty and in these cases charges can be hard, but I'd guess 90% of people who complain about charges and want refunds are not in this category and are just hoping to get something for nothing, at the expense of people who run their accounts excellently and ask when they need help.

With all the forms of banking available (mobile, internet, telephone, branch) "I forgot" can't be a good excuse and there needs to be some deterrent there to stop people bouncing cheques/not managing their accounts, what deterrent would you all suggest instead of the charge? Possibly somethign like the French solution that Herman mentioned above?

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

5

Debtfix said

Ho Hum so we are all up in arms and blaming each other for the positions taken on bank charges.

You may all recall that a few years ago pensions, tax credits, child benefits and other benefits were delivered via the Post Office on vouchers contained in books sent to claimants.

The government decided that this was too expensive and hit upon the idea of delivering these services via bank accounts.

Everyone and his partner was encourgaed to open a bank account. The cashless society was around the corner and milk and honey flows through out the land. People who had never had a bank account were, in effect, forced to have a bank account which they did not want. People who never should have had a bank account were forced to take one.

So having wholesale payments made via the banks to claimants on low incomes and solely benefit income the DWP went all wobbly and carried on as before stopping payments instantly when the slightest issue arose and refusing to reinstate benefits for weeks if not months.

The recipients of such poor service were throw into the banking system with no safeguards and at the mercy of banks which made no allowances for lost, or with held benefits to people on a subsistance social wage. With losses mounting to the family economy the benefits actually are severely reduced as bank charges mount, and a vicious spiral of debt is produced dragging people into debt who formerly would have managed their money with far more precision in a cash society.

It is unlikely that the government (of whatever colour) will go back to a voucher scheme but such a scheme would release the truly disadvantaged from the yoke of bank charges paid out of funds considered "just enough" to live on. Brown's aim is to take children out of poverty. He has increased poverty in this land by forcing people to pay from social security benefits bank charges which result from poor service from the government agencies who are supposed to deliver them.

For those people on this message board who pride themselves in being able and financially capable reflect once again on the economy and give some thought to the idea that you are only one wage packet away from the dole queue. When you fall into this position I guess your view of the world on banking may be enlightened.

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

30

EastExpert said

One thing bothers me in "customer victories over bank charges". It's the fact that Banks always "retaliate" if they lose on charges. Limiting Credit Cards fees? Fine. And then they jack up Interest Rates on Credit Cards, withdraw 0% Balance Transfer deals, lower Current Account interest rate & Savings interest rates, jack up overdraft rates.

Sounds like a Pyrrhean victory to me. Yes it costs less to a selected few to go beyond spending limits on a Credit Card. But then everybody pays through the nose for this. Basically the ones who manage their finances well are now subsidising those who can't manage their money, or don't want to manage their money. LOVELY.

The justification from the Banks is some bleating like "we need to protect our Profit Margins". Huh? I thought Banks were to be penalised for unfair way they dealt with their customers? Why would they be allowed to "protect their margins"?!

If we were properly deal with Bank Charges, the Banks should be explicitly forbidden of passing their losses down to customers. The worst ones would then go out of business and their actives would be seized by Gov't or other banks. So others would know better than always retaliate on their Customers.

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

niffer said

Hello All

I am more than "happy" to stand up and say yes i have been bad with money and managing my finances in the past. For this i have no one to blame other than my self. I fell into the trap of the dreaded credit card....

However I am now well on my way to getting this resolved, I have always worked hard but i have spent a long time living beyond my means. It is just not worth the sleepless nights.

However in my expereience I have found banks to be more than happy leaving you in a situation where you are spending money that you can not afford on charges etc...

I went to speak with my bank manager on more than one occassion armed with a full breakdown of my situation my availible funds and what i have to budget in order to pay off my previous fincial problems. I was not after a hand out in anyway as i have said this is my fault and I feel there is satisfaction is resolving. However with everything said i pointed out the amount i was being charged in bank charges and that if I was not getting charged then i would within 2 months have more than enough money left in my account to ensure that I would not be going over my over draft again. My manager seemed more at ease keeping me in a position where i was being stung on bank charges and rendering it almost impossible for me to get myself back on a level grounding.

I have now changed banks and i have no credit cards and I have everything set up in order to ensure i am paying off my debt and managing my day to day finances.

I have to say I a managed to be able to do this with the help of family and not the banks. I am very lucky my family were able to help me in the short term.

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

2

ame said

Having worked both in a bank, and in a debt collection centre, I believe I have it on good standing to make an overall observation of someone who has seen all sides relating to the issue of bank charges.

I can honestly say that MrHerman doesnt have the facts, hasnt researched what he is talking about and being made redundant is not even close to some of the issues people have had to face, whehter the form a minority or not. The facts remain however glorious you see yourself to be! Did you receive money when you were made redundant? Did you have support from anyone at all such as family or friends or a helpful and understanding bank manager?

When you follow ALL guidelines and stil end up in a situation where you spend the next 6 years of your life battling to survive despite being intelligent, sensible, being more than capable of managing money and being left to sort something out on your own which is impossible, what woudl you do? For the sake of what may start off as a £75 charge when you have NO money suddenly coming in, do you give in a live on the street and starve or do you seek help from all the right places only to find holes and people like Mrhemrna who woudl be unwilling to help but offer blame and no support instead?

