Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
It may be a fee for providing a service, but they make money off of your money through interest anyway...
bank to imposes £10 monthly charge
- Thread starter crashuk
- Start date
kitten_caboodle said:
Or alternatively there are people in here who recognise that Banks are a business, not a charity, and therefore may actually want to discriminate against people based on their likely value to the company...
While I do accept that some people on here have no idea of the value of money, don't tar all of us who don't chastise the banks choice to implement this in the same way. If you don't like it, move, although I have a feeling this is only the tip of the iceberg in all honesty.
If all banks did this then I would just get a 'basic' account and pay my bills by other means than direct debit if basic accounts stopped offering that facility. **** 'em, in a word. Over my dead body will I ever pay a monthly fee for a damn bank account.
Cool can I sue my bank then?dirtydog said:
They give me a lower ISA interest and a higher CC interest for only having a Student account with them, not a Current Account (although I've tried to change that twice already, with no luck... maybe I'll try again one day).
After trying to read all of this thread here's what I think.
As mentioned by Dolph with regards to people not managing money correctly and then being unhappy with charges. I think the point that you're mainly missing is that the charges were unbelievably excessive. The money claimed back is only a portion of that money (say you were charged £20 you'd only get say £10 back). I agree that there should be an admin charge but for an automated computer to post you a letter I think £20 is excessive. Luckily I've never been charged this.
With regards to the bank charges, I agree with the majority on here. It's completley unfair as the money we bank with them gives them much higher purchasing power for stocks, etc. and thus they make even more money.
Hell most banks don't even have customer representitives in this country so not only are they charging us for banking they're taking jobs away from the UK as well - which in my opinion sucks.
The only thing I hope that happens is that everyone move's away so that this doesn't become uniform. Perhaps time to move to a building society I guess.
M.
As mentioned by Dolph with regards to people not managing money correctly and then being unhappy with charges. I think the point that you're mainly missing is that the charges were unbelievably excessive. The money claimed back is only a portion of that money (say you were charged £20 you'd only get say £10 back). I agree that there should be an admin charge but for an automated computer to post you a letter I think £20 is excessive. Luckily I've never been charged this.
With regards to the bank charges, I agree with the majority on here. It's completley unfair as the money we bank with them gives them much higher purchasing power for stocks, etc. and thus they make even more money.
Hell most banks don't even have customer representitives in this country so not only are they charging us for banking they're taking jobs away from the UK as well - which in my opinion sucks.
The only thing I hope that happens is that everyone move's away so that this doesn't become uniform. Perhaps time to move to a building society I guess.
M.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 5,463
- Location
- Frack off, nosey
I'm not tarring anyone with anything, however you might want to refer to your previous comment of:Dolph said:
to see an example of the elitism and snobbery that I'm talking about. It's got nothing to do with your opinion - you're fully entitled to that and would get no argument from me on that score - it's got to do with the things you say that make it appear that you have no idea of what life is like on a smaller income - or maybe you just don't care because it doesn't affect you.Dolph said:
Either way, whether or not you earn -£24k or +£24k has absolutely no bearing on your ability to manage money and you need to accept that it is difficult for some people, and many of those people have managed their finances perfectly well but would find it incredibly hard to get £1.5k together so it can just sit in their bank account - so it is just yet another kick in the wallet for them. And it's the sneakiness that people despise - the wording that contradicts the actions.
As I have already said, I am moving banks, though I do agree there will be more that follow.
Last edited:
kitten_caboodle said:
I don't earn £24k now, I earn a fair few K less than that, and lived on minimum wage for 2 years after graduating while paying all my bills. I still stand by my view that keeping a reasonable balance isn't that difficult on a lower wage, hence my comment. Whether people are prepared to make sacrifices to allow them to do it is a seperate issue, but it's certainly possible.
Agreed, which is why I never linked money management to income.
As I have already said, I am moving banks, though I do agree there will be more that follow.
I'd most likely do exactly the same thing.
Real world though its a tad more than 24kpa needed as most pay pensions at source so its possible some may earn a bit more than 24k and have under £1500 going into the bank, so still get hit with the charge. I dont massively mind it but i think £10 is too much, £5.00 is much better i think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
manoz said:As if charging at ATM machines wasn't enough.Grrr....
seconded
But correct me if I'm wrong, you've never lived in a single person household while on a low wage. If you had and earned minimum wage, you would probably find it would take a year or even two years to save up £1500.Dolph said:
Good luck with that..if you examine the T&Cs almost every company nowadays charges an extra 'admin' charge for paying by means other than direct debit..can't win!dirtydog said:
As an aside, in my industry we deal with solicitor's costs, where there are specific guidelines which prohibit solicitors from charging exorbitant amounts of money for the work they do, as it's recognised that in the vast majority of cases the average man on the street doesn't really understand the extent of the liability they are signing up to and so a regulatory body and guidelines are needed to ensure that the customer isn't being ripped off - to the extent that faililng to comply strictly with the regulations in place can lead to no charges being recoverable whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned this should apply equally to financial institutions without exception.
In particular, I think a lot of people have a vastly over-optimistic view of how much the 'average' person understands about the law and finance, everyone here is clearly computer-literate enough to post on here and put their opinion across, but take a moment to do a search and look at the basic functional literacy and numeracy rates in adults - it makes surprising reading and highlights to me the fact that yes, it is absolutely necessary for banks to justify in minute detail how they arrive at their charges, rather than take the view that 'Well, you signed the contract, so tough!'.
If they want to take that line, they should also be prepared to fund independent legal advice to assist their customers in fully understanding the extent and real meaning of the contract they are signing...I'm sure that would go down well...
Last edited:
Rich_L said:Good luck with that..if you examine the T&Cs almost every company nowadays charges an extra 'admin' charge for paying by means other than direct debit..can't win!
That's because DD costs a company about 0.05% of the total taken, and other methods cost about 3%... I like getting the savings passed on to me.
You should enter politics with such answersDolph said:
When you said "keeping a reasonable balance isn't that difficult on a lower wage" you failed to qualify it by saying it only applied if the person on the low wage shared the cost of living with others. Living alone is not unusual these days and people should not be penalised for it - although they are.So in other words they've got you over a barrel? :/Rich_L said:Good luck with that..if you examine the T&Cs almost every company nowadays charges an extra 'admin' charge for paying by means other than direct debit..can't win!
dirtydog said:You should enter politics with such answers
Well, I did express that some people would not be willing to make sacrifices to allow it to happen.
People aren't penalised for living alone, they simply choose to sacrifice more money to have their privacy. It's a choice as any other is.
You have to decide what is your important thing, I'm well known to like my luxuries, especially electronics and car wise. Hence I chose to live in a way that minimises outgoings for some parts of it, sacrificing a bit of privacy in the process. (although my housemates were mostly great, and one of them is now my other half, so it all worked out very well).
There are some areas where you are penalised for living alone (council tax is one of them), but again, it's a choice. You have the right to make it, but make it on an informed basis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,349
I'm with First Direct at the moment and just saw the £10 monthly charge to its customers on the news. Got me a bit annoyed as I don't pay in that much into my account every month.
Then found out if you have another service with them the charge won't apply. As First Direct is my main bank my savings account is also there, so looks like no charge for me thank god!
Then found out if you have another service with them the charge won't apply. As First Direct is my main bank my savings account is also there, so looks like no charge for me thank god!