Bank Charges (1 Viewer)

[GaryPanic]

Maybe I am of the old school (well certainly old) but in days of old when we dealt in £sd if you did not have the money you could not spend it. In those days having the money meant exactly that. Coins in the pocket. (nobody had notes cos the smallest was 10bob.

So today when money is largely electronic if you spend money you do not have then perhaps you are spending mine!. If you have not agreed an overdraft expect to pay the price. Not what it costs the bank. If it was my money you had "borrowed" without agreeing with me first then it would cost you a great deal more than the bank charges.

Yes banks can waive charges. I had a cheque go astray. Bank charged me £20 to stop the check. We entered into a discussion and the bank agreed to waive the charge.

If you borrow money without asking and agreeing first then you have nothing on your side to persuade the bank to waive the charge. Maybe for first time on a very short period like same day then you have a point to make.

Sorry if my views upset some people but that's the way I see it.

I have been skint to the point where I used to ask ny Dad to cash a cheque for me.... but not to sibmit the cheque to his bank for a week so that my pay had cleared and sufficient funds existed so I am not totally unsympathetic. If you think you are going to need some support get it in place first.

Len

while not quite as old as you Len (I don't remember the Groat or the sheckel )
I am pretty much of the same mind - when i first got my bank account and overdraft that went with it- i spent up tot he limit and then spent the next 6 months clearing - lesson learnt .. I do have an overdraft in case i need to buy something quickly - but I don't think i have used it in two years (I have this month just dipped into it - or am about to but shuffling the finanices around to clear straight away - - if i am charged for doing this (it should be minimal as its into th e overdraft not over the over draft ) then so be it .

 

[Alc]

I have no idea if it's the same in the UK (although I can't imagine it's all that different) but having worked in the banking arena in Canada for the last five years I'm well aware that it's totally at the bank's descretion whether or not to actual insist that someone pay a fine automatically given to them.

It seems to be the case that most people are treated like shop customers. If you're one of the a*%$holes who go into the building, start banging your fist on the counter and bleating about how you know your rights, you'll pretty much have to pay whatever fine has been incurred. If you're polite and discuss it with them, you'll get it waived, more often than not.

 

[Rich]

Lets see if I can understand the moral outrage here against say the working man who just about exists on his wage and needs to borrow just a few quid to tide him over, maybe even for just a day.The bank that he uses has just lost billions of OUR money and then has to go cap in hand to the government for BILLIONS more of OUR money in fact so much of OUR money thay we now face a greater national debt than at the end of WW11, we're stealing from them? I don't FUC!ing well think so! If their chief execs etc want bonuses tell them to stand at the front entrances to their banks with a begging bowl if this government had any guts it would tell the banks to get stuffed and get their profits from an honest day work, like everybody else

 

[Len Boorman]

So you believe that because the bank showed a lack of financial control then its okay if everybody else does the same.

If people did not go overdrawn without prior agreement then the banks "income" would be reduced anyway and the example of good financial management clearly demonstrated by Jo Public

Len.

Gary

Groats were before my time as well but I do remember farthings

 

[Alc]

Lets see if I can understand the moral outrage here against say the working man who just about exists on his wage and needs to borrow just a few quid to tide him over, maybe even for just a day.The bank that he uses has just lost billions of OUR money and then has to go cap in hand to the government for BILLIONS more of OUR money in fact so much of OUR money thay we now face a greater national debt than at the end of WW11, we're stealing from them? I don't FUC!ing well think so! If their chief execs etc want bonuses tell them to stand at the front entrances to their banks with a begging bowl if this government had any guts it would tell the banks to get stuffed and get their profits from an honest day work, like everybody else

There are a lot of different issues here and they're all being lumped in together.
Are the bank bosses overpaid? Yes, grossly so. However, the risk of cancelling all bonuses is that everyone who's even semi-competent leaves and goes into the private sector. If you think things are bad now, try it with even less capable people running things.

Should anyone be allowed to go overdrawn with no penalty? Depends on the circumstances. In Paul's case, he specifically told the bank not to allow him to do so. If he then did, that was their mistake and there should be no charge. I can see why one was applied, since these are automatically applied by software, but speaking to a member of staff should result in it being waived, along with an apology and even, perhaps, compensation of some sort. If anyone else goes over for a day or so and it was a one-off, as opposed to a regular thing, then again, the fee should be waived, if only for PR purposes. If someon does it every month, however, (and plenty do), why shouldn't they be fined?

 

[Vassago]

I'm willing to believe it wasn't the bank that "allowed" him to go overdrawn. In most circumstances, it's from use of a debit card as a credit card, where the funds are not drawn out immediately. Sometimes, what is charged on a credit card isn't what is actually charged in the end. For example, I used my debit card at a gas station here that charges a pending $5 charge to check for validity, that's all the bank sees until the final charge is sent to the bank a couple days later for the amount I actually purchased in fuel. Another example, I eat at a restaurant and use my debit card as a credit card to pay for my food. The total on the check comes to $15, that's what is charged. I leave a $5 tip on the reciept I sign for my meal. The bank doesn't see the additional $5 until it's sent to them. It's hardly the bank's fault that this occured.

What it really comes down to is poor money management. The world of debit cards has caused people to become lazy with keeping track of their money. They no longer use checks, so don't carry a checkbook to keep their account "balanced". In the end, they overdraw and then blame the banks because they didn't track their purchases better. The bank doesn't know you actually purchased $40 for gas and it doesn't know you left a $5 tip on the check. Only you do, so be wiser with your spending habits or stop using a debit card and keep cash, that way you know how much you have and how much you've spent.

 

[Rich]

So you believe that because the bank showed a lack of financial control then its okay if everybody else does the same.

