Fuckin bank charges again.....

[princessamy]

Okay so yesterday my bf booked 4 tickets to glasto on his card, unaware that he was £90 short because his work had underpaid him £150.
So his bank rings him today and says that if he doesn't get the money in before the transaction processes (£90 overdrawn this would leave him) they will charge him £50. Even though I can take the cash out and we can hand it in to his bank tomorrow (as at this time today its not possible as the banks are shut, and transferring money from a different bank takes 3 days)

£50 charge for this. He's an excellent customer to them (as in he doesn't go overdrawn, has steady income etc. Which is probably actually not what they want because they don't get to charge him £50 very often.

But £50 fuckin pounds.

And this is suppost to be an ethical bank!

Cunts.

Just had to have a rant, i know i'm one of many that feel like this. . .

[piecesofme]

My banks an arse for doing this. I went 1p..yes 1p over my student overdraft limit and got a £25 bank charge :rolleyes: :yeees:

Maybe he could try and claim it back as it was not actually his fault his work had underpaid him?!

[MrG]

I know banks are horrific for charges, but its not exactly the banks charge that he was under paid, if he takes a bank statement into work and he could try to claim back the £25 charge or something?

But i dont know what hes going to do otherwise.

Sounds harsh, but never assume you have been paid correctly until you have seen the evidence, as i suffered many a time the same thing when i was weekly paid.

[princessamy]

Ha, he is weekly paid also.

Its sorted though i think, he rung the bank back and they have said they will not charge him if he puts the money in tomorrow. Slightly skeptical if they actually won't though.

I don't know what's actually going on but I think there is some sort of trial going on that will sort out the robbing bastard banks once and for all. Just hope they hurry up and sort it. They are literally robbing us as they just take out our money without permission or notice or any real good reason.

[princessamy]

And 25 quid for a penny is beyond stupid. . .

[MrG]

And 25 quid for a penny is beyond stupid. . .

Im not saying the amount they charge (£25) is right, way too much infacct

but if your going to argue with a bank, see it from their point of view, whats the different between been 1p and 10p overdrawn

whats the difference between 10p and 20p over drawn

take it further, whats the difference between £10 and £11 overdrawn, as unfair as it is, they do have to draw a line somewhere

[FCUK it]

Im not saying the amount they charge (£25) is right, way too much infacct

but if your going to argue with a bank, see it from their point of view, whats the different between been 1p and 10p overdrawn

whats the difference between 10p and 20p over drawn

take it further, whats the difference between £10 and £11 overdrawn, as unfair as it is, they do have to draw a line somewhere

And multiply that per X amount of customers per day.

I'm not justifying bank charges, but it's amazing how many people don't regularly check their account. Instead of checking their funds even on weekly basis, they just check them once a month when they have been paid, then chuck everything on their debit card.

Internet banking, telephone banking, ATMS, bank branches etc make it all easy. If it's a pure and simple mistake, then fair enough. If it's cos someone can't be arsed to keep a track of their money, then the charges are their own fault.

The case re: bank charges is still ongoing. If the banks lose, expect to be paying for you bank account very soon...

[Skive]

I'm not justifying bank charges, but it's amazing how many people don't regularly check their account.

And it'a amazing how ignorant people are of the some of the reasons people get into dept and go over there agreed limit. Most of these people I'd bet have never had to live on the breadline whilst juggling big responsibilities.

You see to beleive people only beyond their limit because they're too lazy to check their balance. Somethimes people have no other choice.
For some people the washing machine packign up or the car breaking down, might be the sort of thing resulting in a charge. If they then get charged 35 quid by the bank, they have even less chance of getting things back on track.

I'm all for the banks leveling proportionate costs, ie the cost of administration but they go way over the top. The charges they give are disproportionate and illegal. I don't see how anybody can defend them, they won't even bother defending themselves because they know their wrong.

[FCUK it]

And it'a amazing how ignorant people are of the some of the reasons people get into dept and go over there agreed limit. Most of these people I'd bet have never had to live on the breadline whilst juggling big responsibilities.

You see to beleive people only beyond their limit because they're too lazy to check their balance. Somethimes people have no other choice.
For some people the washing machine packign up or the car breaking down, might be the sort of thing resulting in a charge. If they then get charged 35 quid by the bank, they have even less chance of getting things back on track.

I'm afraid i have to disagree there. I am on no level ignorant. I've worked for a bank and i've heard every story for reasons why people have incurred charges. From experience, i can tell you that those people who have seriously needed help i have given assistance too. You call me ignorant, but you seem to think that everyone who incurrs charges does so because they are in debt - which isn't necessarily always the case. It's amazing how many people try to pull a fast one to get charges back. I've returned/refunded thousands to customers when i didn't have to return a penny of it. Why? Because a) i'm not ignorant and am able to understand the ins and outs of daily life and b) because i am human and not a machine that just applies things because it doesn't fit to a code.

