You are mistaken, I don't have a PayPal account. I don't like dealing with a company that pretends it is a bank and yet isn't covered by the regulations that banks have to abide by.
Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges
- Thread starter Neverwhere
- Start date
You are mistaken, I don't have a PayPal account. I don't like dealing with a company that pretends it is a bank and yet isn't covered by the regulations that banks have to abide by.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 581
Did anyone see in the paper that banks are also considering charges for you taking your own money out from its cash machines even if you are a customer with the bank ?
Yeah I saw that, it made me chuckle, lots.
Oh noes, now I'll have to look after my money and make sure I don't get overdrawn, or maybe pay for an agreed overdraft.
Oh, wait, I already do all those things because I have a brain.
And yes, I do feel I've earned the right to be smug about this.
Oh, wait, I already do all those things because I have a brain.
And yes, I do feel I've earned the right to be smug about this.
If I can afford it, of course. People manage bad situations as well as good ones, you know?
If the banks turned around and said that I would be eternally grateful. Please, god, take away my temptation
but they won't, because they like money too much 
This was a vindication that what banks were doing was okay under terms in consumer contracts regulations from 1999. Fair enough, if that doesn't give the OFT the legal authority to tackle the issue.
But this problem is still a competition issue, and as such it can be tackled via rules regarding that. However, I don't think it allows overdraft charges to be removed or limited, but rather taking measures to tackle the competition issue. Which you could argue is better. However, you can't just force banks to break up from previous mergers. Other areas of banking requires these large corporations if they are to compete on a global scale.
The charges are a big problem. The OFT may not have the power to regulate overdraft charges, but it is needed.
But this problem is still a competition issue, and as such it can be tackled via rules regarding that. However, I don't think it allows overdraft charges to be removed or limited, but rather taking measures to tackle the competition issue. Which you could argue is better. However, you can't just force banks to break up from previous mergers. Other areas of banking requires these large corporations if they are to compete on a global scale.
The charges are a big problem. The OFT may not have the power to regulate overdraft charges, but it is needed.
To all those who keep spouting this "oooh manage your money better" tripe.
Direct debit gives the company the power to change the amount they take without consulting you first, which could very easily cause you to go overdrawn.
Powergen (at the time) due to an error on their part mis-read my electric meter, and upped my Direct debit payment to nearly £400 a month. The did write to me to tell me of this fact, but I never received the letter.
Have I mis-managed my money in this instance ? I didn't know about it until it was too late.
It seems perfectly fair to me to impose a charge, or a fine on your account when you have gone overdrawn, but this needs to be fair.
Why not a percentage ?
£200 overdrawn, £20 fine..... £2 overdrawn, 20p fine.
How is it fair to fine someone £39 for going 50p overdrawn?
I shouldn't have to go and speak to them to get this back, it shouldn't happen in the fist place.
I think the majority of people agree there should be a charge, but why not a fair charge ?
It not really about who has whose money and we are taking money that is not ours, it's just a number to the bank. The next time money goes in your bank, they get their money back first. They charge a relative amount to you for this happening and even a small amount of interest on the amount.
Why not just have a few options regarding charges online in your account setup. If I haven't the fund to pay a direct debit, automatically don't pay it. So no charge would be necessary. I'll deal with the company myself.
Seems that being fair to the customers is not really a priority to banks.
Direct debit gives the company the power to change the amount they take without consulting you first, which could very easily cause you to go overdrawn.
Powergen (at the time) due to an error on their part mis-read my electric meter, and upped my Direct debit payment to nearly £400 a month. The did write to me to tell me of this fact, but I never received the letter.
Have I mis-managed my money in this instance ? I didn't know about it until it was too late.
It seems perfectly fair to me to impose a charge, or a fine on your account when you have gone overdrawn, but this needs to be fair.
Why not a percentage ?
£200 overdrawn, £20 fine..... £2 overdrawn, 20p fine.
How is it fair to fine someone £39 for going 50p overdrawn?
I shouldn't have to go and speak to them to get this back, it shouldn't happen in the fist place.
I think the majority of people agree there should be a charge, but why not a fair charge ?
