Bank Charges.....they seem fair enough to me

[aspley]

Ok...So the eagerly awaited bank charges court case started today.

Maybe i'm missing something but as I understand it a number of customers (millions) backed up by God knows how many commercial 'we'll get your charges back' advisors are complaining because their bank has had the temerity to pass charges for bouncing cheques, direct debit's, etc even though they (the bank's) offer complete transparency on what they will charge if customers choose (and it is their choice,they write the chq's) to help themselves to someone else's money.

This is probably a minority view but I have always thought that the onus should be/must be on the account holder to look after their own account and if someone else has to do it for them then pay the charge associated with that service without belly aching!!

 

[Trazor]

This is probably a minority view but I have always thought that the onus should be/must be on the account holder to look after their own account and if someone else has to do it for them then pay the charge associated with that service without belly aching!!

In principle I agree, but if you believe the Banks can be trusted to charge fairly, then that is another matter.

 

[Thermo]

i agree, however i suppose the market forces dont seem to have a great effect on their prices, but having said that, you know the consequences of your actions.

 

[mon_ster]

I think that they are a bit like parking tickets.The councils need to deter dangerous parking and turn the spaces over in the town centres so they have to charge a fine that is likely to make us not want to get one.However a standard fine for just about every incursion can leave you feeling hard done by if your a few minutes late back to your van or have parked up on the kerb.It's a similar story with the bank charges and rarely do mittagating circumstances make a difference to the fine.

 

[aspley]

I think that they are a bit like parking tickets.The councils need to deter dangerous parking and turn the spaces over in the town centres so they have to charge a fine that is likely to make us not want to get one.However a standard fine for just about every incursion can leave you feeling hard done by if your a few minutes late back to your van or have parked up on the kerb.It's a similar story with the bank charges and rarely do mittagating circumstances make a difference to the fine.

I can see where your coming from but once you start bringing subjectives into it where do you stop?? I remember when my bank gave all it's customers a 'buffer' zone...it was £50 excess over agreed overdraft before penalty charges would be passed and still that wasn't enough for many.

 

[joe-90]

People wouldn't mind if they were charged what it costs the bank to send out a computer generated letter - about a fiver (and that's being extremely generous to the bank). The biggest problem is those that are hit the most often are the poor who can't afford it. £35 quid may not be much to those earning big bucks but if you are on benefits then that means no fags for a week.

 

[Barsteward]

As i understand it. The charges are to cover costs...and therefore that is all they the banks are supposed to charge. The current charges clearly exceed this by some considerable margin.

However, were you to sign up to mutually agreed charges, pre arranged, so to speak, then that is a different matter.

 

[aspley]

As i understand it. The charges are to cover costs...and therefore that is all they the banks are supposed to charge. The current charges clearly exceed this by some considerable margin.

That is not the case...........The banks are to argue that to bounce a cheque is a service that they offer at a cost that they advise to their customers. They will say that they publish the tariff and that the charges are at a level that is intended to deter customers from taking unauthorised borrowings.

The OFT will argue that the charges are a penalty for breach of contract and that they should reflect the true cost of bouncing the cheque or sending out the letter etc.

 

[joe-90]

The banks don't have the right to 'fine' the customer and claim it is a 'cost'.

 

[toptec]

Dont agree Joe.

The banks have every right. Just don't bank wiv them if you don't like what you signed up for!

Would anyone pay £7.50 for a tin of beans at Tescos?. No Course not. The same principle applies, dunit?

 

[aspley]

The banks don't have the right to 'fine' the customer and claim it is a 'cost'.

It's not a 'fine' It's a 'Charge' for a service........a bit like Marks and Sparks chrging you for a shirt ....as a consumer you either choose to buy or not as the case may be. The customer writes the cheque not the bank.

Joe, at some stage folks have to be resposible for their own actions. (something I think you have been argueing on the Mccanns thread)

 

[aspley]

Dont agree Joe.

The banks have every right. Just don't bank wiv them if you don't like what you signed up for!

Would anyone pay £7.50 for a tin of beans at Tescos?. No Course not. The same principle applies, dunit?

Very well put

 

[joe-90]

Dont agree Joe.

The banks have every right. Just don't bank wiv them if you don't like what you signed up for!

Would anyone pay £7.50 for a tin of beans at Tescos?. No Course not. The same principle applies, dunit?

If they said they were selling you beans and they sold you cabbage - I don't think they'd get away with it.

Is it a 'fine' or a 'justifiable charge'?

 

[aspley]

Dont agree Joe.

The banks have every right. Just don't bank wiv them if you don't like what you signed up for!

Would anyone pay £7.50 for a tin of beans at Tescos?. No Course not. The same principle applies, dunit?

If they said they were selling you beans and they sold you cabbage - I don't think they'd get away with it.

Is it a 'fine' or a 'justifiable charge'?

err.........don't quite follow that one Joe......a fine, justifiable charge, a penalty......whatever you want to call it it's self inflicted

 

[toptec]

I don't think anyone in their right minds sign contracts without reading the print regarding charges. Why are bank account contracts any different?

I agree that the charges are pretty extortionate but that aint the point. Since the year dot we all knew a bounced cheque or unauthorised overdrafts would cost you heavily, but many still use the bank as an easy short term loan source.

I am gonna be mighty displeased if I get penalised cause others can't keep a grip on their finances.

As for the poor, being poor doesn't automatically mean you are stupid.

Anyone who gets hit are either careless or do it knowing what will happen.