If someone's car breaks down, or their washing machine packs up, you still don't go and spend £350 on your card, when you only have an available balance of £200. Just go and talk to your bank - they can help.

It would be like me going and spending £2000 on my card, getting charged for being over my overdraft and saying 'oh, i needed to have some things fixed'. That's where prioritising comes in to perspective. At the end of the day, a washing machine or a car is just a tool. I've had people begging me to give them money back because they couldn't afford food and i've done everything in my power to help them. In situations such as these, giving the odd charge back is of no assistance at all, as the person needs to have their debt managed.
Just to clarify with you, I am probably one of the most debt aware people there are. Having worked for a bank for over 4 years, never had a charge and being able to manage my money, i feel i have a better understanding than most and am therefore not ignorant.

[Skive]

Having worked for a bank for over 4 years, never had a charge and being able to manage my money, i feel i have a better understanding than most and am therefore not ignorant.

Yet you're here defending and illegal practice. If your so aware yu'd have thought you'd know better.

These charges are disproportionate are they not? What does the law say about disproportionate charges? They're illegal?

Banks are making money off peoples misery. How can you defend them?

[phoenix24]

its only disproportionate if you look at a monetary value

if you look at it as a charge which relates to an overdraft clause in your contract, then its not. i know its harsh and i've paid charges myself, but the fact is that it is a black and white issue...i mean as it was mentioned, where do they draw the line?

i can see your point about taking money from people who it genuienly hurts, but then equally i know people in £1000 of overdraft who are out on the lash every week, smoking like chimneys....there's both sides of it going on, and if i had to guess, i'd say that the people in the latter case are more populous, but then to be fair most of them are students on free overdrafts...tough issue but the banks have to draw a line somewhere and it has to be £0.00. you are either overdrawn or you're not...

[*deleted*]

there obviously was no agreement made to wether bank charges were to continue or not

[Skive]

its only disproportionate if you look at a monetary value

i mean as it was mentioned, where do they draw the line?

There should be a charge, both to cover the cost and to present a case for a customer not going over their limit.
If they do go over the limit though, hows about levelling charges to cover the cost of administration, even double the cost of administration would be fair. As it is some of these charges are up to 100 times the actaula cost incurred by the bank.


i can see your point about taking money from people who it genuienly hurts, but then equally i know people in £1000 of overdraft who are out on the lash every week, smoking like chimneys

And then there's these banks with considerably more money than almost everybody out there levelinng totally unreasonable charges.

tough issue but the banks have to draw a line somewhere and it has to be £0.00. you are either overdrawn or you're not...

I'm not arguing against a charge, I just want one that's suitable, fair and legal.

What argument have you got to defend the illgeal disproportiante cost?

[Kermit]

I've worked for a bank and i've heard every story for reasons why people have incurred charges. From experience, i can tell you that those people who have seriously needed help i have given assistance too.

I don't believe you.

Banks don't help. Banks are there to make money. It's nothing personal, but if you tell me that you've never knowingly sold a loan to someone who couldn't handle it, or never knowingly sold PPI to someone who didn't need it, then I will call you a liar. There's a reason why bank staff are on commission and it is to "enhance productivity", i.e. sell more stuff to more people who don't need it or can't handle it.

Banks exist to make money. You go to work to make money. Making money and helping people are mutually exclusive. Always has been, always will be.

Me and the missus deal every day with the fallout from banks irresponsible lending and grotesquely unfair charges policy. Certainly I've had clients who have had £2000 of charges slapped on their account in a few short months. Not sure how that is meant to help them manage their finances and sort their debts out, but it keeps the LLoyds TSB executives in lear jets and yachts, that's for certain.

As for me, I'm intelligent and very financially literate (as I would be, being a lawyer working until recently for a debt advice charity). I was unemployed for two months and the C-Operative Bank slapped a £25 fine on my account one month. That meant I was £25 down the next month, so I had another £25 fine slapped on, and then another one. In four months I ran up £600 of charges and, co-incidentally, my agreed overdraft was about £600 when I returned to work. We got every single penny back from the cunts, but if you tell me that I was "financially irresponsible" I'll knock your block off.

As for the bank "helping me"? Sorry, the computer says I can't have my charges back, but would I be interested in a bank loan with PPI?

