One million in the queue for bank charge payouts

7 April 2009

If you’re one of those disgruntled bank customers who has submitted a claim to claw back your unlawful charges, you might like to know that you’re in a pretty substantial queue. A queue that, to be more precise, is one million folks long.

Consumer group Legal Beagles have obtained figures under the Freedom Of Information Act showing that 973,000 complaints have been put on hold by the UK's banks, with almost 27,000 stayed in the UK courts.

The figures add weight to the growing belief that it’ll be 2011 at the earliest before the inevitable flood of refunds begins to trickle from the scumbag banks (apart from the non-scumbag parts of them that we all own) after years and years of leeching unlawfully high sums of money from account holders who went over their overdraft limits or had direct debit payments returned unpaid.

As per usual, all of you apologists for the banks who have never had an iota of debt in their entire lives can wax lyrical about how people should read the terms and conditions and how it’ll all kill off free banking in the box below. But know this… you are wrong. The banks robbed the poor to give to give to the rich and it begins and ends there.

TOPICS:   Consumer Advice   How To Guides   Banking

39 comments

  • Ivan
    Greedy money grabbing bankers! Distribute the wealth! Hardy worth having a bank account anyway. The interest paid is miniscule.
  • Jambo
    There goes 'Free Banking'. I am not rich but I certainly am not in debt nor do I have masses of assets, why? because I am poor but what money i do have I save. So due to all those who can't manage their finances and go over drawn due to the greed 'poor' people like me, who scrimp and save and do not take on debt, have to suffer.
  • saywot
    banks robbed the poor to give to give to. one too many give tos. besides, you go overdrawn its your own stupid fault.
  • callum
    Although I think its great the money may be paid back, and I will do all I can to help get my mums back, I have to agree that it is a bad move in general. People knew full well that they were getting these charges, and they had every opportunity to control their money better - but they didn't. The majority are now going to have to pay extra to cover all this lost revenue.
  • SHare
    Great, now the government will need to throw more money into the banks so they can pay back all the charges.
  • princessbullit
    As ii have written in a previous thread.... I disagree if i sign a piece of paper saying someone can shoot me tomorrow …it doesnt make it right or legal. I am a single mother who works 7 days a week, and,, sometimes when the banks can take card payments anytime up to 6 months after you make the purchase i can go over my limit. Sometime i really just dont have the cash as times can be hard. I hate people who smugly sit there and flick distain in my direction. I am NOT bad with money but if the money coming in is less than going out then what can i do? I dont go out drinking to the cinema or anywhere and haven’t for ages. i dont spoil my child and money is always tight. I have bank charges in the past year and im not going to be made to feel bad for that. Its not fair, just or right that they charge £35.00 to send a letter to me and they have no right when, at the most i try to get my balance back into the green within 7 days. I agree that some are really clueless. But for all you smug bastards looking down on people like me and sneering at what you call our lack of common sense you can all take your comments and blow them up your ass.
  • Tim
    Jambo that is an awesome quote IMO... Tim
  • Honky S.
    Jambo, Fuck Off, you're on the wrong site princessbullit - I hear you and am in similar position (feel the warmth)
  • DJNG22
    all this crap about people knew about charges and should manage there money better blah blah blah, Yes people may have gone over there overdraft etc etc but the major point is the bank charges imposed on customers were not fair, how can it charge people £35+ for going £5 overdrawn when the costs to the bank is but a fraction of that. The banks wer wrong to do it, have been proven to be wrong and the general public (excluding me as I have never been overdrawn) have a right to get these unlawful fees back. An example is my mum, she earns £700 a month and has a rent of nearly £300 (very little help from government as she has no dependants but is still on just above minimum wage) she has a loan that used to be taken on the 1st of the month, she changed jobs and now gets paid on the 5th but the loan still tries to take on the 1st and she incurrs a charge every month, she literally lives hand to mouth. She can change the direct debit date only if she is a month ahead with her payments. How the hell is she supposed to pay £200 in a single month and then have money to live after her £300. So she continually gets charged £35 a month, how is that fair!!!