People who dont know what they are talking about should keep their mouths shut. Banks are businesses who have many ways to make money and can do a degree choose how to conduct themselves, not least as individuals. The fat that years ago we were all ecouraged to never mind sometimes given no alternatives than to conform, which is what we are talking about, not what certain people who worked recently for banks have seen or done personally etc, Banks have always been capable of saying no to customers, hence credit checks etc.

Corruption is inbred by those who are greedy and selfish and have no regards to the bigger picture. The whole thing is corrupt and its too late for the banks themselves or the gvit to solve it as its all gone into the politicians and bankers pockets!

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 1 love

79

Ed Bowsher said

Hi Maxstar,

I suggest you do two things:

- write to your bank and say that as far as you're concerned, the matter isn't closed until the FSA and Financial Ombudsman Service have said more on the situation

- write to the Financial Ombudsman service and complain about your bank's treatment of you.

That said, you also need to prepare yourself for the fact that you may never get compensation for the charges that were levied against you.

I'm sorry I can't say anything more optimistic.

Regards,

Ed

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

This is really getting silly now ,

1) Rather than a nanny state / nanny banks telling everyone what to do , people should take resposibility for their own money not expect the bank to say 'don't spend that or we will charge you every time'

2) Ame - When times are good money should be put aside for a rainy day as it used to be called rather than spending everyting and then borrowing even more so that they can have everyting now, I work in a retail environment and see people borrowing more and more for things that are far from essential , in one case someone had bought a house for £20,000 years ago and now they had a £220,000 mortgage and still lived in the same house , their money had all gone on holidays , big televisions , new sofas every other year and all sorts of similar things , and there are a lot of people who do the same.

3) Money put away for a rainy day can then be used until you improve your situation rather than expecting banks to give free money and overdrafts , hard to use the word prudence anymore now that a certain person has debased the word so much.

4) so it comes down to not only managing money day to day , but to ensure you have savings from the good times to call upon when needed.

5) As I said before there people who are unlucky through no fault of their own and these are generally ( not always) looked after and should be helped as Ozmo said , but most of the people who are charged come into the careless or I want everything now category.

Report on 23 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

5

Debtfix said

Herman give this up, It is clear that you are making assumptions to justify your argument. Generalities starting with "most of" are no good. Please give us the figures and your source so that we can assess what you are saying properly.

I have 400 clients all seriously in debt. I interview each one before attempting to assist them. That interview takes at least two hours and the purpose is to determine whether that person is ready to face their debt and to find out how the debt arose. In all cases of single pararent families debt came from a life changing event such as divorce or loss of a partner exacerbated by the slow pace that the benefit agencies move to fill the financial gap. Housing benefit in my city takes upto 12 weeks to be established and any delay in applying, automatically means rent arrears. Similarly with council tax. In the SW we pay the highest water rates and many of my clients have large arrears.

In trying to cope with these situations these young people are faced with a system that the operators of the system sometimes do not understand its workings. Add in the cases involving malicious phone reporting of circumstances to the authorities and the result is a haphazard income which is stopped and started at short notice; but children have to be fed and the gas and electric meters need cash to operate. Solo and other basic bank accounts are often over drawn even tho they are advertised as not having this facility. Charges taken from low income and benefit dependent households cause further debt, aith fear and anxiety follow closely behind.

Some would argue that in charging a fee my firm becomes part of the issue, however much of current work is subsidised by the people I started to help several years ago, and as the latest casualties get back on their feet so they will provide the funds to help new people coming onto my books. The main product I sell is peace of mind and freedom from the vicious phone calls and letters that are used to encourage (intimidate) people to pay their debt.

Banks are businesses too and the question is not whether thay should charge but whether those charges are fair. One of my clients faced a £68.00 charge from the Hailfax for a shortfall on her direct debit payment. That figure represented her total income for that week. She was forced into having a bank account by the government in order to facilitate the payment of her child tax and child benefit. It all went to the bank. Hardly the result that the government was looking for when they made this change in the delivery of (non) services. Despite receiving state benefit to raise the family out of poverty they were plunged deeper into poverty because the bank took all her money.

So Herman you are claiming that more than 50% (most) of these wasters (?) are deliberately getting into trouble and its all their fault. Pull your head out of your wild assumptions and look at the wider picture and give us your sources for the figures you are not yet disclosing.

Report on 24 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

Rather than me give proof , how about you giving proof of the exact numbers that have brought this on themselves , and those that havn't.

I know people in the industry as well and they tell me a different story

Report on 25 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

11

riab1879 said

Herman - I have an electron card and I was charged because the bank let me spend money on this card that was unkowingly to me not in the account when it shoulkd have been put in the day before.

Report on 25 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

0

hermanthehulk said

antiipating money is never a good idea , I'd still complain to the bank though as electron shouldn't allow you to overdraw

Report on 26 December 2009 | Love this

Love 0 loves

Provider & account name	Credit rate (AER) Based on £1	Overdraft rate Based on £1	Apply now
Santander 123 Current Account	0.0%†	0% plus £1.00 per day usage fee	Apply
Barclays Bank Account	N/A	Up to £200 – 0% interest pa (variable). Over £200 and up to £5,000 – 19.3% interest pa (variable)	Apply
first direct 1st Account	N/A	0%	Apply

MPs must make next move on bank charges

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Comments (26)

Post a comment

Related content

Should payday lenders be banned from the high street?

One million Brits use payday loans every month

Guarantor loans: an alternative to payday loans?

Understanding the risks of peer-to-peer lending

The loan that charges 131,000% APR

Payday loans still suck

Our top deals

Santander 123 Current Account

Barclays Bank Account

first direct 1st Account