Amusingly enough, claiming my bank charges was the best thing I did with the Co-Op. I saw my customer file not so long ago, our "credit rating" with them is £0.02 and it has been ever since I got the charges back. Not bad considering we earn forty grand between us and have practically no debt anymore...

[MattLiverpool]

Down with bank charges!

I know people on the dole and for the sake of a pound have ended up 31 quid in debt, unable to pay their next bill until it keeps rolling.

Heck it happens to me, for two card bills totally 10 quid i was charged £60!!!! What do they do? drive a porche to collect my money in person or something!??!

You know if i didn't have family to bail me out when i've been charged, i'm pretty sure i wouldn't have a computer to type this post out on right now.

The charges are a load of shit, they know it, we know it, the lawyers know it, i'm just thinking of it as a hugge piggy bank right now till i'm ready to withdraw MY money when the courts are finished wiv em! (don't i sound wishful!)

[MrG]

Down with bank charges!

I know people on the dole and for the sake of a pound have ended up 31 quid in debt, unable to pay their next bill until it keeps rolling.

Heck it happens to me, for two card bills totally 10 quid i was charged £60!!!! What do they do? drive a porche to collect my money in person or something!??!

You know if i didn't have family to bail me out when i've been charged, i'm pretty sure i wouldn't have a computer to type this post out on right now.

The charges are a load of shit, they know it, we know it, the lawyers know it, i'm just thinking of it as a hugge piggy bank right now till i'm ready to withdraw MY money when the courts are finished wiv em! (don't i sound wishful!)

oooh the shock of potentially losing a computer to pay for bank charges


have a little heart at least and think how much worse it is for the people who dont have anything to sell!

[MattLiverpool]

Haha, i was completely oblivious to that Mr G!

Thankyou, you put things back into perspective.... :razz:

[phoenix24]

I'm not arguing against a charge, I just want one that's suitable, fair and legal.

What argument have you got to defend the illgeal disproportiante cost?

fair enough. i think that'd be for the best too...

i already pointed out that its not necessarily disproportionate so i can't debate that with you

as for whether it's "illegal" or not, thats not really the point. standing at football matches isn't really "illegal", its just covered in regulations you agree to when you purchase a ticket, just like bank charges are a part of the terms and conditions you accept when you open an account. also, its not beyond reason to use a building society without an overdraft. nor is anyone forced to use a credit card

ok there are always exceptions, but there are to any rule. like i said, you have to draw a line. should the fine be lower? maybe. should people who are in more debt pay more then? if you have to shell out for assisted living costs, or medical cover? those people should pay more than some cunt who spent too much on beer? you can go round in circles but that fact is that its a broadly utilitarian society whereby you come up with a system or a set of rules which suit the majority

[piecesofme]

Im not saying the amount they charge (£25) is right, way too much infacct

but if your going to argue with a bank, see it from their point of view, whats the different between been 1p and 10p overdrawn

whats the difference between 10p and 20p over drawn

take it further, whats the difference between £10 and £11 overdrawn, as unfair as it is, they do have to draw a line somewhere



No I know and I agree with what you say you have to draw a line.

But for 1p it's so annoying, especailly as it was for something I hadn't budgeted for. I needed something doing urgently at the dentist meaning I had to pay £50 for it and was due to get my student bursery 2 days later :rolleyes: just my luck.

Ahh well live and learn eh.

[ShyBoy]

Kermit: I've worked for a bank too and I think you're a bit biased. I think some banks just hire farms of people in India to cold call, but where I used to work with RBS had a fantastic culture and we often did help customers.

I don't know why the banks dont invest in some system on debit cards so that if you're out of cash it simply wont put a transaction through. So lets leave that point to one side for now. And to clarify my position, I do agree the amount of the bank charges is vastly excessive.

However, to say people who work in banks don't care - at least in my experience - is completely untrue. I once chased up a customers mistake where he'd lost £3000, it took me 3 weeks but I finally got it back for him from another bank in another country. I had no obligation to, I could have just told him tough luck. If a customer phones up and says they've been charged because of something, then I'll check their account and say ok no worries and refund the charges. If a customer phones up, and it turns out every month they're spending more money than they're getting - then it is irresponsible spending. Even if they need these things, if there was no bank and they just had cash in their hand they'd struggle. So they're ripping off the bank to get stuff. That's why the charges are there, to prevent people obtaining goods by deception. Although that sounds very spurious, I doubt people use their overdraft in that way, but I don't see why it's fair for a bank to keep saying 'its ok, just spend money you don't have...'.

In the majority of people getting bank charges, it's simply because they don't know how much money they have in their bank. They go out on the last friday before their wages maybe, buy some cocktails and spend more than they have. It's easy enough to arrange an overdraft in advance, but some people really do live in ignorance of their balance.

