[MK Chris]

...............So the banks, by lowering their charges, are pretty much admitting they weren't fair, but because the OFT aren't now allowed to investigate whether or not hey're fair, people can't take action for being treated like shit in the past. There may be another way for people though, Martin Lewis has hired lawyers to look into it.

Hmm. I can't help it, I don't really care that the charges were "unfair". If that's what you sign up for, and its made clear that that's what you've signed up for, then them's the rules and if you don't follow them, you get clobbered, and should expect to be so. If people weren't told what the charges were going to be then that's a different matter, but if its just a case of not reading the small print, well tough. Best of luck to anyone who does try or manage to get anything back from these people, I'm certainly not saying people shouldn't have a go, but realistically, if the terms and conditions were available for people to see and discuss if they wanted to, then the banks have every right to insist on them being kept to. They have no obligation to make special arrangements for people who either aren't capable or can't be bothered (the usual reason) to read the small print.

I understand your point, but if all the banks are doing the same thing and you need a current account in order for your employers to pay you, then the fact that they're not fair does come fairly strongly into it I think because you have no choice but to go with one of them.

Ooh, sorry - I have another point to add. I'm willing to bet that many, many people are using the accounts they've had opened for them since they've been a child and therefore haven't even had the chance to read the terms and conditions and smallprint. Also, when you do open an account, much of the time, I'm pretty sure you don't even get to read finer details until they send them in the post after you've opened the account.

[Boboff]

Toph...... people say it's unfair as it happens to them month after month.

They have always had a choice. Do not go overdrawn without authority, and you will not get charged.

A childs' account for that very reason does not have features like Debit cards and Overdrafts.

[MK Chris]

I know and I accept that it's their responsibility (and was my responsibility when I went overdrawn) and I have always accepted that I was to blame... it's just that the charges are unfairly disproportionate. Yes you sign up for that, but when all banks are pretty much doing the same thing, it seems tantamount to price fixing to me.

Anyway, I'm in the black now and loving it (thanks to Cat, I have to mention again). I just think it's unfair that people have been treated like shit for so long by companies just because they can and other others do it too. Surely if one bank - just one bank - lowered their charges to a fiver, customers would flock to them and they'd make billions? Why on earth doesn't one of them do it?

[Zoot]

Not really 'annoying' me, but Mrs Zoot was rushed into hospital in the early hours with chest pains. Looks like they're keeping her in overnight. I'm come home for a quick shower and some lunch before heading back up there by the power of redbull.

[Munki Bhoy]

I assume he's with RBS, as he works for them. Although, that being said, he'd probably have known about the new charges before he got his letter if that were the case.

I'd assume so too, because they sent me the same info. Which is funny, cos I'm telling them to stick their account just shortly.

[Boboff]

Not really 'annoying' me, but Mrs Zoot was rushed into hospital in the early hours with chest pains. Looks like they're keeping her in overnight. I'm come home for a quick shower and some lunch before heading back up there by the power of redbull.

Hope she gets well soon mate.

[foot-loose]

Pfft. You couldn't even be bothered to come to our housewarming. You had your chance.

You promised me Kit Kats, not hugs. I'll do a lot more for a hug than a Kit Kat.

The * banks have won their * appeal against the OFT on their unfair * bullshit charges.

Oh look, the mighty corporate wankers have bullied the little consumer again. I wonder how much they paid in backhanders for that decision.

I got an email from my bank the other day telling me they were reducing their "bullshit" charges so maybe the little people will win as well.

Can we all have a hug now?

Which bank?

I'm with HBoS, whose new charges are kicking in this week (or next?) I think.

The changes I was referring to was with RBS, however, I only have an RBS account as that is where my staff wages need to be paid. I then transfer them to my Bank of Scotland account.

What are these new charges out of interest? How much are they reduced?

Feel free to persuse the full changes at your leisure: http://www.rbs.co.uk/content/personal/d ... c_1109.pdf

I assume he's with RBS, as he works for them. Although, that being said, he'd probably have known about the new charges before he got his letter if that were the case.

I have an account with... I've already explained this bit.

Do you really think that the bank, which employs thousands of people, would update their staff on any subject that would affect their customers and then tell the staff to "keep schtum" until we get the chance to cobble a wee leaflet together? Do you maybe think that there might be a chance that someone might send a wee email to the press if that was the case?