  • Taffy
    Well said princess. I am with you 100%. I have a small family company with my two brothers and my father. Sometimes things are tight. My industry has suffered greatly thanks to our clients tightening their belts due to our wonderful recession. So consequently, we barely worked anything in February and March. We have all ran out of holidays trying to keep ourselves paid and now we are feeling the effects of that downtime, since payments for work carried out at that time should now be rolling in. I cant pay myself if I have no work to do. Its not that easy. For this reason, I sometimes go over my overdraft facility. I have done this many times in the past and been charged on every occassion. Is it about me not handling my money well?? No it isnt, its about trying to survive and ride out the inevitable whilst every other company around us goes into liquidation. Its about putting food in my daughters mouth, and fuel in my downgraded 1.0 VW Polo. My family and I work harder than anyone else I know, and sometimes its just not enough. I have sold most of my possessions trying to stay afloat and I am barely managing to pay the bills. Times are hard and its the banks and lenders who have taken advantage of these kind of situations for years. Its time for a break. I deserve some of my money back thankyouverymuch if these banks are still insisting on big bonuses and waiting on government bail outs. The system is all to cock to put it politely. Besides, since when was banking free?! In exchange for all but the minimal service, the banks have charged monthly fees for years. Both on my business and personal accounts.
  • Song b.
    All you mongs thinking free banking will be over are knobs. Think about how the banks earn their money, lending, mortgages, loans, brokerage, insurance, business banking etc etc etc... To side with the banks and give them another excuse to maintain their income streams gained by charging people for anything and everything is retarded. If you let them get away with charging people excessive amounts for going 'over' by even the slightest amount and they'll be looking for the next barrel to bend you over on. What makes you think they don't have enough money and RELY on penalty fees? In saying they will charge customers for their banking is to get weak and easily influenced peons like Jambo to fight their cause for them. All the banks will want to do is finding another source for the income stream built up from inappropriate fees. Once you feed the monster it expects a regular feast. We can't let them do this and have to stamp out weaklings like jambo.
  • Chris
    A £30 charge can help people be more conscious of the need to manage their finances properly - like a slap on the wrist.
  • Michael
    A small cheque which had been issued weeks ago was suddenly presented and put me £10 overdrawn. When my statement came I had been charged £25 twice. I went immediately to my branch - they told me that two more £25 charges had been applied in the time between the letter being sent and me receiving it. Interest was also due, but they were unable to calculate the amount. They rang head office who were also unable to calculate the amount, so they 'recommended' I pay more than was due, otherwise more charges would be incurred. Not so much a slap on the wrist, more like an mugging.
  • Song b.
    It's not just poor financial mangement, people have been hit with fines because a bank, utility company etc increases charges on other services, increases direct debit amounts, moves payment dates or incorrectly takes money that they are not entitled to or given notice for, which results in people being stuck in limbo and getting hit by fines.
  • ryan
    Robbing bastards! They have charged my girlfriend over £500 in the past 6 months! £200 on xmas day! Hang the fucking lot of them! Thieving scum bags...
  • Darren W.
    I cant believe you are all defending your actions about overdrawn charges.... you spent money that you DONT have, CANT have all because you couldn't manage your finance's. simple as.... and here you all are calling THEM thieving scum bags...
  • jon w.
    Darren W - even 1p over can incur a £25 surcharge and then another £25 if the £25.01 is not paid within a few days and you think that's fair? £30 for a letter, it's not even sent first class! I think the majority of people know roughly what's in their account but not down to the last £ or penny like you obviously do. Bank charges are excessive and like many things it effects the poor worse.
  • Colon W.
    Your wrong! This will be used as an excuse for the end of free banking, i have never paid a charge as i am not thick, i have sympathy for those caught up in divorce etc but the rest pah.
  • Andy
    "I cant believe you are all defending your actions about overdrawn charges…. you spent money that you DONT have" let me just get perspective on this... isn't that exactly what the banks do with the deposits you make? they borrow from one to lend to another! And whats more I time you go overdrawn may mean your charges multiple times for that same transaction, that's now fair that excessive!
