Family & Relationships4 mins ago
At last!
11 Answers
A bank has finally won a case against a customer attempting to reclaim bank charges. It's about time these freeloaders got what was coming to them.
When they signed up for a bank account they accepted the terms and conditions and then subsequently thought it was OK to reclaim charges that they initially agreed to.
I think it's about time. Customers such as myself, who have never been charged by a bank are subsidising these conmen and the only sure thing is that these people will make free banking a thing of the past.
Come on the banks!
When they signed up for a bank account they accepted the terms and conditions and then subsequently thought it was OK to reclaim charges that they initially agreed to.
I think it's about time. Customers such as myself, who have never been charged by a bank are subsidising these conmen and the only sure thing is that these people will make free banking a thing of the past.
Come on the banks!
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EverClean. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't disagree with you but the original argument was not that the banks were charging, but that the charges were grossly over the costs that were incurred and that those charges were hiked up AFTER people became customers.
A bank that gets its customers and then decides to change its contract knowing that most people would not read the small print as we get so much of it, deserves to be questioned about why they are charging �60 for an automaticcaly generated and posted letter.
Charges are fine, but they need to be reasonable
A bank that gets its customers and then decides to change its contract knowing that most people would not read the small print as we get so much of it, deserves to be questioned about why they are charging �60 for an automaticcaly generated and posted letter.
Charges are fine, but they need to be reasonable
A balanced view from a bank makes more sense than when your up we love you and when your down well keep you down - I totally agree.
But why should they agree you an overdraft limit for you to ignore and then have to pay you back the charges you incurred?
Banks are generally helpful when a situation is presented to them. If you keep them in the dark and make transactions that you KNOW you don't have the money for then you should pay the admin relating to this AND a penalty.
Your �4,500 multiplied by how many other unworthy claimants means higher charges and lower savings rates for evryone else. The only solution for the banks is to charge a monthly fee for operating a current account.
Are you pleased with yourself?
But why should they agree you an overdraft limit for you to ignore and then have to pay you back the charges you incurred?
Banks are generally helpful when a situation is presented to them. If you keep them in the dark and make transactions that you KNOW you don't have the money for then you should pay the admin relating to this AND a penalty.
Your �4,500 multiplied by how many other unworthy claimants means higher charges and lower savings rates for evryone else. The only solution for the banks is to charge a monthly fee for operating a current account.
Are you pleased with yourself?
Of course we will go to monthly payments for current accounts - the banks have always wanted to do this. They will wait until everything is electronic and then hit us with it. That has always been their long term plan and this bank charges stuff will not change the plan one iota.
Think about how much cash you actually use nowadays as opposed to electronice means (cards and transfers). It won't be long now. If I had a choice I would keep my own money, in cash.
Remember the days when you only used a bank for security? - No bank has mentioned security for the last ten years at least.
Sorry folks, but it is, and always has been, the banks intention to charge. Repayment of charges is a blip for them but has also allowed them to find a scapegoat when they do charge: "its's not our fault, the few are subsidising the many and we think that is unfair".
Cobblers - there is not a commercial company in the world that does not segment the market and have some people subsidising others - that is what marketing is all about.
I stay in credit so the first charges probably wont effect me, but over time the amount of money you must keep in your account to stop charges will go up, and up, and up.
Think about how much cash you actually use nowadays as opposed to electronice means (cards and transfers). It won't be long now. If I had a choice I would keep my own money, in cash.
Remember the days when you only used a bank for security? - No bank has mentioned security for the last ten years at least.
Sorry folks, but it is, and always has been, the banks intention to charge. Repayment of charges is a blip for them but has also allowed them to find a scapegoat when they do charge: "its's not our fault, the few are subsidising the many and we think that is unfair".
Cobblers - there is not a commercial company in the world that does not segment the market and have some people subsidising others - that is what marketing is all about.
I stay in credit so the first charges probably wont effect me, but over time the amount of money you must keep in your account to stop charges will go up, and up, and up.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
News22 mins ago
News29 mins ago