Just cos we work for the bank certainly does not give us any inside information.

...............So the banks, by lowering their charges, are pretty much admitting they weren't fair, but because the OFT aren't now allowed to investigate whether or not hey're fair, people can't take action for being treated like shit in the past. There may be another way for people though, Martin Lewis has hired lawyers to look into it.

Maybe the banks are trying to improve their public image? Bank charges have made the press ergo they must be unpopular.

I understand your point, but if all the banks are doing the same thing and you need a current account in order for your employers to pay you, then the fact that they're not fair does come fairly strongly into it I think because you have no choice but to go with one of them.

So who is to blame for the account holder spending more money than is in their account? The bank?

Oh - my fecking car broke down on the way home from work today, no I aint filled it up for six weeks, and the warning light has been on for 6 days, but it must be the cars fault that it broke down.

Ooh, sorry - I have another point to add. I'm willing to bet that many, many people are using the accounts they've had opened for them since they've been a child and therefore haven't even had the chance to read the terms and conditions and smallprint. Also, when you do open an account, much of the time, I'm pretty sure you don't even get to read finer details until they send them in the post after you've opened the account.

So an account which has been open for lets say... 20 years. How much sodding time do you NEED to read the terms and conditions?? It's all there online, in branch and sent out to you every time anything changes. It is possibly sent out once a year as well, I forget. It's relatively easy to understand AND I'm pretty sure that there will be a friendly bank person waiting to explain it all to you further if you manage to find a spare 10 minutes to pop into a branch!

Ignorance is not an excuse.

I know and I accept that it's their responsibility (and was my responsibility when I went overdrawn) and I have always accepted that I was to blame... it's just that the charges are unfairly disproportionate. Yes you sign up for that, but when all banks are pretty much doing the same thing, it seems tantamount to price fixing to me.

See, I don't want you thinking that I am having a personal go at you here (granted it might read like that). As I have said every time we have had this discussion, I am in the fortunate position that I have never had significant bank charges so this is why my opinion is what it is. I appreciate that there can be all sorts of reasons why someone gets into financial difficulty, however, in my experience, the reason that these charges mount up and up is because the individual sticks their head in the sand and hopes that the problem will go away. Whither this applies to you or not, I don't know.

Can I get my hug yet? (Don't tell Cat)

Not really 'annoying' me, but Mrs Zoot was rushed into hospital in the early hours with chest pains. Looks like they're keeping her in overnight. I'm come home for a quick shower and some lunch before heading back up there by the power of redbull.

Pass on my best Zoots. To you as well - don't stress too much buddy. xx

[chrysostom]

the frost is annoying me this morning.

[MK Chris]

Pfft. You couldn't even be bothered to come to our housewarming. You had your chance.

You promised me Kit Kats, not hugs. I'll do a lot more for a hug than a Kit Kat.

Twix > Hugs from foot-loose > Kit Kat

What are these new charges out of interest? How much are they reduced?

Feel free to persuse the full changes at your leisure: http://www.rbs.co.uk/content/personal/d ... c_1109.pdf

Well they do look better, although some of them could still do with some work.

Do you really think that the bank, which employs thousands of people, would update their staff on any subject that would affect their customers and then tell the staff to "keep schtum" until we get the chance to cobble a wee leaflet together? Do you maybe think that there might be a chance that someone might send a wee email to the press if that was the case?

I would imagine they would update the people who will need to take calls on the subject just slightly before the letters go out.

Just cos we work for the bank certainly does not give us any inside information.

I wasn't trying to suggest that.

...............So the banks, by lowering their charges, are pretty much admitting they weren't fair, but because the OFT aren't now allowed to investigate whether or not hey're fair, people can't take action for being treated like shit in the past. There may be another way for people though, Martin Lewis has hired lawyers to look into it.

Maybe the banks are trying to improve their public image? Bank charges have made the press ergo they must be unpopular.

Yeah, and why are they unpopular? Because they're unfair.

I understand your point, but if all the banks are doing the same thing and you need a current account in order for your employers to pay you, then the fact that they're not fair does come fairly strongly into it I think because you have no choice but to go with one of them.

So who is to blame for the account holder spending more money than is in their account? The bank?

