Oh so true

Limey Linda · 11 April 2007, 20:23

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to thank you for bouncing my cheque with which I endeavoured to pay my plumber last month. By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his depositing the cheque and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly transfer of funds from my modest savings account, an arrangement, which, I admit, has been in place for only thirty-one years.

You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account $40 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to the bank.

My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways. I noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and letters, when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity, which your bank has recently become.

From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by cheque, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate. Be aware that it is an offence under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope.

Please find attached an Application Contact Status form, which I Require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative. Please note that all copies of his or her medical history, must be countersigned by a Notary Public; and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof. In due course, I will issue your employee with a PIN number, which, he/she must quote in dealings with me. I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modelled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Please allow me to level the playing field even further. When you call me, you will now have a menu of options on my new voice mail system to choose from.

Please press the buttons as follows:
1. To make an appointment to see me.
2. To query a missing payment.
3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
7. To leave a message on my computer, a password to access my computer
is required. Password will be communicated at a later date to the Authorized Contact.
8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.
9. To make a general complaint or inquiry.

The contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.

Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee of $40 to cover the setting up of this new arrangement. Please credit my account after each occasion.

May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous, New Year.

Your Humble Customer,

pathalla · 12 April 2007, 04:38

You absolutely hit the nail on the head with that one, absolutely!!

Ian M · 13 April 2007, 12:42

it is sort of re-assuring to know that you have similar frustrations over there as we have in the UK. So, it is the whole world gone crazy, and not just our little corner of it

Aidan · 14 April 2007, 00:33

Apparently some Barrister in UK is in your shoes and is suing the bank.
He was able to demonstrate that teh referral fee cost to the bank is circa £2.80 and yet they charged some £38 for the fee. I am sure there must be rules against this.Check it out on BBC news or SKY, cos thats where I saw it yesterday.

Bring back Jessie James!!!

Limey Linda · 14 April 2007, 01:25

If you are a British citizen and wish to contact the British Embassy, in the USA, by telephone, you get a message that say's: "we will accept your call but please be aware that you will be charged $1.25 per minute and please enter your credit card number now." WHAT!!!!!!!!!! the h*ll are are they thinking about?

. And of course you get to talk to someone that can barely speak English. probably someone in India.

Poly · 14 April 2007, 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan

Apparently some Barrister in UK is in your shoes and is suing the bank.
He was able to demonstrate that teh referral fee cost to the bank is circa £2.80 and yet they charged some £38 for the fee. I am sure there must be rules against this.Check it out on BBC news or SKY, cos thats where I saw it yesterday.

Bring back Jessie James!!!

Aidan, there are quite a large number of people in the UK successfully recovering "unfair charges" from banks in the UK under unfair contracts legislation (usually without recourse to court action).

I know one person who recently got several thousand pounds back with just 2 letters.

I have been the recipient of such charges myself in the past. I complained at the time and sometimes they were refunded and sometimes not. But here are some of the arguments why such charges are actually not a bad thing:

1. they are only levied when you break the rules of the account - it is within your powers to avoid them
2. people who operate their accounts "properly" will not incur charges and (in the UK) will normally have free of charge banking facilities.
3. the banks make significant profits from these charges - that is actually in the interests of people correctly operating their account. if the bank don't make profit this way - they will introduce charges elsewhere e.g. every time you write a cheque, use your debit card, take out money etc.
4. most of our pension funds will have investments in the banks and so if they make less profit - our pensions suffer.
5. punative charges discourage the excessive personal debt attitudes which are prevalent in the UK.

Actually I am not convinced that it is an unfair contract term. The charges are always clearly stated by the bank up front. As I understand it the cost of goods or services themselves are not subject to the regulations (that is your choice to buy the product at market value, or otherwise, as a consumer). Whilst these are "penalty" charges - they are in effect the "price" of using the service outwith the agreed limits.

If these charges are forced down (e.g. by the OFT) to the £5 level that is generally considered to be the "true cost" - who suffers? the people who operate their accounts within the terms of their contract!