I think it's tragic when some people get stuck in a spiral because of bank charges BUT at the same time the bank is providing a service and there has to be some level of what is fair use and what is taking them for a ride.

Also on a personal note, most people who work in banks are really good decent people - half the team I was working with were mothers! They will go out of their way to help. But they have a job too and aren't a charity. It's like when I worked in customer service, (that's not so many decent people, but still alright ;)) sometimes if someone breaks something and it's their fault you just have to say sorry, we can't replace it.

[cuppatboys]

I have to disagree with Kermit on the "Selling Loans to people who can't afford to pay them back" Maybe some banks do it but Lloyds TSB certainly are not the worst. They are strict on who they borrow to and if they do get into any trouble then they are offered a low rate refinance so that the bank can claw back at least some of the debts.
As for bank charges..lloyds are probably the worst
Max Charges you could recieve in a month
£15 one off monthly fee
£20 a day for 10 days = £200
£20x3 Returned S/O
£20x3 Returned D/D
£20x3 Returned Chq

£395 in total. Arseholes.

[MattLiverpool]

fair enough. i think that'd be for the best too...

i already pointed out that its not necessarily disproportionate so i can't debate that with you

as for whether it's "illegal" or not, thats not really the point. standing at football matches isn't really "illegal", its just covered in regulations you agree to when you purchase a ticket, just like bank charges are a part of the terms and conditions you accept when you open an account. also, its not beyond reason to use a building society without an overdraft. nor is anyone forced to use a credit card

ok there are always exceptions, but there are to any rule. like i said, you have to draw a line. should the fine be lower? maybe. should people who are in more debt pay more then? if you have to shell out for assisted living costs, or medical cover? those people should pay more than some cunt who spent too much on beer? you can go round in circles but that fact is that its a broadly utilitarian society whereby you come up with a system or a set of rules which suit the majority

I think in my case is it illegal.

I had an arguement with an advisor who wanted an immediate payment on a £400 unagreed overdraft which had been created by the bank charges which just kept coming when i couldn't pay my bills, charge after charge caused this to happen.

The guy said i signed an agreement allowing them to do it, i informed him the account is a child account and i had signed nothing when i created it. His answer to that was there are signs in every bank that tell me i will be charged. LOL i can't remember the last time i was in a bank. I asked him does he think that will stand up in court?

I didn't AGREE for the bank to pay my bills and charge me £30 a bill, i think it's illegal, they are charging me for something i didn't agree on!

It's theft!

[Maladjusted]

fair enough. i think that'd be for the best too...

i already pointed out that its not necessarily disproportionate so i can't debate that with you

as for whether it's "illegal" or not, thats not really the point. standing at football matches isn't really "illegal", its just covered in regulations you agree to when you purchase a ticket, just like bank charges are a part of the terms and conditions you accept when you open an account. also, its not beyond reason to use a building society without an overdraft. nor is anyone forced to use a credit card

Couple of point from reading the stuff over at the moneysavingexpert website, the law says that charges should be proportionate to cost incurred to the bank, i somehow don't think the admin charges to send out a letter and going a few pounds overdrawn is going to cost the bank £30.

Hence why the banks have been paying out for so long to avoid a court case, as they knew there was a very good chance that they'd lose, hence why credit card late payment fees dropped down to £12 too.

Also, can't remember who gave the analogy, but just because you signed a contract doesn't make something legal, you can sign a contract saying that someone is allowed to kill or stab you in the face but the contract doesn't change the fact that it's still against the law.

[FCUK it]

I don't believe you.

Banks don't help. Banks are there to make money. It's nothing personal, 2but if you tell me that you've never knowingly sold a loan to someone who couldn't handle it, or never knowingly sold PPI to someone who didn't need it, then I will call you a liar. There's a reason why bank staff are on commission and it is to "enhance productivity", i.e. sell more stuff to more people who don't need it or can't handle it.

As for me, I'm intelligent and very financially literate (as I would be, being a lawyer working until recently for a debt advice charity). I was unemployed for two months and the C-Operative Bank slapped a £25 fine on my account one month. That meant I was £25 down the next month, so I had another £25 fine slapped on, and then another one. In four months I ran up £600 of charges and, co-incidentally, my agreed overdraft was about £600 when I returned to work. We got every single penny back from the cunts, but if you tell me that I was "financially irresponsible" I'll knock your block off. 1

3As for the bank "helping me"? Sorry, the computer says I can't have my charges back, but would I be interested in a bank loan with PPI?


Clearly it is something personal to you Kermit. You say you are an intelligent individual, which i'm not disputing, but you seem to have overlooked some small items.

