£25 bank charge for 33p over limit

clv101 · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:50

In that case kylew you are passing liability onto whoever the DD is owed to. There are three parties, you the bank and whoever the DD is owed to. If there's not enough money to cover the DD it is not the banks fault, you have a contract to pay the DD, it's not right that you break that... it's all your fault for not ensuring there is enough money in your account.

People need to take responsibility and stop trying to pass it on to other parties.

dirtydog · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:50

Dangerous said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bu...axs_Plans_To_Increase_Their_Overdraft_Charges

I see. That does seem harsh then, charging punitive fees for an AUTHORISED overdraft.

kylew · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:50

Jez said:
A lot of people here are completely missing the point. The figure is irrelevant. Its a contracted service for which there are clear terms and conditions. These terms and conditions were broken. It really is as simple as that. If i can muster up the brain power to stick to the terms and conditions of the service provided by my banking account then so should everyone else.

And that's where your whole point falls apart, just because you can and are, financially stable, doesn't mean everyone else is and that they don't have money difficulties.

mattheman · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:50

kylew said:
I didn't say they were liable, but such things happen and they aren't a reflection on a person's ability to manage their funds.

When a Direct Debit is requested, in stead of them charging £30 to do absolutely nothing, they could just tell the party requesting the funds "sorry no money, try again later or contact your customer".

They can but they will not, if they can do it for debit cards then they can do it for DD, they jusy like to charge you, teh worse thing about this they dont even pay the DD.

jp_bl_68 · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:51

Jez said:
A lot of people here are completely missing the point. The figure is irrelevant. Its a contracted service for which there are clear terms and conditions. These terms and conditions were broken. It really is as simple as that. If i can muster up the brain power to stick to the terms and conditions of the service provided by my banking account then so should everyone else.

It's 33p. That's a tiny oversight. It's not like he's trying to fleece the bank. To be charged £25 for that seems like overkill. I realise that technically the OP's broken the rules but exceptions can be made and in this case they should've been.

dirtydog · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:51

Jez said:
No, but is this not a wholly pointless service? I have my overdraft set at a level which provides sufficient buffer anyway.

No it isn't pointless, because you don't pay either a fee or any interest for going overdrawn within the buffer zone.

Dolph · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:51

Jez said:
A lot of people here are completely missing the point. The figure is irrelevant. Its a contracted service for which there are clear terms and conditions. These terms and conditions were broken. It really is as simple as that. If i can muster up the brain power to stick to the terms and conditions of the service provided by my banking account then so should everyone else.

The terms and conditions weren't even broken, the charges are inline with the terms and conditions of the account with regards to unauthorised overdrafts...

Bes · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:52

Jon12345 said:
I am disgusted with first direct. I went 33p over my overdraft limit for one day and I am getting a £25 bank charge.

These kind of fees have surely go to stop as they are exploiting customers to a ridiculous extent. I am so angry.

Jon

Sympathise fully- had exactly the same thing almost down to the penny

kylew · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:53

clv101 said:
In that case kylew you are passing liability onto whoever the DD is owed to. There are three parties, you the bank and whoever the DD is owed to. If there's not enough money to cover the DD is not the banks fault, you have a contract to pay the DD is it's not right that you break that... it's all your fault for not ensuring there is enough money in your account.

People need to take responsibility and stop trying to pass it on to other parties.

It's not the bank's fault for an overdraft failing, but it's their fault for taking £30 off you due to it.

Jez · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:53

kylew said:
And that's where your whole point falls apart, just because you can and are, financially stable, doesn't mean everyone else is and that they don't have money difficulties.

It does not fall apart at all, banking and financial products are black and white.

If a person is not financially stable then they should not agree to pay outgoings via the direct debit system which has its own set of terms and conditions. clv101 touches on this above. They should also look at their contracted banking products to ensure that they meet their unstable financial needs without incurring charges.

Dangerous · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:53

dirtydog said:
I see. That does seem harsh then, charging punitive fees for an AUTHORISED overdraft.

Yep its madness - You are better going £2500 instead of 2quid.

RDM · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:53

kylew said:
That's the point I was making, it's not down to you all the time is it?

To be fair, most of the time it is. If you are continually running your account close to the wire then you have no contingencey for when things go wrong. Life isn't perfect so you should try and plan accordingling.

Jez · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:54

dirtydog said:
No it isn't pointless, because you don't pay either a fee or any interest for going overdrawn within the buffer zone.

So its an interest free overdraft extension? Thats very generous of them, and certainly not the norm

Basher · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:55

Jez said:
It does not fall apart at all, banking and financial products are black and white.

If a person is not financially stable then they should not agree to pay outgoings via the direct debit system which has its own set of terms and conditions. clv101 touches on this above. They should also look at their contracted banking products to ensure that they meet their unstable financial needs without incurring charges.

Nail on the head.

kylew · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:55

RDM said:
To be fair, most of the time it is. If you are continually running your account close to the wire then you have no contingencey for when things go wrong. Life isn't perfect so you should try and plan accordingling.

If you're low on money and finding it hard to find work, how is it "your fault"? Are the banks not just making it worse? "You've got no money, so we're gonna give you some nice charges" thus increasing the risk at which you end up having another issue with them.

kylew · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:56

Jez said:
It does not fall apart at all, banking and financial products are black and white.

If a person is not financially stable then they should not agree to pay outgoings via the direct debit system which has its own set of terms and conditions. clv101 touches on this above. They should also look at their contracted banking products to ensure that they meet their unstable financial needs without incurring charges.

The Direct Debit system needs to be revised, at least where charges are involved. Most people choose direct debit because it's cheaper, so people who are struggling for money are arguably going to be more inclined to sign up to it for their essential bills, no?

clv101 · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:57

kylew said:
If you're low on money and finding it hard to find work, how is it "your fault"?

Well it certainly isn't the bank's or whoever you owe direct debits to! So yeah, between the three parties involved it is your fault.

kylew · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:58

clv101 said:
Well it certainly isn't the bank's or whoever you owe direct debits to! So yeah, between the three parties involved it is your fault.

Where does the issue of the charge come in to that though? People have stated that you shouldn't use the bank's money without permission, but this isn't what happens with a failed direct debit. So how does it continue to make sense?

Jez · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:58

kylew said:
If you're low on money and finding it hard to find work, how is it "your fault"? Are the banks not just making it worse? "You've got no money, so we're gonna give you some nice charges" thus increasing the risk at which you end up having another issue with them.

Sorry, and i really do not mean this offensively, but you sound as if you absolutely no grasp of how to understand terms and conditions.

When you sign up to anything, the terms and conditions are there for a reason. I know that it is easier to ignore them and sign up, but you really need to read them.

If you are finding that you are incurring banking charges month on month then the problem lies deeper than the bank. You need to look at your outgoings and adjust accordingly to maintain and upward trend on your balance. Living on the wire is not sustainable.

Dolph · 30 Oct 2009 at 10:59

kylew said:
The Direct Debit system needs to be revised, at least where charges are involved. Most people choose direct debit because it's cheaper, so people who are struggling for money are arguably going to be more inclined to sign up to it for their essential bills, no?

Direct debits are cheaper because they are cheaper for companies due to lower charges from the banks and lower processing costs at the company's end.

There is no problem with the DD system, only with a minority of people who use it. The system doesn't need revising, the people need to improve.