http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376906.stm
And I say good. If you don't like the conditions don't use the service.
And I say good. If you don't like the conditions don't use the service.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
UK Banks WIN Bank Charges Case
- Thread starter robbieduncan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bollocks. UK banks are ripping off their customers, and customers have no choice because _every_ bank rips them off in the same way. The cost to the bank is close to zero, but they charge customers £30 every time an account is overdrawn. And if a customer has little money, that £30 coming out of their account will make the account overdrawn again, creating new charges.
Perhaps someone should have told the banks that. Most of them were a bit more than £10 overdrawn this time last year.
US banks are the same way... That being said, I can't say that I think this is the banks fault. If you don't dip into the overdraft, you won't collect a fee. Bottom line is simply don't use it.
I also like how they put the video of the woman claiming that the fees are ruining her but she has enough money to have all those CD's and what looks like games or movies on the shelf. She clearly doesn't have enough income to support what she is sending out. Sounds to me like she needs to get rid of a lot of stuff and live within her means....
I'm tired of people blaming others for their stupidity when it comes to money.
I also like how they put the video of the woman claiming that the fees are ruining her but she has enough money to have all those CD's and what looks like games or movies on the shelf. She clearly doesn't have enough income to support what she is sending out. Sounds to me like she needs to get rid of a lot of stuff and live within her means....
I'm tired of people blaming others for their stupidity when it comes to money.
Perhaps someone should have told the banks that. Most of them were a bit more than £10 overdrawn this time last year.
This is true and they paid the (very high cost) of becoming largely non-private entities with new bosses in the government to report to. I don't see them claiming that that's unfair and going to court.
People should take responsibility for their actions, not whine and moan.
LOL! Well, yes, ideally save some of the £100, spend a little less than what you have left after saving and be happy. But almost no-one in this country seems to think like that any more
As much as I hate banks, I agree with robbie.
You won't get charged if you don't spend money you don't have, or at the very least if you haven't pre-arranged some wiggle room (overdraft).
I've never spent more than I've had, so I've never been charged. Not too complicated really.
You won't get charged if you don't spend money you don't have, or at the very least if you haven't pre-arranged some wiggle room (overdraft).
I've never spent more than I've had, so I've never been charged. Not too complicated really.
I do feel sorry for someone who accidentally screw up their account for a day or two and they get stung £30 for the privelage or whatever.
But there's an idiotic women on the BBC News website complaining about the £3k she's racked up in bank fees because she scheduled all her bills to come out of her account the same day of the month her benefits went in, and each month the bills came out before the benefits.
To not notice, to not action a very quick simple solution, and to let it get to £3k and THEN moan about it, is nothing short of educationally subnormal.
I was a moron with money as a student (my credit rating is still poor because of it, 8 years later) - and I paid a lot of fees. Not ONCE did it cross my mind to claim them back. I screwed up....I paid. That's the deal.
But there's an idiotic women on the BBC News website complaining about the £3k she's racked up in bank fees because she scheduled all her bills to come out of her account the same day of the month her benefits went in, and each month the bills came out before the benefits.
To not notice, to not action a very quick simple solution, and to let it get to £3k and THEN moan about it, is nothing short of educationally subnormal.
I was a moron with money as a student (my credit rating is still poor because of it, 8 years later) - and I paid a lot of fees. Not ONCE did it cross my mind to claim them back. I screwed up....I paid. That's the deal.
I think this is where the punishment should fit the crime should come into play. There needs to be a fine, but not a disproportionate one.
I hate these types of arguments... cos you just get people who most likely have never spent a day worrying about money moaning about 'don't spend what you don't have...' bull.....
I have never had a bank charge for being overdrawn etc but do have friends and relatives who have been charged for going over.
Its never that simple!
For example some have to survive day to day, in terms of money.... and if one day a payment they are due doesn't arrive and they have direct debits already coming out then what can they do! Nothing! It's not necessarily their fault yet they get punished for struggling... putting them into an even tighter bind.
OR situations where someone gets overdrawn by a couple of £ then have to pay £30 for the mistake!
Banks have shot themselves in the foot and now the public know how corrupt the inner workings can be no one wants to stand for it.
I am in now way in favour of the banks and like many others am very unhappy and disappointed with this result.