1) Don't threaten people with physical violence because they disagree with you - you do not know anything about me. When saying things like that, that's when i think people are not intelligent. Seems you'd be right at home in a dictatorship - 'disagree with me and you shall be punished'

2) Clearly it is personal, as you call me a liar even though you state it's not personal. Don't assume everyone who works in a bank sells loans and PPI, just because you've seen it on moneysavingexpert, doesn't mean that's how it works.
FYI, i worked for the e-commerce team, which a) don't deal with loans and b) don't deal with PPI, so, call me a liar if that will help you sleep at night, but whatever.

3) Just because the bank didn't assist you in this instance, the rule doesn't apply to all. I'll step into your shoes for a moment and do what you have done. You rang the bank once shouting and yelling about these charges did you? Not nice to 'presume' what you did or didn't do is it?
If people ring up, shouting and yelling, they are less likely to get the actions they are after. As one who has worked in a call centre, who did not have to deal with charges, if someone rang me up and asked for help, i would do everything in my power i could for them. If someone were to look back through my time at the bank, i can guarantee you that i have refunded more charges than charges which have been upheld, totalling thousands of pounds.

Skive, i suggest you re-read my posts, because at no point do i ever state that i agree with the cost of the charges. For your information, i did suggest to my then superiors that the charges all be reduced to £5 to be more reflective of the costs incurred. But because i didn't earn £100k and sit in a nice office, they took no notice of me. Not my fault.
Furthermore, do you think that people who attempt to make purchases without the money should be allowed to do so?

I agree with Shyboy that a system needs implementing to stop people using their cards, but then you will get people ringing up asking why their card has been declined, when in fact the money in their account is now an 'authorisation' for another purchase, meaning it is unavailable.

Skive, do you also think that Speeding fines are illegal then? You have signed no document saying you agree to the terms and conditions of driving within a speed, yet if you go over that speed you get a £60 fine - is that relative to the costs incurred? Yet you have signed a document stating that you agree to the terms and conditions of using your bank account.

I see that you made comments about certain aspects of my post Kermit, but you haven't thought about the implications that will rise as a result if the banks lose. People will have to start paying for their bank account, probably in the region of £10 a month - is this fair on those who have never incurred a bank charge, and particularly those who live on the breadline?

[Skive]

as for whether it's "illegal" or not, thats not really the point. standing at football matches isn't really "illegal"

Banks charging you disproportionate costs for going slightly over you agreed borrowing is illegal.

you can go round in circles but that fact is that its a broadly utilitarian society whereby you come up with a system or a set of rules which suit the majority

The banks have come up with a system that earns them more money, they majority had nothing to do with it and it's the majority that will end up suffering for it.
It's has nothing to do with society, it's about money and business.

[Skive]

Skive, i suggest you re-read my posts, because at no point do i ever state that i agree with the cost of the charges. For your information, i did suggest to my then superiors that the charges all be reduced to £5 to be more reflective of the costs incurred. But because i didn't earn £100k and sit in a nice office, they took no notice of me. Not my fault.
Furthermore, do you think that people who attempt to make purchases without the money should be allowed to do so?

You havn't said you thinks these charges are wrong either and you have defenced the banks throughout the thread.

Skive, do you also think that Speeding fines are illegal then? You have signed no document saying you agree to the terms and conditions of driving within a speed, yet if you go over that speed you get a £60 fine - is that relative to the costs incurred?

I don't agree with a lot of the speeding laws and I do think the charges are too much but you've given a crap anology for a couple of reasons.

1) Speeding laws exist to protect other road users from dangerous drivers. Outragous bank charges do nothing but make the bank more money.

2) Exceeeding the speed limit is breaking the law. Exceeding you agreed borrowing is not, though disproportainate charges are funnily enough.

3) Just because one other fines may be morally wrong isn't a good argument for carrying on with another one.

Yet you have signed a document stating that you agree to the terms and conditions of using your bank account.

Because wihtout a bank account I'd be fucked. The banks know they can write shit into a contract because a bank account from most is vital.
Anyway, the fact that I signed that contract doesn't mean that disproportionate charged are illegal.

People will have to start paying for their bank account, probably in the region of £10 a month - is this fair on those who have never incurred a bank charge, and particularly those who live on the breadline?

If that happens that won't be the fault of the people who sometimes go over their agreed limit so don't try and suggest it is. That will be the fault of the bank.
The banks don't need these charges to keep themselves goign and they wouldn't need to start charging for bank accounts - that's greed on their behalf nothing more.