  • ctuk
    Don't spend other peoples money and you wont get charged. If you do, don't moan about it, it's your own fault and nobody elses. I've never gone overdrawn, not because I'm super-rich, just because I have a brain, and can manage my own finances. If you're in a state when you can't keep up with the bills, just top yourself.
  • tinop
    I think what people hate was the stupidly high amount of charges. If the charges were dropped to £ 3 a go, then I think people wouldnt hate it so much. I used to work in a bank, and back then, (abt 10 yrs ago) - customer with balance under £ 2000 is costing the bank money to maintain. So, if you were a bank and you have to take on people with no money in their accounts, how else are you supposed to justify to keep their account open?
  • tinop
    What I meant with my post was, people with £ 2000 or less in their account. The cost of maintaining is higher than what it's worth! So on a lot of people, banks loose money so people can have a current account. So they have to make it up some other way - high interest loans, charges and fees. If you cant beat the system, join it. Switch to another bank that is beneficial to you.
  • nice d.
    i use to be well paid and constantly go in debt and pay the exobitant charges. so i guess that was my fault but the bank hid behind this charge as being justified. £30 fo a £1 letter. but it was my fault and it did'nt have to be that way. I also know of people on the breadline that these sorts of charge eventually got them into very serious debt. The charges were more than they earnt therefor they ended up owing thousands when if the charge had been fair they would not have got into. You only have to see the stupid thing banker have done recently to see how money grabbing they are. like someone said above they are next to thieve/muggers when it comes to money. these banks are now relying on the general public to bail them out. again the poor are gonna get screwed while the bankers sit in their lovely houses not paining a penny for their miss deeds. pot kettle black comes to mind.
  • speedski
    Fact remains, don't spend what you haven't got. Nothing anywhere states that the bank owes you the opportunity to borrow from them for free - I don't know of a single business (not charity) that lets you borrow products for free without some form of sale process being involved. That sale process costs money, that 'free' product from a charity costs money. Everything costs, the amount it costs is inconsequential - if demand goes up prices go up - if the number of people going overdrawn goes up then why can't the cost go up? Banks are a business (ironically the govenment now owns most of those businesses) and they are in the business of making money. VERY little of the profit banks made over the last 5 years have come from personal accounts - its mostly investment capital and ventures. Quite frankly, no matter what the cost the people who have been charged KNEW the costs involved, banks waste far too many trees telling holders of the most minor of changes...it's a vicious circle I agree, but WHY should the banks be responsible for allowing you to borrow money from them without cost?
  • Julian
    All the sanctimonious people who assume that anybody incurring charges is automatically bad with money fail to understand the problem here and how lucky they have been. I know of many people who have run their accounts perfectly properly and have found themselves overdrawn due to an unexpected and unavoidable bill. I know of others who have been paid late and found themselves facing charges when payment on time would have prevented this. The problem then was that the charges the bank applied were applied to the account only 1 or 2 days before the end of the month, ie AT A TIME WHEN THEY WOULD ALMOST INEVITABLY CAUSE THE ACCOUNT TO BE OVERDRAWN AGAIN ALLOWING THE BANK TO APPLY CHARGES THE FOLLOWING MONTH AND SO ON. It is easy to tell people to leave some spare in their accounts to cover this but many people do not have any spare. It was a viscious cycle cynically managed by the banks to maximise their profits and no doubt thought up by somebody who will or has received a multimillion pound pension.
  • speedski
    @Julian... So if you dont put your money in a bank and you pay everything cash then where's the problem? there isn't, therefore, if you give the money to the bank to look after and you mis-manage it then it HAS to be your fault. Sorry but there is no other way to look at it,
  • Andy D.
    @Speedski - I don't think anyone would deny that there should be a penalty charge in place once you go over your overdraft limit, but the fact of the matter is that £30 is an unreasonable and unlawful amount for banks to charge. Thousands of people challenged the banks over this in the courts and the banks refused to fight their corner every single time. Eventually, everyone will get their money back because the banks fucked up and got greedy. You don't seem to be able to grasp that yes, while customers have broken the terms and conditions of their accounts, the banks have broken the law with the exorbitant amounts they have charged and continue to charge. That is the issue here. You're trying to argue a separate point that almost everyone here agrees with.
