RBS/Natwest slash charges

Ace Modder said:
Bank charges don't matter when you plan your money properly.

I'd rather have higher interest rates and higher bank charges for making an error on your account. People really shouldn't be overdrawn etc, you live to your means. etc etc.
Click to expand...


Yeah thats a brillaint idea, If you could, if you have time between thinking up these genius ideas, maybe make a rule by which if a company charges you without permission twice leaving you overdrawn, you could maybe make them pay the fees, that would be great. Thanks.
 
ChroniC said:
Yeah thats a brillaint idea, If you could, if you have time between thinking up these genius ideas, maybe make a rule by which if a company charges you without permission twice leaving you overdrawn, you could maybe make them pay the fees, that would be great. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Surely you should have rainy day money in the account though? Assuming they're not massive ££££.

You could always recoup the losses from the company/fraud.
 
Ace Modder said:
Bank charges don't matter when you plan your money properly.

I'd rather have higher interest rates and higher bank charges for making an error on your account. People really shouldn't be overdrawn etc, you live to your means. etc etc.
Click to expand...

Can't repeat this enough, people should be aware of their funds.
 
They're just reducing their charges before they're made to, when the ruling gets through.

The ombudsman stated that banks shouldn't make a profit from these charges and they've ignored this for years, so good news in my book.
 
div0 said:
That still doesn't explain why the banks should increase the interest payments on savings to 'compensate'. The banks are going to make less money on this that they would have.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if anything the banks should be reducing savings rates to compensate.
 
meghatronic said:
£15 for using money that isn't yours.
Click to expand...

So don't let the transaction go thorough ... Then there is no expense to the bank to issue this expensive letter and/or to take a "calculated" risk on the account holder. :rolleyes:

Makes my blood boil , yes the account holder shouldn't go overdrawn , but its very easy for the bank to stop transaction happening therefore stopping the issue :eek:

But hey then how would the bank shaft its lesser earning customers.....:o
 
divaboy said:
But hey then how would the bank shaft its lesser earning customers.....:o
Click to expand...

I don't see why everyone assumes it's the lower-paid who are constantly getting hit with bank charges.

It's very rare to meet someone these days who is actually saving money who isn't living at home with his parents and driving a shed.

And don't forget the poor businessmen who can't get a loan or an overdraft because the banks lent money to people they shouldn't have ever lent money to, and then they didn't have any so the government had to bail them out. Did I see a £35 charge on the RBS's statement that month? I think not.
 
divaboy said:
So don't let the transaction go thorough ... Then there is no expense to the bank to issue this expensive letter and/or to take a "calculated" risk on the account holder. :rolleyes:

Makes my blood boil , yes the account holder shouldn't go overdrawn , but its very easy for the bank to stop transaction happening therefore stopping the issue :eek:

But hey then how would the bank shaft its lesser earning customers.....:o
Click to expand...

Why should the bank stop every transaction which would cause the user to go overdrawn?

For example, most of my outgoings in my current account are direct debits for my credit card, my gas and elec bills, my council tax, whatever.

If I don't have any money in my account - it shouldn't be the banks job to stop these payments being made.

And hypothetically, what if a 'late' payment on one of those bills occured a higher 'fine' than the cost of going overdrawn? I'd not exactly be happy to find out that my bank had been 'kind enough' to prevent me going overdrawn and therefore not incurring a £25 fine, only to find that I'd just been hit with a £50 late charge by the company I failed to pay.

Manage your own money and stop blaming the banks for your mistakes.

By all means complain about the size of the fines, but don't expect the banks to spend time and money implementing something to try and stop you from being careless.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Because we're their customers. They should change what they do to best serve us, just like any business.
Click to expand...

Except business don't exist to serve customers, they exist to make money. Screwing the customer to make money is a finely balanced thing - screw them too much and you lose customers. The art of running a business well is to screw the customer just enough to maximise profits.
 
There is no need for the banks to charge you anything at all though. They could just refuse to make the payment, not make you overdrawn and not charge you.

If all banks agreed to the same then there'd be no cost, it'd just be a computer issuing the refusal in the same way it does not if you try to pay for something with your debit card and haven't enough to cover it - you get a refused transaction.

There is no NEED for banks to charge. People should manage their money, but you 'holier than thou brigade' need to remember that sometimes mistakes and emergencies happen.
 
I don't agree that they should profit from charges, most banks do have excessive charges though, not everyone is capable of managing their money correctly.

If you can't manage your money, get a managed bank account from the think money group (you get a salary account and a spending money account and they keep money in the salary account to pay your bills and move any spare to the spending account, PLUS they don't charge you for bounced payments or unauthorized overdrafts, £10.00 a month last i checked).
 
The Mad Rapper said:
There is no need for the banks to charge you anything at all though. They could just refuse to make the payment, not make you overdrawn and not charge you.

If all banks agreed to the same then there'd be no cost, it'd just be a computer issuing the refusal in the same way it does not if you try to pay for something with your debit card and haven't enough to cover it - you get a refused transaction.

There is no NEED for banks to charge. People should manage their money, but you 'holier than thou brigade' need to remember that sometimes mistakes and emergencies happen.
Click to expand...

Banks honor payments on a pencil limit, if your transaction is below the pencil limit the underwriters set on your account then you get charged and the transaction goes through. There are situations where a payment can go through your account and the bank can't stop it (a VISA transaction can take up to a year to debit your account, it's your financial responsibility to account for that after you bank stops withholding the payment after 3/4 days). You pay £300 for a graphics card in Jan, you don't realise but nothing leaves your account, in June the company collect the funds and the bank HAS to pay it out, through no fault of their own, they can charge you for the cost of locating the money to pay that.

Then there's things like floor limits in shops where the transaction is authorised by the payment processor because it's smaller than their stores average spend, the bank doesn't get a say in that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom