Thats what is said! £3 overdrawn and multiple 'fines', but argue and you get it back. Personally i would of let all of the banks fail and had a day zero start again moment, i would of lost a few grand maybe but the rich would of lost millions ... thats why my taxes were used to save the banks!

How wonderfully smug some of you are. For people like me, a carer, on a breathtakingly low income and with debts to pay after twice being made redundant, juggling that pittance and ensuring that the bank has enough cash for me to stay out of trouble is a recurring nightmare. All it takes is one payment to be a fraction late getting to my account and I'm slapped with a penalty. If a cash payment arrives on the day I might otherwise go into overdraft, the penalty is applied immediately before the payment is recorded. It's a cynical manoeuvre designed to screw money out of the already impoverished.

In October a payment was a couple of days late and I was overdrawn by £3.30. The penalty for that three measly quid was two lots of £25 plus two lots of £5 as an "overdraft request fee". If you think that a sixty quid penalty charge is fair trade for £3.30 then I can only think that qualifies you as some kind of sociopath.

Banks exist to make money, yes, but they pay for that by providing a service to their customers. You do not get free banking because of the penalty fees charged to suckers like me, you get it because your bank is competing with other banks. If banks can afford to reward their senior staff with bonuses into the collective billions, they can afford to stop draining poorer members of society. £60 for a £3 transgression is as close to usury as I care to think.

If you have a steady income and are secure enough not to worry about bank penalties, good luck to you. But don't believe for a moment that this entitles you to chide others whose fortunes have not fared as well.

Happy Christmas.

It seems the banks have no regard for anyone anymore, we can't just let them continue their relentless attack on the poorest in society.

Please join the Facebook FlashProtest, MPs and the courts won't do anything...so it is down to the people...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=186212372973

Please pass it on and invite as many people as you can.

Merry Christmas!

Having never been 'caught' i thought charges were justified (its in the small print) to stop people taking the ****. Its only when people are £3 overdrawn and multiple charged for this 'crime' there's a problem, but thats up to them to complain and the FSA et al to legislate. All that would of happened if the banks had lost ..... then people like me would lose free banking. The argument that you don't get free banking now, on the basis that interest charges between loans and savings have a large disparity is called ... business. Don't like it, put it under the mattress or start your own bank.

I think its common sense prevailing to be honest. People sign up for a service then complain about the prior warned consequence of mismanaging their accounts. It would have opened the flood gates to people to sign up to an agreement with any company, then complain its not fair once they don't agree with some sort of charge. It will also allow those who are in need to charge reviews due to unforseen circumstances such as illness and family berevements to get the help they need, without the complaints from the weekend big spenders!

Hi all,

It was announced this morning that the Office for Fair Trading is going to drop its test case on unfair bank charges. The OFT said: "After detailed consideration of the judgment and of the various options available to it, the OFT has concluded that any investigation it were to continue into the fairness of current unarranged overdraft charging terms under the UTCCRs would have a very limited scope and low prospects of success. Given this, it has decided against taking forward such an investigation."

Read Clare Francis' article 'OFT drops bank charges case'

However, the OFT has also said it still has concerns about the way banks operate their personal current accounts and they believe that "fundamental changes are still required for the market to work in the best interests of bank customers."

A number of options are available to secure the changes that the OFT wants to see, ranging from voluntary action to legislative change. The OFT will now discuss these issues intensively with banks, consumer groups and other organisations, with the aim of reporting on progress by the end of March 2010.

So, what do you think of this latest development? Are you angry or disappointed by the OFT's decision? Is this the right thing to do after the Supreme Court decision? Let us know your thoughts...

---

Cheers,
Graeme Delap,

Community Editor,
graeme.delap@moneysupermarket.com

Thank you to all our Community Stars 2009

Definitely agree; the charge should represent a % of the amount of the exceeded authorised overdraft, the more you are over the more you pay....this would be a welcome bonus to the joe public who unintentionally exceeded it by just a few pounds.

Conman your the legal eagle but we will have to agree to disagree on the c/c loophole. Legally speaking you are bang on but morally its a bit naughty

however if the overdraft is in proportion to the level of usage would you say its fair to charge someone for the size they go over the agreed limit? If so i have seen people go over by £1000+ is it fair to charge them a fee close to what they go over the same as is it fair to charge someone £30 for 30p?

interests me what people think of that

.

Don't get me wrong branchbanker you make perfectly valid points in your opinion, I agree that both sides (some banks & some customers) have neglected in their duty to ensure that their conduct has been responsible.

branchbanker - two sides to a coin, but one is legal stealing (taking money and not giving back) the other is charging an agreed fee in an agreed situation. Two different arguements. Don't get me wrong i think the banks deserve everything they have got themselves into through dodgy investments and living the dream.