Limey Linda · 14 April 2007, 03:02

I am trying to figure out if you are a lawyer( solicitor, bar room or otherwise) or a used car salesman, or equiv. Please advise, so I can accurately value your posted info. which tend to come across as a bit whacky to me.
Thanks

eupa · 14 April 2007, 09:45

lots of words on this..... BUT unfortunately we NEED them. The problem is to find an "honest" bank. See my previous posts on BARCLAYS BANK. Is there one? or is my Belgium mother in law right in keeping all her money in her ample bosom? i,e do we revert to a "cash" only society.
Limey you may think you have it hard in the states- but just trying depositing a modest sum of say $2000 in a bank account in Europe. Cash?? governments and banks they hate it....

It seems that the Islamic system of banking is much more honest than ours?

jonathan

Poly · 14 April 2007, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by eupa

or is my Belgium mother in law right in keeping all her money in her ample bosom?

no that is just deception - making her chest look bigger...

Poly · 14 April 2007, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limey Linda

... of course you get to talk to someone that can barely speak English. probably someone in India.

oh no they could be in a UK call centre

... ...the standard of english isn't always any better - the manners / politeness etc are usually poorer if they are here and standard of helpfulness is non existent in either case.

Poly · 14 April 2007, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limey Linda

I am trying to figure out if you are a lawyer( solicitor, bar room or otherwise) or a used car salesman, or equiv. Please advise, so I can accurately value your posted info. which tend to come across as a bit whacky to me.
Thanks

Not a lawyer. I have been involved in drafting contracts however where the unfair contracts legislation has been a consideration. And have been following the bank charges issue with interest, since I first became aware of it in the press a year or so ago.

Definitely never sold a used car.

I like to think of myself as being a bit whacky.

donutsina911 · 14 April 2007, 13:38

agree with Polwart..the charges are pretty transparent, although I'd be surprised if many read the t's and c's when signing up for a bank account. Its pretty straightforward, stay in your limit and you'll be fine and if you're going to go o/drawn call the bank to let them know...

the whole call centre thing drives me insane...I called my own company's call centre and nearly had a nervous breakdown trying to explain to one of our indian colleagues about a claim I needed to make on my car insurance. In our case, I'd disagree about Polwarts comments on UK staff, our few remaining UK operators are first class..

Bigmuz7 · 14 April 2007, 21:19

This is annoying me too.. every where I go I keep hearing stories of peeps recovering thousands,... I hate if I get anywhere near an 'agreed limit', and I'm no tightwad, but I've had my fair share or hardship too. A limit is a limit as agreed by you and the bank, If you go over it, you will pay.. I accept however that these figures should not be exorbitant.

The banks credit control procedures have to be the best to protect their business, so I think they frighten peeps by makeing punitive charges high, in my book its your choice to incur them or not. Even if it looks like you are about to do so, speak to your bank ! usually you will find them accomodating if you can explain your circumstances, and buy yourself some more time to make the adjustments you need, to prevent the situation recurring

Aidan · 14 April 2007, 21:28

Personally, it has been many years since i had any issue with these charges, however within the business i am not so good and I use the banks quite gingerly and treat as commodity.
I do believe their referral charges are some 10 euro and I usually argue each of these but they get you with other charges and interest rates to say the least. There is little wrong with their annual returns..

Many Insurance Co and Banks, Health Ins etc are itching to get into Ireland because of their charges. Given the choice if living near the border, I would live on the northern side and perhaps Business and Bank on the southern side???

Nos4r2 · 15 April 2007, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

The banks credit control procedures have to be the best to protect their business, so I think they frighten peeps by makeing punitive charges high, in my book its your choice to incur them or not. Even if it looks like you are about to do so, speak to your bank ! usually you will find them accomodating if you can explain your circumstances, and buy yourself some more time to make the adjustments you need, to prevent the situation recurring

I just recovered a lot of money from my bank.

They started charging me after a loan repayment FROM THE BANK IN QUESTION was taken out 3 days earlier than they said they would take it. For the life of the loan they messed about taking it at random times within 3 working days either side of the agreed date. I was weekly paid at the time...
On occasions I found myself unable to buy food and fuel-yet phone calls to them were answered with 'put some money into your account to cover the charges then'. Even when I was ringing them saying 'I'm starving and if you continue this I'm going to lose my job.You are preventing me from getting there by taking money from my account. If I lose my job you'll get nothing' I got the same answer.

