They didn't actually write to me. The charge appeared in my account online, the 'letter' was an online letter - all done by computer and no human intervention nor even a stamp had to be paid for.
I`d say yes it is reasonable - you agreed to it either when you opened the account, or when the T&C where updated, so why would you think that it isn`t reasonable?
I`d also say that you have the option of writing/phoneing/visiting your bank to tell them that they either refund the charge, or you go elsewhere for your banking needs. I`d be very surprised if they didn`t refund the charge.
You did better than I did. Had a disagreement with Halifax over a visa card. I was due a refund because an item never turned up, and the Halifax point blank refused to give me the refund, said I HAD to take it up with the supplier, who was ignoring me. When I finally got it sorted with the supplier, after a very long time, I complained as high up the Halifax chain as I could, and got told that basically they didn`t care. I explained that I spent £40k per year on the credit card, and I was taking it elsewhere, and they soon tried to apologise.
And no that isn`t a typo, I do regularly spend that kind of money on a credit card - lots of friends ad relatives who are too scared of the internet to order online, so I do it for them :-)
What I'm finding interesting is that people have money to save!!!
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Harry Bloomfield saying something like:
Certainly. In fact, you should send me your money and I'll take care of it for you. I'll give it exercise and let it out every day.
Exactly.
When I opened my business acount a young girl went through a proceedure on her PC, asking me questions & ticking boxes. When it came to the "And why did you choose Llyods TSB"? I replied that it was the nearest bank to the car park.
She was completely confused :-) Obviously no tick box for that answer.
BTW. The collective noun for bankers is a 'wunch'.
Thats exactly the point. They are only allowed to charge what it 'costs' them, punative charges are illegal.
In message , tony sayer writes
Aha - exactly the same criterion as I used
My mother said something about the queen having lost £37 million in an Icelandic account
I had a similar problem with the Halifax, going accidentally overdrawn by a couple of pounds for a few days and they hit me with outrageous costs and charges. I phoned customer services and they said they could not do anything about it blah blah blah, so I told him I wanted to close my account. He spoke to someone else and said they would refund the charges. Problem solved.
When we opened one of our first business accounts we got asked that. We said "because neither of us have personal accounts with this bank, so that eliminates any scope for confusing personal and business funds, and you have to walk further down the high street to Lloyds". Apparently there was a tick box for that ;-)
;-)
John Rumm gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
"Because you're the only bank left that hasn't pissed me off yet. Don't push your luck quite so quickly"
Prolly don't want to tell em that - since they then know you don't want to go to one of the others at the outset!
Although interestingly the OFT did not manage to make that claim (that the charges are punative under common law) stick.
Quite right, too. you KNOW what the charges are when you read the TS&Cs on opening the count or when they send amended versions. If you choose to ignore them or break them, then...
Unless you can show there's a cartel, then there will always be competition and you'll find a bank somewhere that will offer you an appropriate overdraft facility to cover your needs.
What really pissed me off was a "business"woman who was interviewed on TV having won thousands in compensation for "unfair" charges, in reality caused by her inability to run her finacial affairs properly. Was she going to keep the money it in her account as a float to avoid the same situation in the future? No, she was going to blow it on a holiday. Some of these "victims" know exactly what they are getting into, and the banks are being fleeced by the compensation culture.
MBQ
Well part of the issue is if you can consider the charge is a fair and reasonable for the service they have provided (i.e. sending a letter, bouncing a cheque etc). If you say that £30 (or whatever), is excessive then it does begin to look rather like a fine or punishment. Things that business are not supposed to do in contracts with jo public.
Bank charges do not seem to be something that any of the banks are keen to indulge in competition on though.
Indeed, also true. It does seem to be a problem of the banks making though. Had they have set the charge for sending a letter etc at £5 , chances are no one would be arguing, and there would be few (if any) people chasing a free lunch at the banks expense.
Of course, in this day and age it is much less costly for a bank to have to write to you about overdrawn accounts, so the charge of £35 or whatever does not seem to equate to the "real" cost of having to deal with your overdrawn account, but when did we suddenly expect that goods and services should be related to the raw cost of the product?
Personally I think that UK banks do shoot themselves in the foot over this sort of thing - it doesn't bring much revenue to them, just bad publicity. On the other hand, we are one of the few nations that (if we stay in credit) does get free banking (with crap current account interest rates, admittedly).
It may be immoral (is "free banking" provided to the masses, subsidised by high charges for those less careless with their financial arrangements), and the fact that all banks appear to charge similar amounts may allow for an argument about anti-competetive practices, but as things stand at the moment the charges aren't "illegal".
Quite a few banks were mumbling that free banking in the UK would have to end even before the recent S**T hit the fan. I wonder what charges they will dream-up to replace the shortfall, if they can't overcharge people for borrowing money without consent.
-
The law expects that the 'real' cost should be charged. That being around £3, not the £35 they charge. Thats why the banks are shit scared about the FSA getting on their case.
It brings in enormous revenue. Don't forget that prior to the 'credit crunch' these wankers were making profits in the hundreds of billions.
Its a cartel if you look at it. However they try to disguise it all banks charge the same.
The problem is that they deliberately arrange things so that they can charge excessive amounts. On a few occassions I've paid cash into a branch at
9:30 am the day before to ensure that the acount has enough funds for the mortgage payment next day, only to find that it was between £3 and £14 short.Their excuse was that payments out were done earlier than payments recieved. On both occasions they got a bollocking & refunded the charges, but I wonder how many people accept such crap.
There is a conspiricy rumour that the Mafia never bothered moving into the UK because the banks, stock exchange & govmint had all the best scams sorted already.
Well yes, that's one of the ways they make money, in a similar way as parking fines and speed camera charges. Would you prefer to pay a monthly charge for the privilege of banking with them ?
-Mark coughed up some electrons that declared:
Well no, because in exchange for free banking services, I am lending them a average of 50% of my salary each month for no monetary gain.
Although my fiddling little account fluctuates, the average cash float generated by 1000's of such people gives them a lot of workingcapital.
So, too bloody right, I expect free banking in exchange, without punitive charges.
Cheers
Tim
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.