Your Ideas Please . . .

[Seminole]

Hi,

 

i've spent quite some time now looking through the various posts on this site and am quite intrequed with peoples comments.

 

If i understand it, most people are un-happy with the level of bank charges.

 

My question to you you guys is, if you've agreed with the bank a £100 overdraft and you exceed this by £50, what would be a fair charge?

 

Also, how about a returned Direct Debit or an unpaid cheque? What would you class as a fair charge for this?

 

Should banks charge at all? If not, what would be the point of a limit?

 

I am interested to see what your thoughts are.

 

Thanks, and i look forward to reading your replies!

 

In this day and age they have no excuse for "letting you" go over your limit IMHO other than to make money from charging you.

 

They could set their systems to say his overdraft is £100 so thats all he can have. but how would they make money from charges doing that!!!

 

This is how the Coop actually operate their Cashminder account escept that there is no overdraft whatsoever. It proves it can be done but the only reason the Coop do it is because they think there's a high risk of not recovering any charges from someone who wants this account. When you think about it, that says a great deal about the thought processes banks go through when setting their charges high- the customer can afford it so make them pay.

 

I should add that the Coop only alloe a small number of free bounces before they close this account.

[Falkirk1298]

What I can't get my head round is the idea of charging for a failed transaction, where the bank haven't lost anything at all. They may claim that there is a manual check, but I don't believe it.

 

I have on occassion had failed Switch transactions on my current account, usually when I've been ordering on-line and there's been some sort of glitch in the system. The transaction is declined there and then, at no cost to me.

 

Where's the difference?

[Falkirk1298]

What I can't get my head round is the idea of charging for a failed transaction, where the bank haven't lost anything at all. They may claim that there is a manual check, but I don't believe it.

 

I have on occassion had failed Switch transactions on my current account, usually when I've been ordering on-line and there's been some sort of glitch in the system. The transaction is declined there and then, at no cost to me.

 

Where's the difference?

[sensor]

the replies here are quite varied and thanks to everyone who has posted already.

 

for those of you who asked, no i am not from the banks! i have a couple of friends who work in banks, and bank charges always seem to come up on some conversation every couple of weeks.

 

the reason why i ask is that recently, through no fault of my own, i went over my overdraft limit. The reason was that my mobile phone company charged me £168.52 rather than the monthly £25. No one at the phone place seemed to know why, but there was no problems sorting this out and i got a refund within a couple of days. The phone company also agreed that they would refund bank charges, i just needed to have a statement that showed that charges were as a result of the phone companies error.

 

I phoned my bank and asked for this, but they said that there were no chages on my account?

 

This is what prompted my visit to this site. My bank didn't charge a penny for going o/d. . They also paid, without charge, other DD's that took me further o/d without any charges. My overdraft limit is £1000. Before the incorrect payment went through, my balance was £862.54 debit. Before i noticed the error, two further DD went through my account, one for £58 and one for £72. This took my total balance to 1161.06 debit with a £1000 limit.

 

I didn't believe that the bank had made no charges. I didn't want to make a fuss with the bank about this in case they made an error, but i politely asked if i would be charged in the future. The person on the phone advised that i should have been charged £75 (£25 each time my account went a further £25 over the limit), but because i had not been over my limit in the past 3 months, they waived any charges. However if the same happened next month, i would be charged.

 

I think that the bank, in this case, have actually got qutie a fair policy. I will admit that if the charges were £75 that these are high, but for a first 'offense' i was let off. i also found out that the interest charge for the balance over my limit is the same as the balance within my limit, so i paid no more than if my limit would have covered all of the payments.

 

i am nearly always in my overdraft, but try and manage my accounts so that i never go over my limit. my bank recognised this and so didn't charge.

 

i think it probably has been said before that the people who are hit hardest by bank charges are those who cannot afford them. i am by no means rich, and £75 would have devistate me, but i had agreed a limit of £1000 and i broke that agreement.

 

many people have said that if you've agreed with the bank a limit, you should not be allowed to go over this. i my case, the bank actually did a good deed as one direct debit was for my car insurance. if this was not paid, my insurance stops immediately. the other was to cover part of a mortgage payment i share with my partner. if this had not gone through then we may have been in serious trouble.