[girl with sharp teeth]

I have to disagree with Kermit on the "Selling Loans to people who can't afford to pay them back" Maybe some banks do it but Lloyds TSB certainly are not the worst. They are strict on who they borrow to and if they do get into any trouble then they are offered a low rate refinance so that the bank can claw back at least some of the debts. Sorry, but that is completely untrue. Giving a £20K loan to an OAP living off a state pension (just one of my clients) is not even remotely responsible lending. You may be lucky enough to work with ethical colleagues who don't bow under the pressure of impossible sales targets but unfortunately, the vast majority of bank staff do. Not because they are bad people, but because they have to.

[girl with sharp teeth]

Clearly it is something personal to you Kermit. You say you are an intelligent individual, which i'm not disputing, but you seem to have overlooked some small items.

1) Don't threaten people with physical violence because they disagree with you - you do not know anything about me. When saying things like that, that's when i think people are not intelligent. Seems you'd be right at home in a dictatorship - 'disagree with me and you shall be punished'

2) Clearly it is personal, as you call me a liar even though you state it's not personal. Don't assume everyone who works in a bank sells loans and PPI, just because you've seen it on moneysavingexpert, doesn't mean that's how it works.
FYI, i worked for the e-commerce team, which a) don't deal with loans and b) don't deal with PPI, so, call me a liar if that will help you sleep at night, but whatever.

3) Just because the bank didn't assist you in this instance, the rule doesn't apply to all. I'll step into your shoes for a moment and do what you have done. You rang the bank once shouting and yelling about these charges did you? Not nice to 'presume' what you did or didn't do is it?
If people ring up, shouting and yelling, they are less likely to get the actions they are after. As one who has worked in a call centre, who did not have to deal with charges, if someone rang me up and asked for help, i would do everything in my power i could for them. If someone were to look back through my time at the bank, i can guarantee you that i have refunded more charges than charges which have been upheld, totalling thousands of pounds.

Skive, i suggest you re-read my posts, because at no point do i ever state that i agree with the cost of the charges. For your information, i did suggest to my then superiors that the charges all be reduced to £5 to be more reflective of the costs incurred. But because i didn't earn £100k and sit in a nice office, they took no notice of me. Not my fault.
Furthermore, do you think that people who attempt to make purchases without the money should be allowed to do so?

I agree with Shyboy that a system needs implementing to stop people using their cards, but then you will get people ringing up asking why their card has been declined, when in fact the money in their account is now an 'authorisation' for another purchase, meaning it is unavailable.

Skive, do you also think that Speeding fines are illegal then? You have signed no document saying you agree to the terms and conditions of driving within a speed, yet if you go over that speed you get a £60 fine - is that relative to the costs incurred? Yet you have signed a document stating that you agree to the terms and conditions of using your bank account.

I see that you made comments about certain aspects of my post Kermit, but you haven't thought about the implications that will rise as a result if the banks lose. People will have to start paying for their bank account, probably in the region of £10 a month - is this fair on those who have never incurred a bank charge, and particularly those who live on the breadline? I have to say, you seem to be taking this slightly personally as well. Trying to smear and belittle these remarks (and the person who made them) doesn't work well as an argument. Especially when you are factually incorrect.

[ShyBoy]

I have to say, you seem to be taking this slightly personally as well. Trying to smear and belittle these remarks (and the person who made them) doesn't work well as an argument. Especially when you are factually incorrect.

It's all about perspective though. You and kermit work with debt management / support charities if I recall, me and fcuk it have worked with the banks. You will never get a phone call from someone who said their bank have been really nice even when they went over their pre arranged overdraft. Where I worked there was a system of performance 'targets'. These weren't upheld like some banks though - one where a friend used to work if you didn't meet 50% you would lose your job. Where I worked, they were taken as averages - if you were significantly below average (and it wasn't just for sales, it was for all manner of things, all in the name of performance measurement) then they would ask why - was it that you didn't like talking on the phone? Or did you need more training?

But generally people get loans because they want them. The bank assesses risk through a computer. If you offer a customer a loan, the customer says yes, and the computer says yes, then you can't blame greedy corporate scum or whatever. It's not in the bank's interest to give out crippling debts.

I think one point is in general most people seem less financially savvy these days. I spend a fair amount of time on MSE as it's a goldmine of information, recommend it to my friends and so on. But not just when I was working for the bank, but people I know in real life - a scary amount of them really are clueless about money. I don't know if it's a life skill they're missing out on because nobody does home economics anymore but how many people do you know actually make a budget? I'm the -only- person on my corridor of 15 people at uni who does, and they think it's only because I'm an accounting student.

With national debt going up I don't blame the banks - they're just offering a service / product (just the same as I don't blame supermarkets for obesity). I do blame banks that do cold calling but that wasn't the case where I was working anyway.

