What's unfair about charges?

[GHM]

Bit of a long post this one, bear with me though and let me have your opinion - I'm at a crossorads...

 

 

I am at a loss to explain where all these claims are coming from for unfair charges.

 

I manage my accounts impeccably despite not always having the funds available. I have received two fines in my entire adult banking life of approx 15 years. They were both for non payment of credit card accounts due to me on both occasions just forgetting/paying the wrong one.

 

I asked both banks if they'd reconsider, they didn't. I was angry so I took my business away from one of them and took it on the chin as at the end of the day they were both my fault.

 

Many people on this site are claiming thousands in unfair charges. I would like to know how these charges are accrued.

 

I can easily see how if a payroll cheque is delayed and charges are incurred by a bank that that is bad luck but something to take up with the employer. Likewise with a late benefit cheque, take it up with the DSS.

 

On what basis is everyone seeking these reclamations. It seems obvious to me that the banks charge quite high charges to a) dissuade people from not obeying their rules and b) to profit from people who cannot do so and cause them problems. This is a foregone conclusion to me.

 

Those of you reclaiming charges - are you still paying something in fees or are you reclaiming it all? Surely ALL is not a very healthy outcome as that would mean that the banks have no way of dissuading customers from neglecting the terms of their accounts.

 

Because I keep my accounts in good order (and I do do a bit of rate tarting to keep it that way during the lean times) I pay no fees. I am guessing this may be in possible due to the fact that those paying the fees are subsiding me. To be honest though, this is how business works - first class passengers pay for the bucket seats at the back of the plane in effect.

 

If ALL charges are being refunded would the banks ever have any cause to come after people it has refunded to reclaim a FAIR charge? ie if it refunds 100 lots of £25 then a regulator states that £7.50 is a fair charge, could a bank come back after 7 years and demand 100 lots of £7.50 from the original claimant?

 

I must admit that although I am sure there are genuine reasons why someone should feel they can reclaim unfair charges, the gist I am getting is that a whole bunch of people who have no money management skills are getting away with managing their affairs terribly and making everyone else pay which seems to be the way these days.

 

I am sure that the few who started this at least had a good moral cause but I get a sinking feeling that it's now like a shoplifter who sues Woolworth's because the store security didn't quite arrest him in the right way and that this is more immoral than the banks.

 

Banks are in business to make money right? They are not a social enterprise. They publish their rates and terms and conditions and provide these which very few of us ever read. You know where you are with a bank - they're sharks, but they're handy sharks.

 

Someone convince me I'm very wrong and no, I don't work for a bank.

[Paddysreturn]

There are many better qualifed to answer this than me but...the gist of it is that banks are only passing the charges because of their costs involved when they bounce a cheque etc. However, this is not representative of their costs, which are probably only a few pence. Therefore they are passing on a mark up of about 30,000% (using a hypothetical £30 charge for a 10p cost incurred). That is grossly unfair, and more importantly not correct with regards to the terms and conditions on your account.

 

I do understand where youre coming from however, as I can only see the upshot of this being that banks will begin to levy a charge on all of us for banking with them - so everyday customers will bear the brunt.

 

However that doesnt mean the charges are right.......

[bram stoker]

The charges are a penalty.

 

By law a penalty cannot exceed the cost of the breach in contract.

 

We all know it doesn't cost £35 for an automated process to send you a letter telling you that you've gone over your overdraft.

 

We're asking the banks to show us their fair and transparent charges.

 

They won't.

 

Read the library thoroughly. All the law etc backing this up is in there.

[Tigs33]

Also if the banks knew they had a leg to stand on they would defend these cases, and they haven't have they???????????

 

I manage my accounts very well, I haven't had any charges on my own account for over 3 years but I would happily pay for my banking (which we do anyway by the banks gaining the interest by holding our money and only letting us have certain amount of it per day through the cash machines)

 

The banks make loads of money through other transactions not just bank charges. It makes me angry if when you look at a few banks/building societies and you can see that about 4-5 years ago they all started putting their prices up on charges, if you actually compare them you can see that as one put their charges up, so did another...

[lbrion]

Your point of first class passengers paying for the bucket seats at the back is also flawed, as with bank charges it is the people in the bucket seats giving the ones in first class the free ride. Many of us who incurre these charges do so due to maybe one month where everything is hard to manage be it through redundancy, child birth etc however because of these charges being levied it is impossible to drag oneself back into credit again. I have an overdraft of £1100 which I pretty much use up every month. In the last 3 years I have had £1400 of bank charges levied on my account as I have never been able to catch up with the first wave of charges made on my account the month I was made redundant. Essentially I am in debt because of the charges constantly being applied to my account every month due to never quite being able to catch up with the rate at which I am fined. That is what is unfair.

[JonCris]

Also how & why people got into financial problems is none of anyone business. The fact is they are & the money lenders are not helping whereas we are.

[JonCris]

Vampiress I suspect ghm doesn't want to read the library just wants to be critical of people they obviously sees as feckless.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Just my quick two-penn'orth

" Many people on this site are claiming thousands in unfair charges. I would like to know how these charges are accrued."

OK. In my case, like many others, it was no one particular thing. It would be a cheque arriving late - and taking four days to clear, of course, which would mean bounced DDs, SOs and cheques written in good faith coming in too early.

When I got that lot sorted out, it was 'special clearance'. An interesting regime, which turns the already rather unbelievable four days' clearance cycle into ten. Or 20. Meanwhile, there are still bills to pay. Nothing wrong with the drawer of the cheque - I still have had no adequate explanation as to why it was done. 'For customer security,' they said. Yeh, right. Anyway, I was assured that the chances of it happening to any one person were about 10 million to one. So you can imagine my surprise when it happened to me again, the following month, with the same drawer. If I'd had any money, I would have gone out and bought a dozen lottery tickets. All with the same numbers.

Then there is the clearance on foreign cheques. I did some work for a government agency in America, which paid me with a cheque drawn on Citibank. Not a backwoods boo-hickey sort of organisation, I'm sure you'll agree. The bank told me it would take 5-10 days to clear. Nice, as I needed the money - things were a bit tight.

It took 5 weeks. Bills still had to be paid.

What happens is that the victim of this gets into a spiral - charges, which have to be paid off, which restricts the amount of money available next month, which leads to more charges, etc, etc, so on and so on.

You're very fortunate that you are able to run your affairs so effectively and have never suffered this way. The banks have created a situation whereby the charges we're complaining about have become a very important revenue source. If in any doubt, read the Competition Commission's report into banking in Northern Ireland.

They are supposed to do no more than compensate the banks for their costs involved in additional management activity. As pretty much everything is automated - including the decision whether or not to allow an additional overdraft - the amount of additional activity is virtually zero. The most expensive element in acting on an excess cheque or a bounced DD/SO is the stamp on the letter they send out. If they actually send one out - most of the time, they don't.

So it's money for nothing - and the law is against them. We used to have something in this country called the Usury Act. It was repealed as part of the Consumer Credit Act. Excessive interest rates - which included things that masqueraded as charges for non-existent services - were against the Usury Act. The old-style banks, the pillars of the local community, with a manager who actually knew you and would speak to you, would never have behaved like this. The brave new world of banking thinks it's just fine and a profit opportunity it can't believe it missed in the past.

Luckily, the law is still against them. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations; the Sale of Goods Act; and the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

So, in short, what the banks are doing is unlawful

What other justification is needed to take them to court?

[JonCris]

natwest why on earth are you explaining yourself!

 

Why you suffered at the hands of the money lenders is your business not someone who wants to come here claiming the high moral ground or claims to not know why most consumers have got into this situation. Why bother trying to enlighten them it won't serve any purpose whatsoever.

[elsinore]

GHM - joined December - contentious first post = troll?

 

Elsinore

[JonCris]

Almost certainly elsinore

[natwesttookmymoney]

You're probably right, JC, but I have come across this before and it's an attitude I will challenge.

You may be right too, Elsinore.

[JonCris]

natwest Why bother they ain't worth the trouble & we have much bigger fish to fry. If you respond it only encourages them

[natwesttookmymoney]

I usually come across it face-to-face and, in general, a reasoned argument is found to be preferable to a punch in the mouth.

But I take your point and shan't bother posting on this thread any more. Even if you reply to this one.

Westy

[JonCris]

natwest I'm on your side I just don't think anyone should humiliate themselves by having to explain why they have got into the situation they have. It's enough to know they have without them having to explain

[natwesttookmymoney]

Can't stop myself. D'oh!

I know you're on my side. I don't see it as a humiliation - more an illustration of the regime the banks have set up to extract cash from unsuspecting, trustful and respectful customers.

But there is an observation someone once made, quite a few years ago: "Most people are two pay cheques from disaster'. Shamelessly making money from fear and misfortune is something that should be exposed. My financial misdemeanours are nothing

compared to a regime established to exploit them.

The shame is part of the regime: those who are cowed will be unwilling to question it. I have nothing to hide: I will not be shamed into silence.

W

[JonCris]

Gotcha! Sorry couldn't resist

[JonCris]

My concern is that if newbies come here only to see us trying to justify our situation to others on the site they may be put off asking for help because of a feeling of humiliation

[GHM]

JonCris - Not a troll, sorry. I don't know many that put that much effort into stirring a debate they don't really care about. I can see you have a point about wondering why people should explain themselves but that's your opinion.

 

As I say, I am wondering how people get into this level of trouble in varied ways. I am a customer who fortunately has a large credit facility now. A few years ago I was on benefit and had to work damn hard to get out of a scrape.

 

I put it down to a small measure of luck and some damn good decisions while mitigating the risk that I took at EVERY stage. There, you know a little bit about me know. I am on Internet banking every day. I know how much I have in all my accounts, I bounce money between accounts to ensure I avoid any fees. I can see this is not possible for everyone.