The banks are leeches that make huge profits WITHOUT penalty charges.
Is there really a moral reason why they should drive people into unemployment and starvation just to fatten their wallets?
You have no idea how good it feels to be told what they were doing was unlawful having been through what they put me through. Unless you've already got money they regard you as carrion for them to pick.

Sixy_the_red · 16 April 2007, 15:09

Further to what Nos has quite rightly said, imagine yourself in the following situation:

You're weekly paid. By my calculations, based on a 40 hour week at minimum wage you're talking about £185 a week. By the time you've fed and clothed yourself, paid the rent, bills, bought fuel etc you're probably looking at about £40 a week float if you're lucky. If for some reason you happen to go £10 overdrawn for whatever reason (your mum was ill and you had to spend £10 to park in the hospital to visit her for instance) then wham, you're hit with a £35 fine. So now you're a grand total of £45 overdrawn, so your £40 isn't enough to clear it. So the following week when your monthly car insurance bill is due, they try to take the direct debit which can't clear. Wham, another £35. So you're now £80 and in the situation where your car insurance may be cancelled because you've missed a payment...

etc etc etc ad infinitum.

If you're on a low income and you happen to fall into the trap for whatever reason there is NO escape. You can't close your account or arrange an authorised overdraft at this point so you're trapped.

Bigmuz7 · 28 April 2007, 23:19

Dont agree. You have a choice. Live within your means or outwith, its up to you.

I do agree that its bad practice for banks to profiteer from those who choose to live on the borderline, but like I said, sort it with the bank to avoid the situation. Why do you think the bank makes so much money ? And ok in the short term they are giving it back..AND... I'm glad some have got one in the eye to the banks and recovered your cash from the rip off level that they charge... but if you agreed to their terms of borrowing, you will be liable for something when you exceed the terms.

Not saying I've never gone over a limit and paid charges, but its a deal you strike with the bank and if you are in breach of the terms, you are liable. Its up to you to sort out your DDs and wages.. not them

Somewhere I think there is going to be a trade off from this fee recovery situation, and who do you think thats going to affect? ..... you guessed right

Now borrowing will be even more expensive. Theyll find a way to make us all pay

IM NOT saying their practices are right I'm saying you should do everything in your power to avoid them taking the money from you in the first place

Nos4r2 · 28 April 2007, 23:59

How then in your opinion am I responsible for the bank taking a DD to themselves-ie money paying back a loan from my bank due on the Monday on the Thursday before-then trying again on Tuesday?

I call that theft. They did that to me repeatedly for 2 years-with random days ranging from Tuesday to Monday. Every time they did it it cost me £85.

No-one CHOOSES to live on the borderline.

I'm not saying the banks don't have to make a profit-they make huge profits without these charges anyway. What I'm saying is as they are effectively an essential service for anyone with a job, they should be prevented from gross profiteering. Watchdogs land on gas suppliers,water suppliers and electricity suppliers like a tonne of bricks if they go OTT. Why should banks be exempted?

Bigmuz7 · 29 April 2007, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

How then in your opinion am I responsible for the bank taking a DD to themselves-ie money paying back a loan from my bank due on the Monday on the Thursday before-then trying again on Tuesday?

I call that theft. They did that to me repeatedly for 2 years-with random days ranging from Tuesday to Monday. Every time they did it it cost me £85.

No-one CHOOSES to live on the borderline.

I'm not saying the banks don't have to make a profit-they make huge profits without these charges anyway. What I'm saying is as they are effectively an essential service for anyone with a job, they should be prevented from gross profiteering. Watchdogs land on gas suppliers,water suppliers and electricity suppliers like a tonne of bricks if they go OTT. Why should banks be exempted?

They wont be exempted IMHO . If you believe you've been stolen from, go to the police, but you know what your answer will be, no joy.

I agree that banking is almost a right, not a 'for profit ' situation, but we dont live in that kind of world unfortunately, and mores the pity. We all need someone to handle our finances, and its an arbitrary situation as to who profits from that,..... the basic money handlers ie banks where your wages get paid in I agree should not be one of them ! no doubt about it

Poly · 29 April 2007, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

No-one CHOOSES to live on the borderline.

Actually Nos I know quite a few people who DO choose to live beyond (or at the absolute limit of their means). I can point you to a several people who are heavily overdrawn, have huge credit card debt, big car loans etc and yet still buy stuff that they don't need.