Sick Of Hearing About Bank Charges

[Bookworm]

I have posted this one before, so apologies to those of you who will get deja-vu as a result . This is the story that brought me to CAG 2 years ago:

 

Beginning of 2000, my husband's employers decided it would be cheaper to force him to leave than make him redundant. They submitted him to 9 months of hell before he couldn't take it any more. September 2000, he left and I started a claim for constructive dismissal.

We had insurance on our mortgage, PPI on our credit card, car loan, etc... All of them had up to them never been late once. We duly notified them.

Every single one of them refused to pay until the decision of the Employment Tribunal, as my husband had left "voluntarily".

 

Meanwhile, we were in that short time where the Inland Revenue had restructured the Tax Credit system so that it would all go through the employers. My husband's employers neglected to tell the IR that he wasn't there anymore, so the IR held that they were still paying us (even though they weren't) and the JSA was deducting the amount of Tax Credit we should have been getting from them.

 

As a result, we were getting £45 a week, for a family of 5, with a mortgage.

 

Now, irresponsible person that I am, I have always believed that the most important thing is to keep the roof over your head, no matter what. So while DH looked for another job, and I pulled minicabbing night shifts to make ends meet, we maintained our mortgage payments. Everything else had to slide. And I mean everything. In that time, we kept every one of our creditors aware and asked them for some leeway. Every one of them said no and applied more and more charges.

 

DH found a job in December (no mean feat, considering his background and age), we won the ET in March. The compensation DH got got instantly swallowed up in paying off some of the heavier load. By the time the insurances and PPI came through, most of it disappeared in penalty charges. Yes, I have a lot of claims, but not one of them is over £500, and all with different finance companies. It reflects the very short time in our lives where things went terribly wrong.

 

We did treat the kids to a day off to Hever Castle at Easter when the compensation came through. (DH works for the railway, so no train fare to pay to get there). I put my hands up to that one. Well, they hadn't had a Christmas that year.

[Brassed off]

OMG Bookie, don't apologise on the deja-vu front. I, for one, haven't seen you post this before and can totally relate to where you're coming from.

 

Minicabbing - hey, me too. Desperate measures Gawd, I even did pizza delivery (says Bo who has no sense of direction whatsoever :grin:)

 

There are some times in life when the going really does get tough. You always think that it'll be OK because you're insured. Well, it just goes to show what a load of tosh that is. Every card, loan, etc I ever took out was with insurance and none of them ever paid out. Talk about mis-selling

 

I'm looking forward to your reply on Bookie's post Curr I'm sure it's going to be interesting

[Curr946]

i am sorry to here you have unfortunate circumstances, i can see it from both angels here. What the banks etc should have done was freeze charges waiting for the outcome of the PPI, in this case i am agreeing with you. That banks and so on robbed you blind. My main argument is with those who willingly go into the red and moan about it later. Impulse buys and so on.

[Curr946]

I'm looking forward to your reply on Bookie's post Curr I'm sure it's going to be interesting

 

Look i am not trying to be a brown nose, i am just saying that 8/10 people who complain about charges make no effort whats so ever to adjust their finances to avoid them.

 

And as i have said before if someone is looking for information i will do my best to help them.

[JonCris]

For goodness sake will you all stop feeding the Holier then thou Troll who's opinion is totally irrelevant on this site:roll:

 

Surely the "adjust their finances" is a bit of a give away that this person does not live in the real world & want's the less well off, particularly those on benefits, to pay for his 'free' banking

[MilkTrayMan]

...charges have a disproportionate effect on the poorest people of society...

I believe that the same can also be said to be true of 'The National Lottery'.

...A direct taxation of the poor, by the slick marketing of 'selling the dream', at impossible odds against...

[renegotiation]

I quite agree with you MTM, though at least soemthing good does come out of the lottery. I myself posted this in a rant forum on another site in Feb. 2006. Yup, i've always been one for throwing tirades! I just can't help myself. This was before the whole telephone [problem] furore kicked off. How right I was! :lol: Here it is:

 

 

 

TV Show Phone In Cons.