[girl with sharp teeth]

Wrong.

I frequently have to persuade clients that the banks are NOT their friend, because the bank has been so helpful to them in the past. It's extended their agreed overdraft when they've gone over the limit, it's given them a nice loan to consolidate their overdraft and credit card, and best of all, it's left the overdraft limit there for them to run up again. Good stuff eh? :thumb: Educating people into realising that the bank is not there to help them is one of the hardest aspects of my job.

You don't have to say which bank you worked at if you don't want but I will guarantee you that they did cold call customers, and they did send letters out informing people that they had been pre-approved for loans and credit cards. I've never come across a bank that doesn't.

[ShyBoy]

It was RBS, and at least at the centre I worked at (there are about 10 big centres in the UK if I remember correctly now... can't remember) we only took incoming calls. And all the others follow a similar template.

I think it would be eye opening for you to work on one of the desks at the bank, and see that people are genuinely trying to help. As I said, they're not debt experts - they provide a service to allow you access to your money. If you're in debt and can't pay it back they may offer you a solution.

Should a McDonalds employee say to an obese person 'are you sure you want this? Do you want the salad instead?'.

The fact is it's easy to blame the banks. They're big faceless corporations. If the bank wasn't there, or even if you had a simple account with no debit card, just a cash card and so couldn't withdraw over your limit, you wouldn't get in debt because you would go to buy your groceries and not have the physical money. Overdrafts and credit works to lend that money, often for free under certain conditions. When you spend more than you can afford to pay back, the average joe isn't going to say 'I'm stupid', they're going to say 'I can't believe the bank let me do this'.

It's very easy to just get a bank account with just a cash card for withdrawls. You can get your wages paid in, no problem. As harsh as it sounds you're essentially helping people who've made a purchasing decision when it seems they're not in a position to make that decision. Nobody blames phone companies when they can no longer afford their contract mobile, and they happily cold call (I've been called hundreds of times by them).

[Kermit]

I don't know why the banks dont invest in some system on debit cards so that if you're out of cash it simply wont put a transaction through.

<snip>

I think it's tragic when some people get stuck in a spiral because of bank charges BUT at the same time the bank is providing a service and there has to be some level of what is fair use and what is taking them for a ride.

The bank decides to loan the person the money when they allow the transaction through. Therefore anything that happens is not "taking the bank for a ride" as the bank can refuse to allow the transaction at any time.

The reason they don't is obvious. If the transaction is allowed the bank charges a £35 fine and also charges interest which is typically somewhere between 20% and 30% APR (my NatWest account was charging 29.9% APR last time I checked).

With all that juicy profit just sitting there for the taking it's a miracle anyone expects the banks to turn it down.

Banks are businesses, they have a duty to maximise profit. Making money and helping people are usually mutually exclusive.

Also on a personal note, most people who work in banks are really good decent people

I would never dispute that.

But most bank staff are paid on a commission basis. They have children to feed, mortgages to pay, just like the rest of us.

It's 8.45pm, last day of the month, and you're one short of your target to get a £200 bonus. Your shoft ends in ten minutes. What do you do? Flog that loan for all its worth and tout the PPI on top, even though you know it's completely wrong for the customer, or let that sale go and miss your target?

Bank staff are only human. I know what most of them would choose. If I needed that £200 for my mortgage or to feed the bairns, I know what I would choose.

But don't pretend that means that all customers are properly advised.

Maybe some banks do it but Lloyds TSB certainly are not the worst. They are strict on who they borrow to and if they do get into any trouble then they are offered a low rate refinance so that the bank can claw back at least some of the debts.

They're so strict they gave a £10,000 loan and a £7500 credit card to one of my clients. His only source of income was income support and carer's allowance of about £70 a week.

Responsible lending my foot.

As for Lloyds TSB being helpful to those who are in trouble, in some ways they are and some ways they're not. Lloyds TSB have a transparent negotiations procedure which makes our job easier. Unfortunately it means they will not accept most offers of repayment until the account has had a default notice issued and has been transferred out of the business to an external debt management agency. If we're lucky we can negotiate when it's still with BLS, the internal debt management agency, but that's rare.

Don't threaten people with physical violence because they disagree with you

:lol:

If you disagree with the statement that I am financially literate then you deserve a smack. So kiss my ass.

Kermit, but you haven't thought about the implications that will rise as a result if the banks lose. People will have to start paying for their bank account, probably in the region of £10 a month - is this fair on those who have never incurred a bank charge, and particularly those who live on the breadline?

If banks start charging all customers for banking facilities I will eat my hat.