  • Simon
    I think the fact that the banks charge people for straying outside of the agreed terms and conditions of their account is right.... HOWEVER I don't believe that the size of the charge is always fair, relative to the error that has been made by the account holder. Going one penny overdrawn should not incur a £30 charge, but it should have some monetary penalty so people get the idea about sticking to the agreed terms of the account. If you don't have the money, but you take it from the bank anyway, why shouldn't you be penalized? The issue is about making the charges more relative to the error. If you find you are constantly running over your overdraft then you should be getting down the bank and talking to one of the customer service team and arranging a larger/an agreed overdraft. The longer you leave the problem, and continue to incur charges, obviously the more the banks will look down at you as being irresponsible and unable to manage you money, and therefore less likely to help you. Just a thought.... [ducks]
  • Steve
    Chris, in spite of being a knob, said this, which was correct: "A £30 charge can help people be more conscious of the need to manage their finances properly - like a slap on the wrist." And this is indeed the CRUX of the matter. It IS NOT LAWFUL for the banks to make a penalty charge. They have NO RIGHT to punish me for using the services that they are handsomely paid so that I can use them. I am, in effect, a contributor to their liquidity and viability. To justify a £30 or £35 charge as a 'penalty charge' is only serving to make the case. The banks aren't allowed to invent 'penalty charges' since we have a business RELATIONSHIP. If I sell you services and you decide to pay your bill late, do you think that I have a right to charge £30 as and when I feel like it as a slap on the wrist to you not paying your bill. If you don't pay your bill for a month, and I say 'that's £50 per week as a penalty' are you going to say 'oh, OK then... naughty me... I'll learn my lesson now.' Or are you going to say 'you robbing bastard, go stuff yourself... you've no right to demand more from me than the JOB IS WORTH.' The Consumer Credit Act and more importantly the Financial Services Act does not provide for financial institutions to invent their own penalties, but rather to lay down a justification for reasonable recovery of incurred cost. The bank is in principle NOT ALLOWED TO PROFIT from your breaching the terms of agreement between you and them. The heart of this issue is this: the banks say 'we're not profiting' in order to cover their ass, and then they say 'but we'll lose our profit' in order to scare mindless sheep like Chris and others into supporting their monopoly on financial services. To say 'I'm not profiting' from a £35 charge you must be able to show that £35 is exactly what it costs to administrate a 'violation' of the terms of agreement between the bank and the customer. When an audit of the internal processes of two of the smaller banking organisations (the bigger they are, the cheaper the cost of transactions and interventions) revealed that the actual cost of a MANUAL intervention on an account (the most time consuming type of intervention, and also the most RARE type of intevention) was less than £2 per instance, there arose an issue where the banks needed to explain £33 of sheer profit. They are not entitled to make money. They have to work to make money. Their job is to take my money, and anyone else's money when they're in the black, and make hay while the sun shines. Instead they've been profiteering from bum-raping the most vulnerable customers (contrary to popular opinion, the majority of people who fall foul of the banks are not reckless louts, but actually vulnerable people facing uncontrollable hardship) and throwing money round like confetti so as to fund the wet dreams of their profoundly greedy executives and the narcissists in the investment banking divisions so that their extensive coke, alcohol, and prostitution addictions can be fuelled further as long as they make millions for their masters... Their house of cards is collapsing. What you sew ye shall also reap. The people who've run out of money and gone overdrawn are already reaping it. Now its the banks turn. The banks have, quite simply, NO RIGHT. They have no RIGHT to be given money. No RIGHT to be profiting to the tune of billions. No RIGHT to have the highest paid executives in the world. Indeed, no RIGHT to require virtually all of humanity to have accounts with them. They have conspired, and agitated, and politically corrupted the system so as to create a monopoly in which they have been issued a licence, literally, to print their own money as an artificially created cancer. Now that their true colour has been revealed, they have stepped beyond being a service provider, and are behaving as if they are an innate division of national administration, of government, with a right to tax, to demand penalties, to blacklist (something else which is constitutionally illegal, and which no other business in the UK is entitled to do with the ease with which banks do it) and to force, effectively, the participation of customers on the banks terms, with no effort made at all to provide responsible, accountable value for money and customer satisfaction. If you could imagine life without the banks, and you could look past the illusion that they've built, of their benevolent omnipresence, omniscience and goodness, you'd see that this is the most corrupt and vile cartel-operated industry that humanity has ever conceived, which makes the military-industrial complex look like a brainstorm in a sandbox at playtime. And frankly, given that the bank invested my fifty quid to make a few pence profit in order to reward your five thousand quid because they saw more need to value you and tickle your arse than they did me, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if my overdrafts mean that you might actually have to start paying for your banking, because I've been doing it for years, in your favour. So now ain't we both in the sh** for being greedy and thinking about how our earnings can in turn do some earning of their own... You've no idea how much ALL of us have contributed to the culture of greed which allowed the banks to do everything they've done, when in reality, we NEVER needed them. Our laziness and greediness was appealed to, and we eagerly rushed to let them build their empire on the promise that they were going to do something good for us. By the time they started charging us for us lending them our cash liquidity, we were so convinced that their system was necessary, that we didn't notice as we sold out.
