OFT WIN

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I would be very surprised if the final situation is what people on here probably want, i.e. charges restricted to a low level. I think it's just a matter of time before the banks re-word their contracts such that they achieve the level of income they deem that they need.

I would be too, and to be honest I wouldnt want to see the charges set at a very low level as they do have to act as some kind of deterrent to constantly overdrawing your account and spending money you don't have, and a £3/4 charge wouldnt have that effect.

So a sensible level charge which covers costs, gives banks profits (cause they are a business), and acts as a deterrent to people just basically mismanaging their finances.

However, I think the banks should look at whats happening on peoples accounts more - not be charging per transcation, whacking £90 charges in a day on, and to be honest I would prefer to see where transactions that go over the agreed overdraft limit if there is one set are just declined. Whether they are for £1 or £400 - by debit card, direct debit, cheque or standing order....or cash withdrawals.

That way if someone realises a transaction that is due to go through will bounce they can contact the bank and make arrangements to increase the overdraft temporarily (and pay a fee for doing so like £25 cause there is work involved and it puts people off doing it but they have choice to do it or not), or pay funds in in cash to cover it.

A non payment of a transaction shouldnt be considered a service (I think thats what the Judge said at one point) and thus it shouldnt be charged for.

This allows people to sort things out if they get in a pickle and dont have enough to cover the mortgage, they can either chose to pay a fee and increase OD accordingly temporarily, or they can sort it out themselves through other means at a later date. Not end up being charged by mortgage co and bank and being in same position the next month cause of one cock up.

Hope that makes a modicum of sense.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

The Post Office Card Account (POCA) doesn't no. Its a benefits In cash Out only account.

In that case why are some here suggesting it's a suitable alternative to normal banking in order to avoid penalties

For a start without a DD facility many companies will charge you extra for paying by an alternative means cash etc: & thats assuming they will do business in the first place as some don't want to know unless you have the facility

One such extra charge alone can add a couple hundred pound annually to your bill.........In fact you could add a few hundred in such charges if you had to deal with more than one such company.....so rather than saving money by avoiding penalty fees you would be incurring charges even though your account was never in debt

I don't wish to be unkind but can those making such a suggestion try living in the real world.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I dont think anyone is suggesting it as an alternative to normal banking in order to avoid penalties.

for people on very low incomes it takes away the risk of losing your entire weeks food money in bank charges because of an admin error somewhere (if youget it back after a 6 week complaint whats the good in that), or becuase you had to pay £5 for a school trip you hadnt bargained for and the £10 electric bill has bounced....etc etc

I have no bank account, my only income currently is benefits, and I pay all my bills by cash at the post office or at paypoints. I also have a prepay debit card which I top up at the post office and paypoints.

And trust me i live in the real world.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

Did I just read someone here state they realise the charges have to be some sort of a deterrent to stop people going overdrawn

Clearly if I have someone completely misses the point...most people haven't gone overdrawn out of choice but more through necessity or difficulty coping financially...... It does not matter how big the charge......if they could have afforded not to go overdrawn they would have.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

I dont think anyone is suggesting it as an alternative to normal banking in order to avoid penalties.

for people on very low incomes it takes away the risk of losing your entire weeks food money in bank charges because of an admin error somewhere (if youget it back after a 6 week complaint whats the good in that), or becuase you had to pay £5 for a school trip you hadnt bargained for and the £10 electric bill has bounced....etc etc

I have no bank account, my only income currently is benefits, and I pay all my bills by cash at the post office or at paypoints. I also have a prepay debit card which I top up at the post office and paypoints.

And trust me i live in the real world.

I'm sorry but I disagree they are advocating it as a suitable alternative which it obviously is not & my reasons for believing so are already explained

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

I dont think anyone is suggesting it as an alternative to normal banking in order to avoid penalties.

for people on very low incomes it takes away the risk of losing your entire weeks food money in bank charges because of an admin error somewhere (if youget it back after a 6 week complaint whats the good in that), or becuase you had to pay £5 for a school trip you hadnt bargained for and the £10 electric bill has bounced....etc etc

I have no bank account, my only income currently is benefits, and I pay all my bills by cash at the post office or at paypoints. I also have a prepay debit card which I top up at the post office and paypoints.

And trust me i live in the real world.

So despite your very limited income it costs you more to spend £100 than it does for someone with an ordinary bank account

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I think it was me, scobby and argie advocating it for people on low incomes along with basic bank accounts and using them as a vehicle for cash rather than DD's/SO's etc as opposed to saying everyone should have one to avoid charges.

For a full income with lots of household bills etc of course the POCA is not suitable. But for many it is and is overlooked as it is perceived that paying bills in cash is a hassle, and a lot more expensive (which it is a little in some instances I agree and that is something we need to change).