 

in case you're interested, my phone company is 02 and my bank, HSBC.

[sensor]

the replies here are quite varied and thanks to everyone who has posted already.

 

for those of you who asked, no i am not from the banks! i have a couple of friends who work in banks, and bank charges always seem to come up on some conversation every couple of weeks.

 

the reason why i ask is that recently, through no fault of my own, i went over my overdraft limit. The reason was that my mobile phone company charged me £168.52 rather than the monthly £25. No one at the phone place seemed to know why, but there was no problems sorting this out and i got a refund within a couple of days. The phone company also agreed that they would refund bank charges, i just needed to have a statement that showed that charges were as a result of the phone companies error.

 

I phoned my bank and asked for this, but they said that there were no chages on my account?

 

This is what prompted my visit to this site. My bank didn't charge a penny for going o/d. . They also paid, without charge, other DD's that took me further o/d without any charges. My overdraft limit is £1000. Before the incorrect payment went through, my balance was £862.54 debit. Before i noticed the error, two further DD went through my account, one for £58 and one for £72. This took my total balance to 1161.06 debit with a £1000 limit.

 

I didn't believe that the bank had made no charges. I didn't want to make a fuss with the bank about this in case they made an error, but i politely asked if i would be charged in the future. The person on the phone advised that i should have been charged £75 (£25 each time my account went a further £25 over the limit), but because i had not been over my limit in the past 3 months, they waived any charges. However if the same happened next month, i would be charged.

 

I think that the bank, in this case, have actually got qutie a fair policy. I will admit that if the charges were £75 that these are high, but for a first 'offense' i was let off. i also found out that the interest charge for the balance over my limit is the same as the balance within my limit, so i paid no more than if my limit would have covered all of the payments.

 

i am nearly always in my overdraft, but try and manage my accounts so that i never go over my limit. my bank recognised this and so didn't charge.

 

i think it probably has been said before that the people who are hit hardest by bank charges are those who cannot afford them. i am by no means rich, and £75 would have devistate me, but i had agreed a limit of £1000 and i broke that agreement.

 

many people have said that if you've agreed with the bank a limit, you should not be allowed to go over this. i my case, the bank actually did a good deed as one direct debit was for my car insurance. if this was not paid, my insurance stops immediately. the other was to cover part of a mortgage payment i share with my partner. if this had not gone through then we may have been in serious trouble.

 

in case you're interested, my phone company is 02 and my bank, HSBC.

[simonjohn]

Dave your right in fact I know a person who was charge and convicted with fraud for doing just that,

 

The thing is how long will it be, before the banks start to use this as a Threat, to dissuade potential claiments to drop any court action ?

[simonjohn]

Dave your right in fact I know a person who was charge and convicted with fraud for doing just that,

 

The thing is how long will it be, before the banks start to use this as a Threat, to dissuade potential claiments to drop any court action ?

[simonjohn]

I think they would have a hard job - with their dubious means of providing us with access to an account balance - how can anyone be 100% sure they are not about to bounce a cheque.

 

 

I would also imagine that it would depend on the length of time that has elappsed from the alleged Fraud.

 

I dont think that the Authorites would view very favouably if a bank were to try and prosecute for fraud on an account that was say, closed 4 years ago in response to reciving a claim for a refund of penalty charges.

[simonjohn]

I think they would have a hard job - with their dubious means of providing us with access to an account balance - how can anyone be 100% sure they are not about to bounce a cheque.

 

 

I would also imagine that it would depend on the length of time that has elappsed from the alleged Fraud.

 

I dont think that the Authorites would view very favouably if a bank were to try and prosecute for fraud on an account that was say, closed 4 years ago in response to reciving a claim for a refund of penalty charges.

[simonjohn]

Now that would just make them look silly.

 

Yes, especialy if it were to be shown that durring an alleged fraud the Bank in question were making a profit on penalty charges from such a fraud I think they would have to explain their complicitness

[simonjohn]

Now that would just make them look silly.

 

Yes, especialy if it were to be shown that durring an alleged fraud the Bank in question were making a profit on penalty charges from such a fraud I think they would have to explain their complicitness

[sensor]

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group