  • Andy D.
    Yeah, what Steve said.
  • bernard b.
    I think all of the people defending the banks are missing the point. If the banks simply levied a reasonable fee for going over your limit then it would (for the majority of people) not be an issue. However, the exorbitant charges and stifling terms levied by the banks often compound the problem for the people who can least afford it. Imagine you are living on a very tight budget, you get paid a day late. In the meantime the bank slaps you with a £35 charge. You don't have the £35 to pay back, you get slapped with another £35 charge and another.... Let's hope that you don't fall on hard times eh.
  • Steve
    "Nothing anywhere states that the bank owes you the opportunity to borrow from them for free - I don’t know of a single business (not charity) that lets you borrow products for free without some form of sale process being involved. That sale process costs money, that ‘free’ product from a charity costs money." The banks don't lend to people for free, muppet. They charge interest. They charge service charges for overdrafts. They charge loan arrangement fees. Going overdrawn or being late in paying back isn't free. Its paid for. And PENALTY CHARGES are still illegal. The banks ARE NOT ALLOWED to profit from you falling foul of your terms and conditions. Charging you £35 for a £1.50 process is called PROFITEERING. The banks necessarily impose the sanction, you have no right to select an alternative service based on fair and reasonable pricing, which means they have locked you into a self-serving system which you have no control in should the worst happen to you. And kindly wipe the smug grin off your face. You're a redundancy away from being in exactly the same boat as anyone else and hoping like buggery that someone campaigns so that the banks can't invent thousands of pounds in charges against you just because you lost your job and can't get any other work. Or are you another of those scamming parasites like bankers or lawyers, who invent their own industry and manipulate an artificial requirement of their services by making life so complex as to be no longer navigable by ordinary people under their own steam, and then charge extortionate rates and fix prices in their industry based entirely on the perception that they're more knowledgeable, more elite, and thus justified in fuelling the obscene amounts of money they earn so that they can live the most luxurious lifestyles?