So despite your very limited income it costs you more to spend £100 than it does for someone with an ordinary bank account

I don't know how you work that out. I presume on the BT non payment by DD fees and similar ?

[calamity jane]

Re: OFT WIN

In that case why are some here suggesting it's a suitable alternative to normal banking in order to avoid penalties

For some people a Post office cash account is the only option. They are not the ones who dictate the terms, its the Post Office.
There are other basic accounts that you can use at the P.O. which allow additional transactions varying from cash/cheque deposits even D/D and internet banking the main difference being that they don't allow overdrafts.
However for these you need to pass credit checks this could be a problem for some people whereas it's not a requirement for PO accounts.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

I think it's just a matter of time before the banks re-word their contracts such that they achieve the level of income they deem that they need.

That all sounds above board and tickety boo then.

[enaid]

Re: OFT WIN

Just a thought I wondered if any of the charities offering financial support would be of any help.
I know that they usually specialise in certain areas ie disability, low income and lone parents.
These are the people in real hardship in my opinion, they would need to be, to get help from these charities, then if any people on their books so to speak have been brought to this situation by bank charges maybe we could get a case together through them. I know it would not be easy to get this info but maybe if any of the people working for the charities know of anyone, they could put us in touch. After all these people would probably not have access to sites like this or indeed have the slightest clue about reclaiming bank charges. Just thinking Enaid x

[Vortex]

Re: OFT WIN

CJ, am not sure I would go along with the word "dictates" because all of us have an option to a degree to work with cash alone. However, the "discounts" for paying with cash are non existant apart from some utility companies. There has never been an issue with the consumer varying the contract that they have with the bank, however, the bank could turn around and say that they do not agree with that. The issue will be interesting when the Historic T&C's come out. The banks did make "quick fixes" to their Terms and Conditions during the height of the bank charges letters being received. However, the barmy thing is that the Terms and Conditions were decided to be looked at from October 2007(that's in the POC) which meant the discussions took place and changes made to make the terms and conditions more favourable to the service argument. I do agree that charges should be levied but I think both sides will appeal the judgement because there are ambiguities that we are seeing on this thread incompatable with the logic. We will see.......

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

...most people haven't gone overdrawn out of choice but more through necessity or difficulty coping financially...... It does not matter how big the charge......if they could have afforded not to go overdrawn they would have.

I do agree, I would rather people were given the choice whether they were to incur a charge for an actual service provided or not have the service nor the charge. Ie. do I want to have my mortgage paid on time take me a bit over my overdraft and pay this fee - or do I want to wait a few days and pay the mortgage company another way for this month. Of course they would have incurred a late pay fee at the mortgage company already.

I don't agree with banks allowing people to go over and over and over collecting charges without the customer having the choice. Think my Abbey account is £300 in the red now, I just stopped using it last year sometime and they have been charging themselves to kingdom come resultant on one returned DD for £5.

Anyway think we're a little off subject and back to the basics of bank charging here. And of course these are simply my thoughts, nothing to do with the judgement. I just hope rather than simply reducing fee amounts it results in more consideration to peoples financial situations and more choice for the consumer whether to receive and pay for a service or not.

[scottishlass]

Re: OFT WIN

Okay I know this has probably been said before but why were they allowed to change their T&C's before the court case? It is just so unfair IMO.

Sorry if I am raking up something old here,but takes me a while to understand what is going on.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

I think it was me, scobby and argie advocating it for people on low incomes along with basic bank accounts and using them as a vehicle for cash rather than DD's/SO's etc as opposed to saying everyone should have one to avoid charges.

For a full income with lots of household bills etc of course the POCA is not suitable. But for many it is and is overlooked as it is perceived that paying bills in cash is a hassle, and a lot more expensive (which it is a little in some instances I agree and that is something we need to change).




I don't know how you work that out. I presume on the BT non payment by DD fees and similar ?

There are many firms that charge an additional fee for paying cash & since the BT court success in Birmingham many more are now emboldened to do the same so yes if you pay say £5 to each company you deal with every time you pay the bill then it can add up to a lot of money for those on a small fixed income or who are low paid

Also as I have already pointed out many companies will not even do business with you if you do not have the facility of DD's on your account

& of course I understand there are those that can't pass a CRC but that's not my point I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be publicised..... My point is that this account appears to be being suggested without any caveat regarding the lack of a DD facility & it's likely additional costs......... DD's are, rightly or wrongly, an important requirement in todays living & I feel there lack should be mentioned.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Yes I agree. Its another example of penalising people who can least afford to be penalised.

I will start another thread shortly to continue the discussion regarding hardship cases and low incomes and the effect of the judgement on those. And allow this to continue on the main judgement points.