Absolutely not, the account holder - I've never tried to suggest otherwise. However, how are they supposed to sort their finances out if they have hundreds of pounds worth of disproportionate charges every month? That's what the nonsense is.

Oh - my fecking car broke down on the way home from work today, no I aint filled it up for six weeks, and the warning light has been on for 6 days, but it must be the cars fault that it broke down.

The car doesn't take an extra gallon of petrol, which you never get to use to actually do any miles, just because you ran out of petrol.

Ooh, sorry - I have another point to add. I'm willing to bet that many, many people are using the accounts they've had opened for them since they've been a child and therefore haven't even had the chance to read the terms and conditions and smallprint. Also, when you do open an account, much of the time, I'm pretty sure you don't even get to read finer details until they send them in the post after you've opened the account.

So an account which has been open for lets say... 20 years. How much sodding time do you NEED to read the terms and conditions?? It's all there online, in branch and sent out to you every time anything changes. It is possibly sent out once a year as well, I forget. It's relatively easy to understand AND I'm pretty sure that there will be a friendly bank person waiting to explain it all to you further if you manage to find a spare 10 minutes to pop into a branch!

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Maybe not, but we're straying from the point, which is that the charges are disproportionate to what it actually costs the bank to send you a letter. Yes, they have to make a profit, but they would do that even if they lowered the charges (and they wouldn't have to charge for current accounts.)

I know and I accept that it's their responsibility (and was my responsibility when I went overdrawn) and I have always accepted that I was to blame... it's just that the charges are unfairly disproportionate. Yes you sign up for that, but when all banks are pretty much doing the same thing, it seems tantamount to price fixing to me.

See, I don't want you thinking that I am having a personal go at you here (granted it might read like that). As I have said every time we have had this discussion, I am in the fortunate position that I have never had significant bank charges so this is why my opinion is what it is. I appreciate that there can be all sorts of reasons why someone gets into financial difficulty, however, in my experience, the reason that these charges mount up and up is because the individual sticks their head in the sand and hopes that the problem will go away. Whither this applies to you or not, I don't know.

It absolutely does apply to me and that's my fault. Until recently, I never knew how much was going out of my account and I was always terrified to look at my balance... depending on the month, I would be going £2-300 into the red (occasionally even more) and I only had a £100 overdraft. I was in the extremely embarrassing situation of my card being refused once and it was in the worst possible scenario you can imagine. I had to ring my mum and get her to come and bail me out (I couldn't put it back on the shelf, it was food I had already eaten in a restaurant). I am absolutely the first to admit that I really am not good with money, however, with a bit of help (and I've said it quite a bit now, but Cat has been fantastic, she's pretty much saved me from a life of being skint) I'm back in the black and am determined to stay there. I check my account balance every single day now and see what's gone out the day before (well, I have to at the moment so I can change my direct debits over to my new account, but anyway, I'm going to carry on like that too). All of this was my fault and no the banks are not charities and yes they have to make profits, but they are charging disproportionate amounts of money in order to pay their executives inflated bonuses, when half of them are owned by us at the moment anyway, and that's not right - even if they hadn't been bailed out, that's not right; it's a tax on the poor to fund the rich. That they are set out in the terms and conditions is no consolation when there is no cheaper alternative.

I'm now considering paying £13 a month for the Co-Op's more advanced account anyway, with the mobile phone insurance, breakdown cover and everything included, so I'll be willingly paying for my banking.

Can I get my hug yet? (Don't tell Cat)

Only if you admit that I have a decent argument, even if you don't agree with it...

[foot-loose]

You have a decent argument, although I don't agree with all the points...

[MK Chris]

Are you just saying that?

[Lactating Man Nips]

I sometimes think this: Why would a bank 'authorise' a payment which then takes the account over its 'authorised' overdraft? Then charge for unauthorised balances.

And then I read a typical scenario:

I was in the extremely embarrassing situation of my card being refused once and it was in the worst possible scenario you can imagine. I had to ring my mum and get her to come and bail me out (I couldn't put it back on the shelf, it was food I had already eaten in a restaurant)

We've all been there at least once to realise that a couple of bounced cheques or refused payments could amount to a whole shed of inconvenience and disgruntled payees. Would you rather have a friend bail you out or indeed battle with your mortgage lender or energy provider, or just have the bank charge you for the luxury of not doing so. I would imagine in many cases that, regardless of how much it actually costs the banks, their charges are a reasonable alternative.