  • Steve
    Here's another thought... Even if the most reckless person in the world runs up a debt of five hundred pounds end then can't pay it all back right away, what has it cost the bank? It's all virtual money in their system anyway... So they add maybe £70 per month, a late payment fee and a penalty charge... In a year the £500 becomes £1400. What did it ACTUALLY cost the bank? They're adding interest on top of it, which is what banks do... they lend money and they make interest. So they're trying to make £900 more pounds on someone's irresponsibility or misfortune. How is that not like waiting for someone to crash their car and then trying to charge them a licence fee for using the safety features of the car? Where did the £900 come from, and where did it go? It didn't. They invented it. It is purely digital. It doesn't exist and never did. They effectively invent their own profit, and then complain that they're making a loss if we refuse to pay them what they think they're due. But in reality, they never had it to begin with because it is false economic units, non-existant money... worthless computer transactions which mean profit if paid, and if unpaid have no impact at all except in the claims that the banks can make about how profitable they are, in order to make shareholders (parasites) happy. Now look at what's happening en masse.... Banks are controlling life and death over businesses, simply because they've been caught out in bad practice and have been burned screwing the pooch. So the banks themselves are responsible NOT ONLY for the fact that many cannot pay them what they think they're owed, but are ALSO responsible for shutting down endless numbers of banking customers and ensuring that they are no longer viable participants in the banking system. Its a paradox, and it is simply BEGGING for an ethical bank to say 'we'll take banking back to what it used to be, and we'll run it as a service, not a business.' And unfortunately it will probably be the government that does it, with a nationalised Lloyds HBOS, after the OFT have screwed RBS for the last time over its profoundly awful and persecutive business practices, questionable profiteering and so on. ANd if I sound bitter, you're right. RBS shut my business down over a two hundred pound excess on an authorised overdraft which I paid handsomely for, and violated my 'terms and conditions' on ALL the accounts, including loans and credit cards, that I held with them, so as to plunge me into a vacuum in which I had to sink or swim with no cash liquidity (they siezed my accounts just after I paid my monthly income into it) and then invented literally thousands of pounds of charges out of nowhere in order to keep me paying them back for the next twenty years. They're now under investigation by the FSO and the OFT as a result of what they did to me, and I have it on good authority that the FSO have a STACK of similar stories that it is taking them the best part of two years, so far, to delve through... You've no idea just how corrupt this banking system really is until you've been chewed up and spat out by it, and dare then to investigate. I've been threatened, coerced, intimidated, harrassed, and brought to the bring of mental breakdown before I finally said 'enough... I'm bringing the fight to your door...' There's no one happier than me to see these bastards go down. My advice... take your money out of banks and learn to live on cash and without the greed of wanting interest for doing nothing.
  • speedski
    @ Andy Dawson... Council Tax is Unlawful - its £1,000 to have my bin emptied one every fortnight Parking Tickets - how can the council justify charging me £60 for parking in a space - how can they quantify it - £60 i mean its disgusting no? £80 on the spot fine for throwing litter - well thats way too much, as they only pay litter pickers £6 an hour and it only takes the person 15 seconds to pick up that piece, so by my reckoning the fine should be around oooooh 2.5p? I think you are missing the point I am trying to make - its not the banks that are specifically at fault - its the enitre public service process that results in the private process getting greedy... The fines are what they are because its all done in relativity to exisitng processes and costing - this blinkered view that you know how much a letter costs to produce etc etc is crazy, whatsmore, its the tax payer who will end up footing the bill for this as the 'profits' made are no longer in existence, they are gone and now the taxpayer has to foot the bill, fair? no, bad timing yes, my responsibility as a taxpayer, hell no, after all, why is the main part of the population able to avoid such fees? Quite frankly they should throw the cases, all of them out of court and move on, its ONLY the public who will suffer more, and if anything this WILL make the poorer poorer, especially those who don't own, and never have, a bank account.
  • Andy D.
    @Speedski - Bin collection, parking tickets and litterbugs are not the issue here in any way, shape or form. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, a charge is unfair and unenforceable if it does not represent a reasonable prior estimate of the costs that the breach causes the service provider to incur. A former business analyst with a bank estimated that it costs them around £2 whenever a customer breaches their authorised overdraft or a direct debit bounces. Link here - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/campaigns/bankcharges/article.html?in_article_id=419031&in_page_id=507 As for the taxpayer footing the bill - the banks have known they'll have to fork out refunds for the past three years or so and will have been preparing accordingly (while continuing to overcharge customers.) Some of them are exploring ways to carry on shafting their customers but from a much stronger legal position, eg, Barclays and their 'Personal Reserve' facility. More on that at http://www.wonga.com/blog/2008/11/28/banking-on-a-barclays-personal-reserve/ Oh, and do you REALLY get charged £1,000 just to have your bins emptied? Where do you live then?