I'm getting severely irritated by these! Major BS. Some dumb presenter saying 'Yes. We are soooo great. We are giving away all this loot! Yeah. Phone us and win!' They neglect to mention the fortune that they are raking in. There should be some regulation brought in where a set amount has to be given away of what they generate. It is scandalous. The one that irks me most at the moment is 'Richard and Judy'. God knows how much they rake in on 'You Say We Pay'. I guess it all goes towards paying their wages. Ha ha. Also, all that exposure they gave to Big Brother was just about money and sod all else. I believe Richard said 'Hmm. Yes, even my son picked up the phone and voted. It's so easy! He's never even voted on anything by phone before! Make sure you vote people.' It sucks. I can't believe hardly anyone else complains about it. It's daylight robbery.

 

Also, all those dance shows and talent shows get up my nose too. If they really cared about who won they could introduce 5 entries per telephone number. They must have the technology. That should cater for most households. But no, they encourage people to vote many times instead! Then at the end of the show they announce 'Yesssss, we had 7 million people vote etc.!' Then everyone oohs and ahs and the audience applauds. Err no, you just had 1 million saddos multi-voting!!! Finally, I would like to finish my rant with one of the funniest lines I have heard on the telly. It was the last 20 minutes or so of one of the Big Brother series. The 4th one I think. There was Davina Macall (spelt right?) exhorting the nation to 'act on your '''''democratic''''' rights and vote as many times as possible!' WTF? How undemocratic can you get? Stupid cow. How much they pay her to say that???

 

P.S. I digress a little. But does anyone else think any 'Millionaire' episodes were fixed? To encourage people to phone in that is. I'm convinced of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then I made a further post on the thread:

 

 

 

 

Just Me Then?

I don't phone. I don't watch the shows. Can't help catch bits if someone else has it on. Usually 'Richard and Judy'. And every time I do it's always phone or text in please. I haven't got a problem with the lottery because you know where every penny is going. The odds of winning are transparent. Also, you don't phone to enter. I'm surprised no one else has a problem with these shows. Just because some people are too smart to enter these things shouldn't excuse them from trying to protect others imho. I totally disagree with the 'if they are dumb enough they deserve it attitude.' 'Richard and Judy' wouldn't dare state how much money they raked in! I know this. If there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, then why wouldn't they? Also, they would never state 'we get a few 100,000 phone calls (i'm sure they do) and the odds of 1 person getting through to win an average of £6,000 is thus a few 100,000 to 1!' The whole thing is 'mainly' about enticing those who are short of cash with a chance of winning. And don't forget it is these people who end up getting further in debt and with no telephone. An essential service really. I have read many such stories. I think the emotion behind the whole industry is bad. And legal or illegal the motive behind something is the acid test for me as to whether it is acceptable or not. Profit for good service I champion. Not for garbage like this. I reiterate, there needs to be regulation.

[renegotiation]

DH found a job in December (no mean feat, considering his background and age), we won the ET in March. The compensation DH got got instantly swallowed up in paying off some of the heavier load. By the time the insurances and PPI came through, most of it disappeared in penalty charges. Yes, I have a lot of claims, but not one of them is over £500, and all with different finance companies. It reflects the very short time in our lives where things went terribly wrong.

 

Sorry to hear of your hard time Bookie.

 

 

Look i am not trying to be a brown nose, i am just saying that 8/10 people who complain about charges make no effort whats so ever to adjust their finances to avoid them.

 

I agree in principle with 'some' of the stuff your saying Curr. However, the way I see it is that doesn't give the banks 'sufficient excuse' to act like gangsters. It's just bad news for society. Some solutions are better education in schools, more responsible lending from the banks, 'reasonable' charges like £5 that won't create an uncontrollable downward spiral. Wouldn't life be easy if everything happened as it 'should'! We are all on the wheel of fortune whether we like to admit it or not. I came right off it, not just financially, and i'm still getting my life back together slowly. If you fell off would you want a helping hand or a foot in your face? It's just naturally difficult to see the world from outside your personal box sometimes. I'm not throwing insults here. I can't deny that I have a major personal grudge against the finance industry as a whole. If your life has gone ok financially, then yes, maybe you are a good role model for society. I'm not being sarcastic at all here. Maybe your modus vivendi has 'reduced' the chance of something going wrong. Bad things can happen to anyone though. Don't forget that.

[Bookworm]

Look i am not trying to be a brown nose, i am just saying that 8/10 people who complain about charges make no effort whats so ever to adjust their finances to avoid them.

But that's the point: Whilst everyone should try to run their finances the best they can (and I think that your 8/10 is the wrong way round, I think that for 8 people who try to keep it under control, 2 spend recklessly), it does not give the banks the lawful right to levy penalties. The banks are not our moral guardians. Contract law is absolutely clear on this: You can not make a profit out of someone's transgression or failure to adhere to that contract. That's the benchmark. You can say it's wrong, you can disagree, but that is the law. You can recoup what that transgression cost you, which is fair enough, but that's it. That concept has been embedded in contract law for well over 100 years now.

 

The point here is that the banks are making profits they are not entitled to, profits stemming from them flouting the law. I'm not talking about the rest of the banking system, simply about the charges for going over your limit and related. The banks can and should make a profit, they are a business, but surely they should operate lawfully?

 

Let's put it this way: You have a full-time paying job. You then work out that you can make a lot more than that by selling drugs, or ripped DVDs, or mugging old ladies. Would it be ok for you to argue that you are entitled to make a better living for yourself at the expense of others, even though it meant you were committing acts that were forbidden by the law? Seeing how black and white your vision so far has been, I'm thinking the answer will be "no". Yet, for some reason, you seem to think that for the banks, it is perfectly ok?

[Curr946]

bookworm, i agree 100% with what you are saying, and no i would not say selling drugs and so on is ok as long as it puts food on the table.. this is a completely different ball park but i get the point you are making.

 

can i be completely honest here, money brings power and with power you can pritty much do whatever you like, do you realy think that the banks will loss this test case? and if they do, do you think they will let it be?

 

i would say that the best we will get is a small reduntion in charges, still well over what you would class as a fair admin chrage and not a penelty.

 

my point is that "if possible" prevention is better than cure.

 

oh and joncris, why is my question irrelavent? there is always two sides to a coin you know... if you do not want to part take in an adult debate them please reframe from viewing my thread. thanks

[Bookworm]

Do I think the banks will lose the test case?

I want to believe that for once, justice will really prevail. I fear that it won't. :-| So I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

 

Will they let it be if they lose? Well, they won't have much of a choice, but of course, they'll want to try and recoup some of those lost profits, once the golden goose is killed and cooked, no doubt they'll look for a golden duck instead. Having said that, between the credit crunch and the collapse of sub-prime lending (and there's another fine example of less than ethical banking behaviour), I think that the current banking system was always going to collapse round about now, and this test case may be just in time to stop them increasing the penalty charges even more to try and subsidise some of their losses from that side of things.

 

No doubt that those who can not see further than in-their-face cause and action will blame the bank charges reclaimers for the fee paying bank accounts and increased admin fees on loans and what not, but the truth is the bank charges reclaimers are but a drop in the ocean compared to the damage done at the heart of banking by the credit crunch brought form overseas.

[renegotiation]

can i be completely honest here, money brings power and with power you can pritty much do whatever you like, do you realy think that the banks will loss this test case? and if they do, do you think they will let it be?.

 

If you go into a fight with that attitude you've seriously damaged your chances. Banks aren't above the law, though they think they are. Also, new laws can be made to prevent any or their future trangressions that the statute books don't already cover. You talk about them like they are Gods.

 

 

i would say that the best we will get is a small reduntion in charges, still well over what you would class as a fair admin chrage and not a penelty.

 

I'm sure the fight won't stop if that happens. CAG is undoubtedly a power block now. If the banks had been smart and not too greedy CAG may never have happened. They got too big for their boots though. They ****ed off too many people. Eventually they ****ed off the wrong people. Only a matter of time I suppose. They should have kept their charges at £15-£20 maximum and going up in line with inflation. They should have refunded more charges when people were in bad circumstances and had good cases for a refund. They could have made a tidy profit for years to come. But no, they upped them to £30 and beyond hitting a max of £39! Shame for them... :grin: :grin: :grin: They got just what they deserved and a lot more to come I hope! Load the cannons! Aim! Fire!!! :mad:

[JonCris]

Christ! are we still having this discussion. To what purpose I ask?

 

We all, well most of us anyway, know the reasons why people get into debt & why it's then much exacerbated by the money lenders.

 

Discussions about the whys & wherefores do nothing but give importance to those who either don't understand or, as is more likely, don't want to understand - We have been down this road before with others who feel they are superior to the rest of us - so please lets stop this general navel gazing

 

BTW BW I'm surprised your feeding the bloody troll

[Bookworm]

I'm not convinced we have a troll here, JC, and I happen to believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. So far, Curr has not sworn at anyone, his reasoning, if inaccurate, does not amount to plain goading or taunting. He has his opinion, to which he is entitled, and is not flaming anyone. Besides, despite what some would like to think, this isn't a totalitarian site, and I think that it is acceptable and even healthy to have debates. I think the general navel gazing to which you refer is in danger of happening when we all agree on one thing backslap one another on how right we are. If anything, this kind of thread reminds us that not everyone is knowledgeable or illuminated out there, and that there is still an awful lot of educating to do. ;-)

[star_scream]

You can not make a profit out of someone's transgression or failure to adhere to that contract. That's the benchmark. You can say it's wrong, you can disagree, but that is the law. You can recoup what that transgression cost you, which is fair enough, but that's it. That concept has been embedded in contract law for well over 100 years now.

This is the one thing I cannot understand. Why, if it is law- set in stone, do we have to have a test case? Why are the FSA allowed to stop us using this law?

[star_scream]

everyone is knowledgeable or illuminated out there

 

Is that someone who is part of the illuminati?

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm not convinced we have a troll here,

 

I quite agree. Curr is clearly not trolling, and although hir arguments perhaps require a little more thought, I think this thread is an excellent opportunity for them to learn why we disagree with hir.

 

my point is that "if possible" prevention is better than cure

 

What kinds of preventative measures do you think should/could be applied?

[JonCris]

I'm not convinced we have a troll here, JC, and I happen to believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. So far, Curr has not sworn at anyone, his reasoning, if inaccurate, does not amount to plain goading or taunting. He has his opinion, to which he is entitled, and is not flaming anyone. Besides, despite what some would like to think, this isn't a totalitarian site, and I think that it is acceptable and even healthy to have debates. I think the general navel gazing to which you refer is in danger of happening when we all agree on one thing backslap one another on how right we are. If anything, this kind of thread reminds us that not everyone is knowledgeable or illuminated out there, and that there is still an awful lot of educating to do. ;-)

 

Your not wrong BW but IMHO this is not a site for the philosophical discussion about those unfortunate enough to become victims of the money lenders & their agents.

 

I also think that such debates may only result in some who need help to avoid the site thereby seeking help because they might feel they may be judged by some, so called, members.

 

We should be reminded that many, often by their own admission, who come here seeking help sometimes take days or even weeks before they strike up enough courage to describe their situation & ask for help as they feel embarrassed by the circumstances & such debates do nothing to encourage their participation. Nor does it move the cause forward.

 

As for changing their minds - forget it - I have had many such discussions with colleagues most of whom, never have been in such a position, refuse to accept the arguments - many think that feckless debtors are driving around in expensive cars & are all watching plasma TV's none of which they have paid for

 

I'm just waiting for one to fall foul of a money lender & come to me seeking advice - which they will - as they know little or nothing of consumer law

[Tezcatlipoca]

this is not a site for the philosophical discussion about those unfortunate enough to become victims of the money lenders & their agents.

 

No, but the Bear Garden can be; that's rather the point of it.

 

As I recall, Curr's topic was moved here as he was - I'm quite sure inadvertently - hijacking a thread elsewhere on the board. Hir posting here is to be commended not only because it allows us the chance to address Curr's points, but also that by shifting from another topic the original thread can be maintained.

 

I personally neither see nor believe that the goings on in the Bear Garden have a detrimental impact on the other sub-fora in which people are asking for help.

[dave]

i do but i only deal with savings, i do not claim to know 100% of the banking system. PM me and i will try my best to help you out / ask colleges at work for there take.

 

 

 

in this case the dss are to blame and should foot the bill, this woman should have called for a crisis loan from the dss until she had been paid out. however in this case if lady had called the bank and explained they would have reduced the charges or delayed them until she was back on her feet, they may even have considered an overdraft. this is a very sad case and you can not help but sympathise in this lady's circumstances.

 

as for the rest of your post i am now starting to see that you have a very valid point however, being paid late, wrong amounts and stuff resulting in charges should be paid back from the third party that caused it. Your employer? Organisation that requested the wrong amount. Maybe its time to put some effort into making them liable under the direct debit guarantee?

 

That particular woman did go into her bank to explain, and contrary to popular belief, they were NOT sympathetic and did not delay or reduce the charges.

 

However, to answer your other points - I cannot make anyone liable for a penalty for a breach of a contract - no profit is allowed to be made from such a situation, so to attempt to get the third party to pay it would be futile.

 

The fault lies soley at the feet of the bank for imposing an unlawful penalty in the first place. I can't chase the employer for repayment of a penalty that is unlawful.

[JonCris]

No, but the Bear Garden can be; that's rather the point of it.

 

As I recall, Curr's topic was moved here as he was - I'm quite sure inadvertently - hijacking a thread elsewhere on the board. Hir posting here is to be commended not only because it allows us the chance to address Curr's points, but also that by shifting from another topic the original thread can be maintained.

 

I personally neither see nor believe that the goings on in the Bear Garden have a detrimental impact on the other sub-fora in which people are asking for help.

 

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Many who visit his site do so because they are desperate for help & to have to read fatuous remarks about "realigning their finances" as if they are in a position to realign anything after the banks have taken all of their money in charges is nonsense & demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what goes on in the real world of the debtor.

 

As for the belief it has no effect I can assure you it does. I have personally spoken to victims of the banks who have told me they find such sites as this intimidating usually for 2 reasons. 1st they have little skill in using the internet & 2nd they are afraid of being seen as the author of their own misfortune or just plain stupid.

 

IMHO such discussions by what appear to the visitor as well established members simply does nothing but cause the less well educated & subsequently those in most need to avoid such sites just when they need us.

 

I have just noted the comment about to paraphrase "if you asked the bank to help they would" as further proof, if proof where needed, of the complete lack of understanding of what goes on in the banking world

[Tezcatlipoca]

to have to read fatuous remarks about "realigning their finances" as if they are in a position to realign anything after the banks have taken all of their money in charges is nonsense & demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what goes on in the real world of the debtor.

 

I quite agree, but that still doesn't change my point that the Bear Garden exists for almost any kind of thread, leaving the other sub-fora comparatively unscathed by such commentary, which, again, is rather the point.

 

have told me they find such sites as this intimidating usually for 2 reasons.

 

Both of which are valid, but neither which are relevant to my assertion that the sub-fora designed to provide help to people do just that. When I first arrived at CAG, I quickly found the information I required, and, upon joining and making my first post, found the existing members extremely friendly and helpful. At no point was I put off by the content of the Bear Garden.

[renegotiation]

Your both making valid points then.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Indeed, if somewhat at cross-purposes.

 

But the main thrust of the original argument persists; that a great many - if not most - of those who find themselves be subject to unlawful and disproportionately high bank charges are not in that situation because they habitually mismanage their finances.

[JonCris]

It may have been for you tez as it is for many others but it isn't for some who have less ability when they see what appears to amount attacks on debtors & resultantly do not seek our advice.

 

IMHO if even one debtor is caused to avoid seeking our help because of such discussions then I think we are failing in our goal - which I'm sure you will agree is to help those without a voice to take on the large institutions who have for decades ripped the poor consumer off