 

Banks are also not charities and I treat them with an equal amount of contempt and respect - a bit like the ocean, especially as I don't swim, I sink.

 

I thank those who've replied to my honest post and held back any accusations, especially natwesttookmymoney, paddysreturn and vampiress.

 

No-one has come back re the chance that the banks will counter claim once they have defined a Fair charge. Anyone looking forward to that.

 

What I find most annoying is the fact that if the banks' unfair charges are so unfair then so must be the fact that people are reclaiming every penny. But I can see the loopholes and will have a look through the library as pointed out to me.

 

I have spent hours on the site reading various posts and find it quite difficult to navigate through and search effectively but should have spent more time in the library.

 

I have also been a member on Martin'smoneysaving blah blah since 2003 and every once in a while for me he crosses the line between money saving and unethical practices. One can hardly maintain any higher moral ground over the banks and other institutions if you get down to their level.

 

It's the "getting away with it" philosophy; and I despise it whether it's the banks or otherwise.

 

GHM

[natwesttookmymoney]

My concern is that if newbies come here only to see us trying to justify our situation to others on the site they may be put off asking for help because of a feeling of humiliation

Well, I'd point them in the direction of my main thread. In my second posting, I went through the feelings I had prior to taking action. It's been a co-dependent abusive relationship: I'm sure a lot of people will empathise with the way I felt.

W

[JonCris]

Well GHM I don't think anyone cares what you think. Instaed of acting superior if you have something constructive to say which will help those in difficulty then feel free is all I'm saying..

 

What loopholes parhaps you would like to enlighten us.

 

Bye the bye I ain't afraid of the banks trying to justify their charges as anyone who watched the money programme tonight will tell you "when hell freezes over" It was lovely to see their mouthpiece squirm under questions from the reporter

 

Also if you have no problems why are you longtime member of Martins site? Troll maybe apt then

 

Also I strongly suggest you don't bad mouth the guy on here or any other site for that matter

[elsinore]

GHM, three points

 

1. What's unfair about charges? In principle, nothing. I am quite content to pay legitimate charges in order that the bank can properly service my account.

 

2. Have you told Martin Lewis on his website that you believe some of his practises to be unethical?

 

3. Why are you here?

 

Elsinore

[GHM]

JonCris does that chip weigh heavy on your left, right or both shoulders. You already said you weren't going to dignify my presence with a response so why don't you do just that instead of making yourself look silly.

 

I haven't bad mothed Martin, I think he does some good work, more good than bad. But I'm sure he'll be glad that there are people out there such as yourself who are prepared to threaten other people who may challenge his actions on occasion.

 

I am a member of his site because I am interested in it and it has some good ideas that I can sometimes use or pass on to my family. I don't pass on the ones I disagree with such as getting the 2 for 1 deal on London Attractions by driving almost all the way to London and then buying the cheapest Rail fare possible (as he suggests) in order to obtain the saving. The POINT of the offer is to encourage use of public transport. This is an example of his money saving crossing the slightly unethical lines. If everyone does this, the offer will close to those genuinely switching to more environmental means. Which is unfair, wouldn't you agree?

 

I am not acting superior - where did you pick that up? You're acting inferior is not the same thing you know. I didn't say I was here to be constructive, I am just asking some questions trying to get some answers from those willing to explain to me. Some have done this and it's been useful, so far.

 

The loopholes I am referring to should be obvious to all, they are the ones that the people claiming their charges back are currently driving a big bus through. There are similar ones for people who are caught speeding (genuinely) and they get away with that too.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the banks define a fairer charge and rebate everyone fairly as opposed to this rather administratively heavy approach that only the few are prepared to go through. This campaign may achieve that but...

 

...At the end of the day, you would have to imagine that the banks will always win and get their (our) money by other means as someone (paddy?) said earlier so I would guess this is only a temporary respite for those who are long term victims. The banks will make us pay, they carry the whip hand do they not?

 

GHM

[JonCris]

Unethical! For unethical look no further than the banks.

 

They are masters at dodgy conduct. Which may explain why 3 of them a presently in the US of A awaiting the scales of justice.

 

Don't agree with the treaty that got them there but it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.

[GHM]

GHM, three points

 

1. What's unfair about charges? In principle, nothing. I am quite content to pay legitimate charges in order that the bank can properly service my account.

 

2. Have you told Martin Lewis on his website that you believe some of his practises to be unethical?

 

3. Why are you here?

 

Elsinore

 

1) Okay. Were the charges you paid not explained in the banks' Ts and Cs (despite being against a law). Did you accept these Ts and Cs as reasonable at a certain time in the past (present).

 

2) Yes, on three occasions, no response

 

3) I've explained that above. I'm interested in motivation and who has the will to change things. I'm not a troll, even if this stuff is bound to seem inflammatory on this site. There's no point having this discussion on the DIYNOT forum now is there?!? Just don't that kind of debate.

 

GHM