The credit card companies tried to claim that too, during the last OFT investigation. My latest credit card is 0% for 15 months with no arrangement fee and no monthly charge. Draw your own conclusions.

you have signed a document stating that you agree to the terms and conditions of using your bank account.


That misses the point entirely.

I could sign an agreement saying that its ok for you to punch me in the face every time I miss a credit card payment. It doesn't make it legally binding.

Onerous contractual terms are not legally binding. Penalty clauses should only cover the cost of the breach and should not be used to profit from a breach of the contract. A contracted party has the legal duty to minimise their losses and cannot then rely on any costs incurred if they have not done so.

The laws covering the above are as old as the hills. I can't wait for the court's decision, it should be an interesting one.

[cuppatboys]

They're so strict they gave a £10,000 loan and a £7500 credit card to one of my clients. His only source of income was income support and carer's allowance of about £70 a week.

Responsible lending my foot.

As for Lloyds TSB being helpful to those who are in trouble, in some ways they are and some ways they're not. Lloyds TSB have a transparent negotiations procedure which makes our job easier. Unfortunately it means they will not accept most offers of repayment until the account has had a default notice issued and has been transferred out of the business to an external debt management agency. If we're lucky we can negotiate when it's still with BLS, the internal debt management agency, but that's rare.



Ok ill admit they're not perfect and in no way do I support some of the things they do but they're not the worst bank for innapropriate lending. Yeah most customers get the option to use the lloyds collection agency. They are pretty good and they will offer like I said low-rate refinance loans just to clear the debt.
In my opinion they're all fuckers anyway. I only work in the telephone banking side of it and the sales targets are so unrealistic and although you are encouraged to "needs base sell" this isn't the case. I just try to sell as little as possible :P fuck the bonus's I get paid enough anyway

[girl with sharp teeth]

I think it would be eye opening for you to work on one of the desks at the bank, and see that people are genuinely trying to help. As I said, they're not debt experts - they provide a service to allow you access to your money. If you're in debt and can't pay it back they may offer you a solution.

Should a McDonalds employee say to an obese person 'are you sure you want this? Do you want the salad instead?'.
We're not disputing that most bank staff are nice people who try and help their customers Shyboy. That's a bit irrelevant to the point of the thread. It isn't individual bank staff that make policies.

To answer your point, if McDonalds had a duty to ensure that what they were selling was an appropriate product then yes, they should be saying that.

[girl with sharp teeth]

Ok ill admit they're not perfect and in no way do I support some of the things they do but they're not the worst bank for innapropriate lending. Yeah most customers get the option to use the lloyds collection agency. They are pretty good and they will offer like I said low-rate refinance loans just to clear the debt.
In my opinion they're all fuckers anyway. I only work in the telephone banking side of it and the sales targets are so unrealistic and although you are encouraged to "needs base sell" this isn't the case. I just try to sell as little as possible :P fuck the bonus's I get paid enough anyway Out of interest, who do you think the most irresponsible bank for lending is?

[ShyBoy]

We're not disputing that most bank staff are nice people who try and help their customers Shyboy. That's a bit irrelevant to the point of the thread. It isn't individual bank staff that make policies.

To answer your point, if McDonalds had a duty to ensure that what they were selling was an appropriate product then yes, they should be saying that.

Fair enough - I think we both want the same outcome from the case anyway, for pressure to be put on banks to give customers a fair deal. I still think more people need educating about personal finance so they don't get wrapped up in contracts, loans etc. to the point they are working to pay off debts. In all my time at school, we spent time discussing drugs a lot and all the different effects they have - but never once were we shown how simple it was to draw up a rudimentry budget. On one half of the page write down your money coming in. On the other, write down an estimate of money going out. I think these are such essential skills to be missing out on at an early age, I've got 18 year old friends with £50 per month contracts when they have a part time job or don't even have a job.

[girl with sharp teeth]

Aye, education is the way. I've been going in to schools for the last year and speaking to kids about personal finance and budgeting as part of my job role, but it's not enough for young people to get one visit from a stranger. It needs to be integrated into subjects and picked up throughout the curriculum - budgeting can be as relevant to Food Technology as it is to Maths.

[cuppatboys]

Out of interest, who do you think the most irresponsible bank for lending is?

Hmm don't know, I wouldn't like to say really as to be honest I don't know enough on the subject. But even though Kermit has a bad view on Lloyds TSB hes financially literate and he'd know personally that they're not the worst. I imagine that they're all near enough as bad as one another. Although Northern Rock are not too clever, as they lent money out in the wrong way. I believe the best bank in the u.k is royal bank of scotland and will be for a considerable amount of time