  • princessbullit
    I have had charges over the past couple of years and do you know what they were for? WShen i make a card payment the bank takes the money and it shows it coming off when i check the bank the next day....Then they put it back in as the payment was on a 'hold' from the store to ensure that i had the funds in the bank. Then the bank can actually take the payment anytime up to 6 months after that ...N
  • princessbullit
    ...continued due to me hitting enter by mistake...Now i obviously have looked assumed the money has gone as my online bank says and then.....when i need it most 2 months later....poof that money just goes from my bank...The bank (so i was told as a child) is there to HELP me manage my money but i yet to actually see any help i have to have a bank to pay for anything these days yet i have honestly never ever seen anything resembling help come my way ..i have no loan or overdraft i give them my money ...they screw mw every 6-12 months ....thats it.....i help then FAR more than they have ever helped me or done enything to help me ...when did that role reversal happen?
  • Sarah
    For all you who are sitting there and saying "it's your fault for not managing your finances properly" are missing the point. The argument is not that banks are charging us, its that they are charging us an UNFAIR amount. It is illegal for banks to penalise for breach of contract. what they ARE allowed to do is to recuperate costs. But for a direct debit to be returned unpaid, (by an automated response) it costs them about £2.50. So £2.50 is what they should charge. What the banks argue, i that it is the human involvement thats costs them. paying the staff to look at each individual case, and this is how they justify the high over limit fees. ( I think what was found is that a fee of £12 is fair, and anything over is deemed to be unfair). Let me just tell you about a recent experience of mine: I had gone on holiday to, as i had taken a lot of euroes with me, there was no money in my account. the day after i flew away, my wages were due to go into my account, but they didn't. i was unaware of this. before my wages actually got paid in, a direct debit was due to come out. If the banks claim that the high fees are to pay employees to look at individual cases and decide if a payment should be made or not, I would like to meet the terrible excuse for a human being, that looked at my account, and, knowing it would cost me THIRTY-EIGHT POUNDS IN FEES, decided it was necessary to bounce a payment of FOUR POUNDS that was going out to CANCER RESEARCH UK. I am aware that i could have prevented this by leaving just a few pounds in my account, and i am aware that banks can charge, an i think, should charge, for mis-use of a bank account. What i do not agree with is the amount that they charge. I this case, if i had been charged between £5 and £10, I could think to myself, 'Unlucky Sarah, but lesson learned' but a charge of nearly £40?? thats 10 times the amount that they wouldn't pay out of my account. It really seems to me that the punishment is defiantly NOT proportionate to the crime. and now this month, i have to budget even tighter, to make sure i have enough money to cover all my outgoings. i can easily see how people get stuck into a downward spiral... and even those who do take care of thier finances and never go overdrawn, should still be able to recognise that, say, for a person who doesn't earn much, or is on job seekers allowance (about £47 a week) one fee of £38 (nearly a quarter of one months benifits) can really mess up a tight budget, and result in more and more bounced payments, and more and more charges. The banks should not be allowed to make a profit of of this.
  • Waj
    hi, I bank with Halifax, they robbed me £35 around 14th april i purchased something off ebay, right, i had about £1.08 in my paypal account, and in the payment in voice it said that £1.08 will be deducted from my paypal account and the rest £9.41 out my bank card (visa debit), i had enough money in my bank card, i was busy, i thought they must have taken the money out there by now, so about 18th i went on my paypal account and saw that 9.41 is scheduled to be taken out from my account so i cancelled the thing, at that moment i was confused and had nothing in my bank account (i owe ebay over £9(commision and listing fees), so i thought it was that), days later, i recieved a letter from my bank saying that paypal has failed to acquire £9.41 from my account as there was not a penny in the account, and for that failed item i.m gonna be charged £35 on 2nd may?, what the fuck is that all about, i thought they're havin a laugh, i went down to my local branch as soon as to find out what going on, they lady says to me that i cancelled the paypal thing on the 18th, had i done a day earlier i would have incurred a charge? what's getting to me is i have not got any overdraft facility on my account(i had them take it off back when i opened the account), so what the fuck why the charge, if i had a solo or visa electron card they would nt charge you a penny for a failed payment, so why my account, to top it all because the work lay-offs i aint even working now, im on JSA, and we'r in a recession here, for £9.41 they whacking me £35, thats taking the piss. AM I IN THE WRONG?

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment