Cambon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 If having a bank account was compulsory, your argument might hold some water. As it isn't.... Not really true. Can anyone really manage without having a bank account? Employers often demand that wages are paid into a bank account. And there are matters in receiving monies must be done by having them paid into an account. So use a deposit accout and switch card for payments / withdrawals. Deposit accounts will not let you go overdrawn and will actually pay you for keeping your money there. Problem solved. I had to edit this as for some reason the post lost my text!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 by appealling, they can delay the evil day when they have to pay out. There's the crux. They know, I suspect, that they can't possibly win this one. And the longer they can drag it out, the less liabilties they will have as a result of the 6 year time limit one can claim in arrears, at the point of presenting a claim. The charges are illegal. I can understand why so many here would prefer to have their banking admin payed for by other people through these illegal charges, but that's not really what the law is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 If having a bank account was compulsory, your argument might hold some water. As it isn't.... Not really true. Can anyone really manage without having a bank account? Employers often demand that wages are paid into a bank account. And there are matters in receiving monies must be done by having them paid into an account. I'm surprised banks don't anger your anti capitalist views. It's not compulsory. According to the Citizens Advice Bureau, one in 12 households - 2.8 million adults in the UK - did not have any kind of bank account in 2006. They manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You should never be dependant on a mate/bank for credit. The bank is your debtor, and you are its creditor....you sign a contract outlining the interest the bank will pay to you when you lend them money (deposit money), and the interest/charges you pay to them when you borrow money. Self control Control your finances Get a better paid job (if you lack the skills, then acquire some) Finance education for kids at 15-16 should be part of the syllabus for life skills. Market conditions apply But you are dependent on the bank when it comes to handling your monies, i.e. depositing and withdrawing money. If what you were saying is the case then the overdraft facilities would appear to contradict the relative positions you mention. It is debt, it isn't your money, but the fees are completely disproportionate to what it costs the bank. It isn't an issue for the bank. They are quite happy to let customers go over their limit, they know they will bring their account to below their limit again and they can reap a nice sum from allowing them to. I wonder if there is a method to make it impossible to go over one's overdraft limit? That would stop this problem. We haven't even mentioned what are in my view the more outrageous reasons for charging which relate to setting-up direct debits and having them bounce because of inadequate funds. I don't see how any fine has a justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 If having a bank account was compulsory, your argument might hold some water. As it isn't.... Not really true. Can anyone really manage without having a bank account? Employers often demand that wages are paid into a bank account. And there are matters in receiving monies must be done by having them paid into an account. I'm surprised banks don't anger your anti capitalist views. It's not compulsory. According to the Citizens Advice Bureau, one in 12 households - 2.8 million adults in the UK - did not have any kind of bank account in 2006. They manage. Some places, like the local council, will no longer accept cash payments for poll tax. Now I thought cash was the only payment that can't be refused. Also if you are of nfa you can't get a bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I'm surprised banks don't anger your anti capitalist views. It's not compulsory. According to the Citizens Advice Bureau, one in 12 households - 2.8 million adults in the UK - did not have any kind of bank account in 2006. They manage. I don't like the finance system and sector full stop. Surprised by those figures. Wonder what the income is of those people who don't have an account. I know I certainly would have faced massive problems in not having a bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The letter itself is a piece of paper and an envelope with a bit of ink on it, which costs very little, plus postage of 38p (uk) 30p (local). But somebody has to put it into an envelope, seal it, frank it, post it. That all takes time and it is right that the person who caused the issuein the first place pay for it. Do you bank in Bangladesh? The banks have hugely sophisticated mailing operations where no bank employee handles the individual letters - these things are not just mechanised but computer-controlled. Bank staff won't see the letters to review them, they'll just see a list on screen or on paper. Each customer will get about half a second of scrutiny, if that. OD letters will account for a small fraction of the bumf that the banks send out, and can be treated as a marginal cost. So 50p is probably about right. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The banks have hugely sophisticated mailing operations where no bank employee handles the individual letters - these things are not just mechanised but computer-controlled. Bank staff won't see the letters to review them, they'll just see a list on screen or on paper. Each customer will get about half a second of scrutiny, if that. OD letters will account for a small fraction of the bumf that the banks send out, and can be treated as a marginal cost. So 50p is probably about right. S Actually, one of the things that scares banks the most is upsetting the wrong customers. Banks actually rarely have huge mailing systems, tending to use third party companies for mailshots, statements and cheques. Personal letters (like unauthorised overdraft letters) and copy statements are very much hands on tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 i have two (main) accounts with my bank. one is the BIG account, always has loads of money in it. the other is the household account (a feeble attempt to stop my wife spending all our money) if she goes £1 over her (tiny) overdraft, we get a £25 charge. even if there was (say) £5,000 in the other account. i get no letter, no phone-call, no e-mail, nothing. just a £25 charge. if i don't keep watch (and she spends £10 the next day), i will get ANOTHER £25 charge. it's embarrassing how often this happens. and its wrong. does the uk legislation cover the island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 i have two (main) accounts with my bank. one is the BIG account, always has loads of money in it. the other is the household account (a feeble attempt to stop my wife spending all our money) if she goes £1 over her (tiny) overdraft, we get a £25 charge. even if there was (say) £5,000 in the other account. i get no letter, no phone-call, no e-mail, nothing. just a £25 charge. if i don't keep watch (and she spends £10 the next day), i will get ANOTHER £25 charge. it's embarrassing how often this happens. and its wrong. does the uk legislation cover the island? is she an idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 is she an idiot? She seems to be treated like one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 the point is not whether she's an idiot or not (she refuses to check the account balance before buying stuff). the account setup is actually to allow for budgeting. the point is whether, in this entertaining scenario, i can claim back all those £25 charges that the bank did nothing to earn does the uk legislation cover the island? anyone tested it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 the point is not whether she's an idiot or not (she refuses to check the account balance before buying stuff). the account setup is actually to allow for budgeting. the point is whether, in this entertaining scenario, i can claim back all those £25 charges that the bank did nothing to earn I think you need to claim them back off your wife. Your plan for budgeting obviously doesn't work so why not just cut your losses and scrap it and use the other account for everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 the point is not whether she's an idiot or not (she refuses to check the account balance before buying stuff). the account setup is actually to allow for budgeting. the point is whether, in this entertaining scenario, i can claim back all those £25 charges that the bank did nothing to earn I think you need to claim them back off your wife. Your plan for budgeting obviously doesn't work so why not just cut your losses and scrap it and use the other account for everything? it works perfectly. it gives us something to argue about at the end of the month....if it went through that account its her fault however, can we focus? has anyone got charges back from a manx located bank (i.e. HSBC in ridgeway street) based on this "consumer victory"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 it works perfectly. it gives us something to argue about at the end of the month....if it went through that account its her fault however, can we focus? has anyone got charges back from a manx located bank (i.e. HSBC in ridgeway street) based on this "consumer victory"? I claimed back charges from IOM bank last year based on the fact that I went overdrawn, it was my fault and I accept the charges. However, when they put the charges through that put me overdrawn and they charged me a second time. After I wrote to them they credited back the second set of charges. Mr. Shoe, £5000 is not enough for them to look twice at your account before charging you. £5,000,000 and they will kiss your feet rather than charge you. My advice to you is to change your wifes account to be a savings account with a solo card. It is almost impossible to overdraw them, so no more charges gives her more money to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.