I have never had a bank charge for being overdrawn etc but do have friends and relatives who have been charged for going over.
Its never that simple!
For example some have to survive day to day, in terms of money.... and if one day a payment they are due doesn't arrive and they have direct debits already coming out then what can they do! Nothing! It's not necessarily their fault yet they get punished for struggling... putting them into an even tighter bind.
OR situations where someone gets overdrawn by a couple of £ then have to pay £30 for the mistake!
Banks have shot themselves in the foot and now the public know how corrupt the inner workings can be no one wants to stand for it.
I am in now way in favour of the banks and like many others am very unhappy and disappointed with this result.
Pretty stupid thing to say. When I lost my job I didnt suddenly rid myself of my cds, sell the TV and start living in a cave.
Oh come on. The ones that paid the price are all the low-level employees who got their pensions cut and lost their jobs. The people who were responsible got tons of money for being greedy, incompetent pigs. Those people didn't whine and moan, they continued putting money in their own pockets instead of taking responsibility.
That's not the deal. You screwed up, they took advantage of your screwing up, that's wrong. Who says the bank has the right to £3000 just because someone is "educationally subnormal"? That is idiotic. Fifty percent of the population have an IQ under the average. Do you think they should be ripped off? If you meet someone on the street who is bigger and stronger than you, that doesn't give them the right to take your wallet, does it? So why should a bank have the right to someone's money just because that person isn't the brightest one on the planet?
No, there doesn't need to be a fine at all. Those banks have computers that can very easily _refuse_ to give you any more money when you're overdrawn.
Whilst this is very off-topic I don't think that's true. It's not a mathematical certainty anyway.
The average of 80, 140, 150 is 123.33. Only 33% of the sample is less than the average.
They didn't 'take advantage', they simply carried out the terms and conditions on the account I held.
I knew what would happen. They're fully entitled to do it. I signed on the dotted line in agreement to it, as does every person hit by these charges. If one has a problem understanding or interpreting them, any high street branch would be happy to sit down and explain them to you and give you advice on how to avoid them.
When people starting taking the piss out of the banks by repeatedly attempting to draw, or have drawn via DD etc, cash they don't have - they have themselves and themselves alone to blame.
Advice, guidance, help are all available. That idiots like that women didn't seek it or take it is NOT the banks fault - they will have written to her on every single occasion (which will run into nearly a hundreds for this women) reminding her of the charges, advising her to get in touch. She declined to do so.
SHE is to blame. NOT the banks.
So if they don't pay out the direct debit then the bill that was going to be paid won't be and you'll most likely get hit with a punitive charge from the utility provider you just didn't pay. And you'd probably blame the bank for not paying it.
So the banks say "Let us punish you, instead of the utility company (possibly)!". How thoughtful of them..
Are these overdrafts optional? Do you need to apply for an overdraft on your account; or if not can you decline? With variable direct debits, it's easy to go into the red, unless you have the funds to keep a sizeable "buffer".
No, but hopefully you lived within your means.... She stated that for years this has been happening which is clear that she has no idea on how to budget. Stop buying the items that she can live without and suddenly there is a little extra coin in the bank...
FYI, I also don't appreciate you calling me stupid.
robbieduncan and others
Have you followed the case? Have you read today's judgement? Because you are really, seriously missing the point. The case isn't whether or not there should be charges, whether they're fair because people agreed to them or any other variant people have concocted.
The question asked was 'do the OFT have the power to decide if the level of charges levied are reasonable'. The answer was 'not using the piece of legislation they appealed on, but there's plenty more to use.'
That's the extent of it. All of it. Everything else is conjecture.
As for the 'you signed so tough' argument, many cases have done it to death. The conclusion is that it's neither morally nor legally defensible, especially not when there's a difference in bargaining power between the parties. Although I take solace in the fact that if you ever have a problem with an unfair contract, you'll simply roll over and say 'oh well, I agreed to it'. Of course you will. If you truly believe this, you're deciding not to use very powerful legislation that was put in place for your benefit - to protect you - by the people we collectively elected (due to their policies). Truly self-defeating in vain of making a point.