[Boboff]

Good point well made, although I have trouble with your posts in a small way, in that I imagine them said in the accent of David Cameron, which is a tad patronizing in my opinion. (No no no, I am not saying you were being patronizing, its my issue )

[MK Chris]

I see your point and the moment I mentioned was one of the most embarrassing I've ever been in. In my case, I'd reached my reserve limit on my overdraft, therefore Barclays weren't prepared to give me any more money, which is fair enough - again, my fault. I still think with charges as they are, it makes it very difficult for people to get themselves out of trouble though. Yeah, they shouldn't be there in the first place, but crikey, doesn't everyone deserve a second chance?

Also, I'd like to say something that I have only just remembered... when my account was with the Woolwich, I had a £100 overdraft (which I went into every month and shouldn't have been doing.) I had no reserve other than that overdraft; if I wanted any more than that, it was tough. When the account became Barclays, they gave me a reserve for an 'unauthorised' overdraft and didn't * tell me - consequently, I was taking money out thinking I had enough left over when actually I didn't. I only realised the following month when I checked my balance. I should have complained, but I didn't, I just got on with it - but that doesn't make it right.

[Yudster]

...............So the banks, by lowering their charges, are pretty much admitting they weren't fair, but because the OFT aren't now allowed to investigate whether or not hey're fair, people can't take action for being treated like shit in the past. There may be another way for people though, Martin Lewis has hired lawyers to look into it.
Maybe the banks are trying to improve their public image? Bank charges have made the press ergo they must be unpopular.

Yeah, and why are they unpopular? Because they're unfair.

Rubbish - lots of things which are perfectly fair are unpopular.

[Latina]

I still don't understand banking stuff but all I know is don't spend more than you've got hence why I'm doing everything I can not to get an overdraft to add to the paying back in a couple of years time. True I have the luxury of getting a decent amount of loan and actually getting my loan rather than still waiting for Student Finance to pull itself together but I'm not the only one who can do this, yet still people in the same situation are getting overdrafts because it's more money. No it's not, it's only more if it's actually yours.

My best friend is one of those people who will happily take a loan and then run away from paying it back. She once left a bank after becoming £1,000 overdrawn claiming that they had lured her into accepting it under false pretences or something, and when I asked if she feels even a little guilty about effectively stealing a grand that wasn't hers, she trotted out the old "but the banks deserve it cos they're evil blah blah blah" BS. She feels the same way about the Student Loans Company.

We're very close, and she's an otherwise decent person (I wouldn't be her friend otherwise), but I try to avoid conversations about this type of thing with her because her attitude about it makes me so angry I want to smack her. Especially when she tells me that she's just the same as everyone else and it's me who's beign unnecessarily uptight and overly ethical.

[chrysostom]

however the woman's mother has managed to complicate things by buying me tickets to the michael jackson museum for the 22nd of december. except they're not for the 22nd of december, they're for november - which she didn't know. and still doesn't. so now i'm going to have to buy my own tickets to it, or she will go mental at someone because she made a mistake and get upset, and i don't want to cause any trouble. this post started in the christmas thread, but i decided i wouldn't ruin the joy.

[catherine]

Ahem, that card refused for a meal thing happened on my birthday! *hears the ooohs and aahhhs*

[MK Chris]

See... told you it was the worst possible scenario.

[foot-loose]

Are you just saying that?

No. You do have a point and I understand it. My point is just that basically rules are rules - if you agree to them, you can't complain when you break them. Your point is that you don't have any choice BUT to agree to them.

Hug?

[Boboff]

get a room

[Yudster]

See... told you it was the worst possible scenario.

No - it was with Cat, so however embarrassing and upsetting it was, it wasn't the worst possible scenario. How would it have panned out if it had happened on the ex's birthday? Now we're talking worst case.....!

[MK Chris]

In the circumstances, if it had expediated the end of that relationship, I can't think of a better scenario than it happening with her - that it happened with someone I really love and care about, however they reacted, is far worse.

[Yudster]

You know she'll both forgive you and eventually see the funny side of it though. She's good people.

[MK Chris]

She already sees the funny side of it. I find it more difficult to do so, but at least I'm sorted now and it'll never ever happen again.