However, there is no such crime as legal stealing.... it has either been provided legally (not stealing).... or taken without permission in order to deprive the rightful owner (stealing).

Now if I were to offer you a loan out of my personal funds, I would double check and draw up an agreement that was water tight and considered legally valid before lending you anything. In the case of financial institutions they have been failing to safeguard their assets correctly, by not ensuring the same degree of diligence or ensure security to the monies they have been lending. I have always been of the opinion that it is a banks legal duty to safeguard assets and ensure that legal security was always in place to safeguard any assets on loan.

The other bone of contention is not the actual charge the banks levy on unauthorised overdrafts, but the amount of that charge made in proportion to the amount of the unauthorised overdraft, it's not fair that someone who exceeds their agreed OD by just 30p for arguments sake should be charged £30. I appreciate there are serial offenders who always breach the T& C's who should feel the full costs, but there should always have been a policy in place not to tar everyone with the same brush...as always human nature, slow pesponse in updating account balances can all have a part to play in the average joe public miscalculating their balance and exceeding the limit by a few pence.

conmankiller:

Then the law applies in just the same respect as the recent ruling, all parties will have to abide and conform to what the law states. If a credit agreement is not legally valid call it what you may (legally - not stolen), loophole or non-compliance. Again two sides to the coin...both irresponsible.!

1) The financial institutions for not ensuring all agreements were valid.

2) Consumers for applying for money that they would struggle to repay.

But of course those that have been responsible with their money will be, and are, the ones who are paying for the others. Tax hikes are just around the corner, they predict VAT to be increased to 18.5%. All of this to pay for the debt that as a country we're in after bailing the banks, because of their irresponsibilty as lenders and some peoples irresponsibility as borrowers.

Not happy.

true conmankiller,

two sides to a coin, but one is legal stealing (taking money and not giving back) the other is charging an agreed fee in an agreed situation. Two different arguements. Don't get me wrong i think the banks deserve everything they have got themselves into through dodgy investments and living the dream.

I also spend my working week talking to people who are in debt but its never their fault. Ive seen people lose a house rather than their bmws on finance, had a bloke bring his kids in for the bank to explain to his kids why there was no money for presents (because he missed all his direct debits in a month and incurred massive charges which was my reply), a lady ask if she can have three credit cards, various people cry about debts when we had spoken to them on numerous occasions about consolidation to reduce outgoings and have people pester us weekly about whether they can have a loan yet. I honestly believe if people saw the kinds of things we do on a weekly basis then you would understand how the blame culture of borrowing has crept into society.

Bring back the days where upstanding members of society are the ones who pay their bills, live to their means and teach their children the value of money and hard work

branchbanker - I mean take for instance how many people on this forum as asking about how to write off a credit card debt. 99.9% of those people have ineffect stolen money from a bank and are worming their way out of it through a legal loophole. Those same people will say its not their fault, bank was irresponsible, circustances changed..... they also complain that the banks have been bailed out with tax payers money. Pot Kettle?

Then the law applies in just the same respect as the recent ruling, all parties will have to abide and conform to what the law states. If a credit agreement is not legally valid call it what you may (legally - not stolen), loophole or non-compliance. Again two sides to the coin...both irresponsible.!

1) The financial institutions for not ensuring all agreements were valid.

2) Consumers for applying for money that they would struggle to repay.

So if I understand Dangerman and Conman correctly, those banks that have not run their affairs very well are now paying penal rates of interest to the treasury as well as massive premiums to be in the Asset Protection Scheme and those that have run their affairs well aren't.

So, if we consider consumers, those that dont run their affairs very well pay the fees, and those that do - dont. Makes perfect sense

Also, can I ask - if 4 out of 5 people dont pay charges (read it on here somewhere), how does it work that there was massive public support for the banks losing?? Have i missed something

Darren

conman killer 110% agree my friend, but the public out cry against banks being so frivalent and mismanaging themselves shows exactly why society is in disaray. Its ok for the general public to mismanage their personal finances but not ok for the banks to do the same? people sit there day after day abusing banks and the mess they are in and blame other people for their own financial mess. Basically they (the average person on the street) want the big corporations to take responsibility for their mistakes (which most have and rightly so, could cost me my job!) but when it comes to their personal management of their finances its anyones fault but their own.

I mean take for instance how many people on this forum as asking about how to write off a credit card debt. 99.9% of those people have ineffect stolen money from a bank and are worming their way out of it through a legal loophole. Those same people will say its not their fault, bank was irresponsible, circustances changed..... they also complain that the banks have been bailed out with tax payers money. Pot Kettle?

Likewise Dangerman - Not all customers have been irresponsible either.!