As for the principle of the charges themselves, many seem to agree with them. Me too; I think people should be discouraged from breaking their promise to the bank and money is a suitable deterrent as that's what the agreement covers. However, I expect we differ in that I believe that the charges in their current form are unfair. They are truly disproportionate to the cost incurred. Certain practices, such as re-drawing the same cheque without notification three times (and therefore incurring three separate charges) and charging people daily but notifying them by post (i.e. incurs a delay) are particularly sinister. Everyone needs a bank account, so there's little choice in the matter. Finally, there are no set equal compensation costs for when the bank makes mistakes (like the water companies do). They just say 'sorry'. That's also unfair.
No. Even if you have no overdraft on an account, as I have (because they want £25 per year administration), if a utility bill comes in too high they will give you an unauthorised overdraft.
So, without an overdraft the choice is:
a) return the direct debit unpaid and get fined by the bank;
b) give you a temporary unauthorised overdraft without your knowledge and then get fined by the bank for it, plus interest on the fine balance.
AppleMatt
Have you followed the case? Have you read today's judgement? Because you are really, seriously missing the point. The case isn't whether or not there should be charges, whether they're fair because people agreed to them or any other variant people have concocted.
The question asked was 'do the OFT have the power to decide if the level of charges levied are reasonable'. The answer was 'not using the piece of legislation they appealed on, but there's plenty more to use.'
That's the extent of it. All of it. Everything else is conjecture.
As for the 'you signed so tough' argument, many cases have done it to death. The conclusion is that it's neither morally nor legally defensible, especially not when there's a difference in bargaining power between the parties. Although I take solace in the fact that if you ever have a problem with an unfair contract, you'll simply roll over and say 'oh well, I agreed to it'. Of course you will. If you truly believe this, you're deciding not to use very powerful legislation that was put in place for your benefit - to protect you - by the people we collectively elected (due to their policies). Truly self-defeating in vain of making a point.
As for the principle of the charges themselves, many seem to agree with them. Me too; I think people should be discouraged from breaking their promise to the bank and money is a suitable deterrent as that's what the agreement covers. However, I expect we differ in that I believe that the charges in their current form are unfair. They are truly disproportionate to the cost incurred. Certain practices, such as re-drawing the same cheque without notification three times (and therefore incurring three separate charges) and charging people daily but notifying them by post (i.e. incurs a delay) are particularly sinister. Everyone needs a bank account, so there's little choice in the matter. Finally, there are no set equal compensation costs for when the bank makes mistakes (like the water companies do). They just say 'sorry'. That's also unfair.
No. Even if you have no overdraft on an account, as I have (because they want £25 per year administration), if a utility bill comes in too high they will give you an unauthorised overdraft.
So, without an overdraft the choice is:
a) return the direct debit unpaid and get fined by the bank;
b) give you a temporary unauthorised overdraft without your knowledge and then get fined by the bank for it, plus interest on the fine balance.
AppleMatt
Perfectly sums it up.
I have no problem with reasonable charges… the twunts have to pay for their champagne somehow I guess.
But:
I recently closed my account with a shall we say rather popular bank and moved to another highstreet bank…
The carcrash that happened with the debit orders was astonishing.
The "unpaid direct debit charges" and then pelion on ossa — the interest — the bank piled up was truly outrageous… on a dormant account.
Luckily they admitted their mistake — but I can only imagine the nightmare some people would face when their direct debits come in and they truly cannot pay.
It happens. And some people really do end up as victims.
DrSamuelJackson tweeted something that made me smile with relevance to this:
I don't know what I think, I haven't looked too closely at the details but from skimming it, sounds like AppleMatt is spot on. Banks taking the piss and getting away with it, I think that's a huge shame.
Overdraft (n.) Short Length of Rope that a BANK does employ both as a Lead, a Rein & a NOOSE for its Customer
I don't know what I think, I haven't looked too closely at the details but from skimming it, sounds like AppleMatt is spot on. Banks taking the piss and getting away with it, I think that's a huge shame.
IQ is distributed on a bell curve, the average IQ is 100. The peak of the bell curve is at 100. The Stanford Binet test and scale is constantly adjested to reflect that. The standard deviation of the distribution is 15. anyone above 130 is in the top 2.5%, anyone below 70% is in the bottom 2.5%.
Therefore, mathmatically half the population are over average, half under.