It not really about who has whose money and we are taking money that is not ours, it's just a number to the bank. The next time money goes in your bank, they get their money back first. They charge a relative amount to you for this happening and even a small amount of interest on the amount.
Why not just have a few options regarding charges online in your account setup. If I haven't the fund to pay a direct debit, automatically don't pay it. So no charge would be necessary. I'll deal with the company myself.
Seems that being fair to the customers is not really a priority to banks.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
I have no problem with charging people for going overdrawn, but the AMOUNT they charge you is completely out of order.
I think I've gone overdrawn once or twice "back in the day" because I used the wrong card and both instances I've had the charges dropped after I called the bank and explained the situation, but it's the same principle.
Lower the cost to £10 or whatever is "reasonable" to cover admin charges or even create a band.. £100 overdrawn, £10 charge... £500 overdrawn, £50 charge etc and things would be fair for those who accidentally go over.
I bet Martin Lewis is raging
I think I've gone overdrawn once or twice "back in the day" because I used the wrong card and both instances I've had the charges dropped after I called the bank and explained the situation, but it's the same principle.
Lower the cost to £10 or whatever is "reasonable" to cover admin charges or even create a band.. £100 overdrawn, £10 charge... £500 overdrawn, £50 charge etc and things would be fair for those who accidentally go over.
I bet Martin Lewis is raging
Last edited by a moderator:
this.
I don't see the problem of having a basic cash account which has a % charge based on how much you go overdrawn with no lower limit. You go over by 50p, you pay a few pence, go over by several hundred pound, you pay a lot more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,721
- Location
- Surrey
this seems like the obvious right thing to do. i can understand if banks need to keep overdraft "fees" as if one didn't then all those who will constantly being going over their limit will flock to them, however if one started this and avertised it well i'm sure they'd get many people switching over. i know i would. i hate that i was charged £25 for god knows how little over drawn i went. what sucks is that they will not give me even a minimal £50 overdraft limit as i can sometimes go overdrawn because of unexpected bills.
quickly trying to read this thread, it seems most of the people who are for the bank charges are only for them being so high as they benefit from it, i.e free cash withdrawels, free internet banking etc. The "poorer" are paying for these services for them.
I think the charges should be lower but frankly if people can't manage their money then other folk who don't constantly get charges shouldn't be helping pay for it which is why I'm happy with todays judgement. The problem isn't the banks, it's todays daft consumer society where people, whether they can afford it or not want everything now and damn the consequences if I can't actually afford to pay for it from my bank account or credit card.
I have a rather large overdraft on my joint account which frankly we rarely use but when we do we know it'll cost us X amount per day and I'm happy with that - knowing that I have the facility if I need it. I don't let myself go in the red constantly then moan that I'm charged for it. The worst thing from all this is that those who genuinely struggle financially are probably better at managing money than those who are in a position to attempt to reclaim these charges - as most of them were simply too damn lazy to get an agreed overdraught or didn't miss the money at the time so kept doing it.
I have a rather large overdraft on my joint account which frankly we rarely use but when we do we know it'll cost us X amount per day and I'm happy with that - knowing that I have the facility if I need it. I don't let myself go in the red constantly then moan that I'm charged for it. The worst thing from all this is that those who genuinely struggle financially are probably better at managing money than those who are in a position to attempt to reclaim these charges - as most of them were simply too damn lazy to get an agreed overdraught or didn't miss the money at the time so kept doing it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,721
- Location
- Surrey
i completelty agree with you about how people are constantly buying stuff when they can't afford it which can ofte be the problem, however i do have to point this out. how would you be paying for someone elses overdraft? at the moment they are paying for the free services you receive, do you feel that perhaps you should pay for these services as you disagree that someone should pay for someone else, or is it ok for those who keep going overdrawn to continue to do it?
I'm just a cynical git. I think wherever there is money there is corruption be it gambling, insider trading, governments declaring war based on lies or in banks. This would've cost the the banks, what was the figure, 2.6bn? I speculate that some people either took back handers or there was an agreement to rule in the banks' favour. Like I said before I doubt some banks could've taken another hit like this. Disclaimer: This is obviously not likely but not impossible. I'm just speculating because I'm cynical.