If people did not go overdrawn without prior agreement then the banks "income" would be reduced anyway and the example of good financial management clearly demonstrated by Jo Public

Len.

Gary

Banks taking the moral high ground on customers financial responsibilities, I don't think so!

 

[ColinEssex]

What it really comes down to is poor money management. . . . . . . . .so be wiser with your spending habits or stop using a debit card and keep cash, that way you know how much you have and how much you've spent.

Absolutely, it's not really rocket science. You know what you have coming in, you know therefore how much you have to deal with.

For example. If someone gets a 120% mortgage then months later - after the lower rate has expired they can't afford it, who's fault is that? Not the bank, it's up to the individual to work out all the pro's and con's at the start by using the "what if" scenario.

Col

 

[Rich]

Absolutely, it's not really rocket science. You know what you have coming in, you know therefore how much you have to deal with.

For example. If someone gets a 120% mortgage then months later - after the lower rate has expired they can't afford it, who's fault is that? Not the bank, it's up to the individual to work out all the pro's and con's at the start by using the "what if" scenario.

Col

Isn't it the banks fault for offering the product in the first place?

 

[ColinEssex]

Isn't it the banks fault for offering the product in the first place?

Partially, but it's up to the borrower to make sure they can cope (in all scenarios).

I agree with Vass, just because it is (or was) easy to borrow loads doesn't mean you have to do it.

The limit on my credit card is now £12,000. It's there, it's easy money but I never use the card because it's not my money and I would be charged loads if I did max it out.

Col

 

[Vassago]

I agree with Vass

Be careful, we wouldn't want this to get out of hand!

 

[Fifty2One]

I agree with GaryPanic and Len Boorman.
Bank charges suck but I dont think that people should go into debt and then bitch about the charges to cover their shortages of funds. Just do not spend what you do not have and you will not have to pay the extra penalties.
The rest of the charges can be minimized depending on the deal you make with the bank when you open the accounts, they do offer different "deals" so basically on the onset you can decide how you want them to screw you. At least that way you have some control of how and when they will slowly bleed you to death.

 

[Vassago]

That and most banks actually offer a "credit" account you can tie to your checking so that if by chance you do "accidentally" go over, it will be charged to the credit account at much lower fees/interest than overdraft would be.

 

[Fifty2One]

I just find it amazing when someone borrowks money at a high interest rate plus big transaction fees because initially they figure they can afford it, and when they discover they have over extended themselves they want to blame the money lender.
If you absolutely need to go into debt then shop around for the best all over deal and not just the quickest deal. Best deal would be one you could afford in the worst case scenario and not the maximum you can squeeze if everything goes your way

 

[GaryPanic]

I bet most of the people who were try to recover costs were the ones who blow their overdraft every month...

However Bank charges are execessive.. and do need to be revised on a better formula ..if the banks get charges reduced by a lot then we will end up paying for every transaction - money from the cash point, writing a cheque etc...

Banks have given themselves a bad press - salary's that don't reflect what the real world expects ( a bit like the politicans)

 

[Alisa]

ING has the right idea - if you go over your balance, they charge you the prime interest rate on it (I think it is around 7%) until you pay it back. Wherease other banks charge you a flat $35 even if you only went over $1. That type of fee is outrageous and should be illegal.

 

[Vassago]

ING has the right idea - if you go over your balance, they charge you the prime interest rate on it (I think it is around 7%) until you pay it back. Wherease other banks charge you a flat $35 even if you only went over $1. That type of fee is outrageous and should be illegal.

My bank charges $39 for each charge, no matter the amount. It is a bit on the high side, but again, if I watch my money, it doesn't happen to me. The bank wouldn't make any money on overdraft charges if people were more responsible.

 

[Alisa]

The bank wouldn't make any money on overdraft charges if people were more responsible.

I don't think that is entirely true. The banks purposefully try to make it likely that you will overdraw so that they may collect fees. This makes up for the "free" checking they offer.

For instance, if I go deposit a paycheck at my local bank and it is between 1 and 2:30 on the third tuesday of a month with 30 days in it, the teller may decide to place a hold on the check for up to a week. Now that can be really inconvenient, since my family has to eat every single day, not just on days after the hold expires.

 

[GaryPanic]

I don't think that is entirely true. The banks purposefully try to make it likely that you will overdraw so that they may collect fees. This makes up for the "free" checking they offer.

For instance, if I go deposit a paycheck at my local bank and it is between 1 and 2:30 on the third tuesday of a month with 30 days in it, the teller may decide to place a hold on the check for up to a week. Now that can be really inconvenient, since my family has to eat every single day, not just on days after the hold expires.

here in the UK that illegal -
the day a cheque is banked -then they can hold 1 working day for processing
then the cheque has to be credited - usually witihn 3 days thereafter - but 90% the same day (if its a major bank)

the same with putting a cheque into your account put it in on Monday - it should be credited on tuesday...

 

[Alisa]

here in the UK that illegal -
the day a cheque is banked -then they can hold 1 working day for processing
then the cheque has to be credited - usually witihn 3 days thereafter - but 90% the same day (if its a major bank)

the same with putting a cheque into your account put it in on Monday - it should be credited on tuesday...

Should be illegal here too. Banks have too much power. I KNOW there is no way on earth it takes more than a single day for a check to clear because whenever I write someone a check, it comes out of my account within a day of them cashing it. But they figure they can clear my check in a day, then prevent me from using those funds for a week, and if they are lucky, they get an overdraft charge as a cherry on top.

Reasons they give for placing a hold: You haven't a deposited a check from that person before (so???). The check is over $5000 (again, so????). You have less than $500 in your account (which is why I need you to NOT put a hold on this!!!). etc. In makes me infuriated just thinking about it.