Here is an excerpt from Friday 7/04/06 article in The Guardian by Fiona Walsh Quote A senior executive at one of the big four said: "We would take a bit of a hit on credit cards. It's £20m to £50m tops for most lenders and it's not the end of the world. But if the same ruling is applied to overdraft charges, then we're talking hundreds of millions each and that's serious. "The reason we can offer free services is because of the charges. We are going to have to look at whether we can economically continue to offer free banking. The OFT decision is probably the first step towards annual or monthly charges for accounts." Claire Whyley, deputy director of policy at the National Consumer Council, said: "Charges imposed by banks were not intended to make them profits. They have now been told they can't make charges for costs they don't face. We don't see how this should impact on the availability of free banking." unquote. Now the truth is coming out. If the banks were breaking even on their "delinquent account" charges, as they claim, then there should have been no money available to offer free banking.

It wouldn't be bad it would be very good , but I suspect that your figure of 47000 probably has too many noughts in it.As it stands, allowing for holidays [3 weeks] no Sundays alternate Saturdays and a few Bank holidays, it means that you are serving 180 odd people every day. Twenty years ago I worked in Spain as a Head Cashier in a very very busy cash desk and never handled that number of people in 8 hours and I was fast in those days. And I am bound to say that after observing Building Society cashiers in London in action, partly because of the systems used, cannot compare with cashiers in Banks and Post Offices in terms of speed. I am also surprised that you handle that much money in cash per day as the Halifax has that ridiculous rule about not normally paying out more than £300? [sorry I've forgotten the actual amount but it is very small.] Just a tip. When you have finished paying out a customer which is where cashiers make most mistakes, watch their face. If they have noticed that you have paid them too much they will often have a reaction of some kind. If you see it, check your work again.

Let me try again. The banks parrot the same line -that their charges are a reflection of the costs they incur on handling credit card holders who are in breach of the T&C's. However when one reads OFT 842 1.6 "On the analysis we have undertaken we have concluded that generally credit card default fees have been set AT A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER LEVEL THAN IS FAIR for the purposes of the UTCCRs. 5.1 "It is clear to us from our enquiries that in many cases credit card default charges currently in force ARE UNFAIRLY HIGH. They are serious indictments of bank practice from a Government Department and send a strong message to the Courts and all those who have bank accounts. And if you read between the lines you will see that the OFT is saying that they believe the actual cost is less than £12 but is a start in the right direction. So, the banks say they are not overcharging, the OFT says they are significantly overcharging. Therefore implicit in the OFT report is that the banks are lying and greedy to boot. OFT 842 5.12 "Nevertheless, in view of consumer detriment involved in the imposition of UNLAWFUL DEFAULT CHARGES, we consider the steps to reduce charges should be taken as a matter of EXCEPTIONAL PRIORITY"........... # " UNLAWFUL DEFAULT CHARGES" The banks do not have a leg to stand on. As I said in my earlier post we have to overlook the £12 figure and look at what the OFT actually said. It is utterly damning. And it gets worse. Because the banks have known all along that the charges were punitive -designed to send a message to us not to repeat our error. Once they realised that certain customers were having financial problems they should then have stopped the punishment. That they did not is a disgrace.

Howard- I certainly did not mean to include all bank cashiers, just the ones who took cash out to balance the till. I would have thought it would be confined to a relatively small number of people, so I was surprised that Alison remarked that it was common practice, though she could have meant it was common practice at that branch. I have worked with cash over the years and some companies expect you to make up shortages,some don't and others suggest it when a few shortages occur over a short period. Personally I think it is dangerous to expect cashiers to make up the shortfall since there is the possibility that they will deliberately short change customers to get their money back. On the other hand no company would wish to finance a cashier who was stealing from their till.

Methinks the moderators are a touch pessimistic. The Office of Fair Trade has finally nailed the lie. Not a consumer group with a vested interest, but a Government Department, has pointed out to the Courts and everyone else that banks have consistently fleeced their own customers. And even worse, it is their most vulnerable customers they have ripped off. The banks have insisted that the charges reflect the actual costs involved, but the OFT have refuted this in spades. They have admitted that the banks are greedy liars, which can only strengthen our cases in Court. We were never going to get the OFT to come up with something like the true cost- especially as the Government owes the banks £24 million but to besmirch their reputations as much as they have, makes it doubly difficult for them to defend any future litigation. Incidentally, I see that the BBC are asking for people who have been hit by the banks to contact them. Those who have had their benefits decimated by bank charges would perhaps get especial pleasure in piling on pressure and opprobrium [there's a good word] on the banks. BBC Article Locking horns with a firm or government agency? Got a personal finance or consumer affairs problem? Send your story to our team of journalists, and we will investigate. E-mail us on newsonline.business@bbc.co.uk Subject field must say BBC Your Money Please supply daytime contact number

Quote Originally Posted by Alison82 I spoke to an old friend over the week end, and I found out he now works for a bank, I didn't mention the bank charges stuff to him but he had some other intresting comments, occasionally if his till is over at the end of the day he is better off taking the extra cash home amongst his paper work rather than trying who work out who he has short changed that day! Apparetly the managers come down really hard on them if the tills don't balance and this is common practice! Unquote. Not quite sure which aspect of the above post has annoyed Seminole. But the likelihood is that a till will be short rather than over [though I am aware that if Pub tills are over, it is possible that the reason is that staff have mixed in their own stock and made a mistake when removing their profit].The reason being is that people are more likely to point out that they have been shortchanged than when they have been overpaid. When a till is over, it may not necessarily mean that someone has been short changed. New notes for instance tend to stick together, so if someone pays in a large amount of notes, the cashier may be unable to separate the same two sticking notes as the payer in. However when notes are paid out, they are often counted out across the counter in singles so that the customer [and possibly the camera] can see the transaction clearly thus unknowingly separating the sticking notes and making the till over. Still a bit off for the bank clerks to take the money home, since they will surely not be asked to repay shortages, which as I said earlier are more the norm.

Thanks Loula.Though I see that the new library section is up and running.

Like your new site but cannot get into the Library.Says it is private even after logging in.

Rather than get involved with radio advertising, which is fairly expensive and is probably quite a hard medium to get people off their sofas to get a pen etc, why not try press releases which are free? Perhaps some of the guys on here who succesfully got their money back could be used as examples. Once you have got the ball rolling from the press releases then some sort of advertising may reinforce the message.Though I think the press are starting to take notice-especially when that bank was threatened with bailiffs.

I know you are a forum for excessive bank charges [ and a good one at that!] but I assume that the same criteria exists when building societies charge £25 to send a letter advising none payment of monthly d/d?

If you look at your situation from the banks point of view, whether they pay the loan transfer or not, you will still get clumped £35 or so. It does not change the amount you owe the bank and they won't have to register a loan default on your credit report. And after reading one of Bankfodders postings, I get the impression that it is more serious from a legal standpoint to miss a loan payment than to exceed an overdraft facility. I know it was a horrible situation for you to be in, and I appreciate that to get your current account back in the black, or a nicer shade of red [ie within the overdraft limit] becomes doubly difficult. At least your loan was coming down and I suppose that for a bank to list that you had missed a loan payment would be a tremendous black mark against you. Small comfort. I suppose they do it because we so rarely move our accounts to another bank, that they do not feel they have a duty to offer a service. For instance, some time ago I needed an unexpected repair to my car, and my salary was not due in the bank for another couple of days. I asked my garage [where I was a regular customer] if they could hold my cheque for a couple of days-which they did without charge.Contrast that with my bank who I have banked with for considerably longer than I have dealt with the garage.I qsked them to delay payment of a standing order for two days.They refused and said they would charge me £25 I think if there were insufficient funds. I cancelled the standing order and reinstated it two days later. But look at the difference in attitude between the two businesses.

Thankyou to both previous posters for your info.I will let you know what happens.

Some time ago I got a bank loan with PPI, which I didn't want, but could not get a loan without it. This was despite the fact that I was self employed and they knew that when dictating their conditions. Who can I complain to in order to cancel the exorbitant PPI charges.

I'm sure things have changed now, but I remember a customer of Coutts being so amazed by a letter from Coutts that he read it out to us. It happened over 20 years ago around September, from his Bank Manager and went something along these lines. Dear C....., You may recall that we established a £7500 overdraft at the start of the year. At the close of last night's business your overdraft stood at £12,754 [it was somewhere around that figure anyway.ed], and whilst I am not worried in the slightest about the amount, perhaps you could contact me and let me know what you would like the arrangement to be for the rest of the year. Can't imagine my bank sending anything remotely like that. PS Pretty sure that he didn't get any charges.