Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by itsallaboutyou, Jan 14, 2008.
well i'd advise the person in question to check that though im not 100% sure.
No, that is the case.
what does that mean? source?
Quite right - but I think the issue does need to be discussed - as it is intrinsically related? No?
Exactly what it says. Banks will continue to levy penalty charges, or "service charges", until they are told it is illegal to do so.
i'm kinda glad i got back my money before all the cases were stayed now
ohh and platypus im pretty sure that my bank didnt continue to charge me whilst i had my legal action against them. I said to them i would just add such future charges to my list (that occurred during the process)
Yeah, I'm sure that if you're in current proceedings with the bank they would temporarily suspend putting any more charges on your account, but that just makes sense. And it's account specific too, ie. not everyone claims back charges.
i really wish i had claimed before now tbh.
left it to late and lacked the motivation. if i had got them back i wouldnt be in the position i am now
just need to hope that i can get them to at least reduce them this afternoon. or i am stuffed for yet another month and then probably be in the same postion this time next month
Yes thats what i meant. Thats why i'd advise that person taking action to mention that to their bank.
I find it amusing that the people who manage thier accounts well regard themselves as "good" customers. If you keep a small balance in your account consistently and never go overdrawn the bank will be making no money off you at all. The people who are being charged these fees are making the banks millions in profits.
If you ran a company who would you regard as your best customers, the ones who make you minmal profit, or the ones who make you good profits?
In effect, the "bad" customers are subsidising the "good" customers. If the "bad" customers manage thier accounts perectly the banks will be making less income off them, so to recoup that money they will need to start charging elsewhere, hence the introduction of monthly fees.
was there really any need for that post, it's all related anyway, why lower the tone, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just expressing my opinion, I'll leave it up to the judge to decide whether it's right or not.
Its true - but its a sad state of affairs - but I know that if I was in charge of a profit making enterprise, I would certainly do my best to retain the 'best' cutomers, meaning the so called 'revolvers' - as they make the money.
This was my reason for starting this thread - to try and gauge people's reactions to the possibility of introducing bank charges.. So thanks for not sitting on the fence!!
Do we regard ourselves as good customers? I'd say I have good common sense when it comes to money, and I can manage my finances well. I've never said I'm a good customer for a bank to have, (although I actually would actually, given how much I have in savings with them).
I don't recall anyone saying "I'm a better customer then you because I don't go overdrawn".
I don't think anyone is deluded enough to imagine that customers in financial difficulties are banks "favourite" customers.
^Just to clarify, yes banks obviously like having customers that they can fine, in order to rack up huge profits, but banks are a fairly stagnant financial institution, and like order and profitability based on as much prediction as is possible in the financial world, something that customers who may or may not be able to pay don't help.
I'm in the same boat.. And as a result - the bank have opted now to leave me alone - wheareas they used to try and sell me loans, overdrafts and the like...
I've recently moved my savings from a large building society to my bank in the shape of a fixed rate bond - so hopefully that'll get them off my back for a while!
As for being a 'good' or indeed a 'bad' customer, in terms of profitability, I am definitely 'bad' - the bank administer my account for free in my eyes. I dont use my overdraft, so there's not a lot of debit interest to be deducted and I always pay my bills on time...but on the flip side in terms of my credit rating etc, I know that I wont have trouble getting a loan or mortgage providing it is within my means etc... so in that case, I'm a 'good' customer as I will not have trouble making repayments etc...
Its a point that can't be stressed enough. It is a sad state of affairs whereby the bank prefer customers who default occasionally as they make money off them! However, we have to live with it...
Agreed - but I to think there are some underhand tactics in play...
Will be interesting to see how this pans out...
Well interestingly enough, Natwest sent me a credit card offer with a rather nice insurance deal as a sweetener, so I decided to take them up on it, with no actual plan to ever use the credit card. They then of course proceeded to reject my application, even though they'd requested I apply .
Heh - how I love the Gnatwest... I applied for a gold card about 6 months ago and they offered me a standard card with a £4,500 limit on it...
2 months later, they'd upped it to £5,500, which is the minimum threshold for a gold card!
Its shocking really.. bearing in mind the only thing I put on it is petrol 4 times a month and I usually pay it off before it's even debited!
Fun Fun Fun..
//edit - FAR too many smilies!
I get loads of junk through the letterbox wanting me to have credit cards.
Anyone who's read any of my previous about banks etc. will know how absurd that is.
how can bank charges be justified?? thats crazy
Fat corporate arseholes sit back and enjoy more money than they can spend in profits by making their customers unhappy about how much debt theyre being forced into by rolling charges every month. Why should a charge cost 90quid?
We have a Robin Hood Martin from www.moneysavingexpert.com
I seriously hope banks lose their test case and have to repay everyone their money back.
Question: Why should the bosses at Northern Rock get paid 100k in bonuses for what has happened? especially since the taxpayer has to pay for it all now
I would imagine if they did - that a workaround would be introduced - possibly by an amendement to the Terms and Conditions or Terms of Service.
As per the original thread - if this happens - I can see everybody who holds an account with a high street bank having to pay for the privilege - which is bad.
Its a bonus for those who have legitimately been 'conned' out of money - but for the millions of us who havent incurred any bank charges or indeed claimed them back it may spell the end of free banking which the banks would be able to do quite easily.
Thats not to say that the problem couldnt be rectified by switching banks - but imo that would simply compound the problem and if it happened in any great number - it could create a period of unrest and see interest rates rise...
Not to mention the hassle of switching direct debits etc...
As I keep saying, it will be interesting to see how this one pans out!
I dont think the public would accept having to pay for the service, considering their money is already being used by the bank. Personally I would rather have my cash in hand and put it in my piggy bank that goes "oink" everytime I put something in. Its my money, I earned it. why must I have a bank account to recieve money I have worked for? further to that question why should a bank charge me if I MUST have a bank account to be paid.
Separate names with a comma.