REAL REASON THE BANKS CAUSED THE RECESSION

so we come to the end of a disgracful chapter in the men of englands finest,who were groomed at eton/oxford/cambridge/hull,


nice tongue in cheek sepp

i think everyone knows theyre conmen not just thick to be honest.

I am erring on the side that the, (mostly Govt owned and almost busto), banks will not have to repay.

And all the banks will do will start charging for cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions.

So the clowns/scrubbers/urchins that can't stay within their overdraft limit will be again subsidised by the majority that can manage their finances.

When will you all ever learn?

Vulva 23 Nov 20:11
And all the banks will do will start charging for cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions.

So the clowns/scrubbers/urchins that can't stay within their overdraft limit will be again subsidised by the majority that can manage their finances.

When will you all ever learn?



100% correct

they cant manage the money crooks tho...heh.

Vulva and Early Morning Riser:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (no doubt including yourselves) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their affairs lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they do have to use the service and if the cost was exhorbitant, they would complain. This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

Vulva and Early Morning Riser:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (no doubt including yourselves) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their affairs lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they do have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant, they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

V and EMR:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (including you by any chance?) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their finances lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they will have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

V and EMR:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (including you by any chance?) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their finances lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they will have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

V and EMR:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (including you by any chance?) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their finances lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they will have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

V and EMR:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (including you by any chance?) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their finances lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they will have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

V and EMR:
What charming posts!
Why do you say that the majority (including you by any chance?) will be subsidising the minority?
Apparently, half of people pay unauthorised overdraft charges at one time or another.
Cash withdrawals, cheques and switch transactions are "free" now because the cost is paid by the people paying the unauthorised overdraft charges and who are doing the subsidising. Why is it a problem if the people who can manage their finances lose that subsidy and have to pay for a service they use?
To use your own argument, if they don't want to pay, they don't have to use the service. Of course, they will have to use the service sometimes and if the cost was exhorbitant they would complain.
This is what the bank charges dispute is all about - it is not whether people should have to pay, it is whether the charges are fair or not.
People also don't have to borrow from loan sharks...

Oops,
I didn't mean to post that more than once - I got a message that I wasn't able to post and tried a few more times!

a couple of christmas ago, ms wolsey bought some stuff on ebay, using paypal. i hadnt changed the default card over, so she used the halifax 1 (which had no money in it). it was our error - i dont deny it. she made 4 transactions, the most was about 15, quid, the cheapest was 4 quid - she probably spent between 35 quid. how much did it cost me in charges?

4 x 39 for halifax to pay them
1 x 29 for unauthorised od fee.

to spend that 35 quid cost me 185 pound.

thats where its wrong. we made the error - we admit that. but 185 quid????

and when i went in over christmas to query that, the charm skool dropout basically told me 'tough'. as i was having a row with this piece of trash, another bloke walks in with his girlfriend and they are obviously in town to do some sales shopping. he has gone to the cash machine and seen that he has sufferred a similar fate, as his works cq has cleared a couple of days later than normal, because of the christmas hols, and halifax have paid his mortgage and other DD's, but charged him 39 per payment and the 29 unauthorised OD fee.

just so u can get the idea of how much 185 quid is. the average wage is around 19k pa. thats approx 400 per week, before tax. so the take home on 400 would be approx 330-350 (im guessing) which = 65-70 per day. so do u think that the average man in the steet should have to do more than half a days work to cover 1 halifax charge?

the thing is these charges are being put on people who cant afford it. 39 pound to some people is a lot of money. im fortunate that i can tell the bank to go feck themselves, pay off what i owe and move. how many low income families have that choice?

nicely put wolsey, anyone defending these kind of charges needs their head examining...they're indefensible. Still, looks like they've got away with in the end...this country is becoming laughable.

I've been stung a few times. my own fault for being over my limit but charging £25 each time I took a tenner out a cash machine was a bit much I thought. they also sent me a letter saying that the charges would come out of my account around the 6th of the month, I used to get paid on the 6th so naturally they charge me on the 5th thus putting me back into the red and charging me an extra £50 or whatever . They are**bags.

i know the charges are a bit steep but it's a bit ministry of the bleeding obvious to me (and i have been stung) but don't go into the red. i wouldn't give you a free, unsecured loan. Why should the bank?

we could go round in circles arguing this. I actually agree that the banks are within their rights to impose charges and people should do all they can to avoid being overdrawn just think they are a bit excessive and also that they do everything possible to keep you in debted including the sneaky trick ive described above .

THE SUPREME COURT SEES SENSE. all you gotta do is manage your money and you wont go into the red. i agree that most of the charges are a bit steep and needs looking into.

the supreme court as effectively said that if you go overdrawn by 1p and the bank tells you the punishment is 5o k ,then that is reasonable and legal - the arguement is about how much not about wether they can charge - supreme court have said any amount - 5000billion is o.k and to some customers it may as well be 5000billion or 40 quid - they now can charge what they want - so why not have - if you go overdrawn (you are stupid and should manage your account better ,so the penaltly is all or any assets/money you own and death to your first born - as the supreme court as backed the banks on this.

how can a judge say that for going overdrawn by 10p - its o.k to charge 40 quid .2 previous courts found in favour of customers - england is totally corrupt and**and they may aswell just kill people who cost the nation money - why mess about pretending its a fair society

But surely, the counter argument is that if you don't make the charges penalistic enough, people will not get the message and just continue to use their bank account incorrectly.
I think however there should be some form of graduated charge basis. That is, virtually nothing for the 1st offense, then increasing for subsequent offences.
Unfortunately most of us with good banking records are paying the price for the losers and**s misusing the banks.
Btw I hate banks as much as anybody on here and I think that generally speaking their staff are poorly trained and very often rude and inflexible. But maybe their hands are tied by poor senior mgt. decisions.

Where do you get your crack from these days sepp? Mustard stuff your smoking!

Just inform your bank that you will charge them XXX [read sil amount] for any error on your account. the banks make that many that it will all level out.

3 weeks ago, I paid £8K cash in at counter and asked the question when will it clear as available funds. I was told immediate. I paid it in there and then. The same evening I tried to do an online transaction and got declined. After an hour on the phone to a dumb call center I gave up and went to branch the following morning and spoke with the same person. He advised that it would "clear" in my account immediate but would not be available until the next day, which was a Sunday, so really it meant Monday. I asked him to sort something out as the transaction was important and needed to be done. He point blank refused. Unknown to him I know his area manager and phoned him on the spot. He advised that he would sort something out once he had spoken to the staff member. I went home, so did the staff member who never returned the call to his area manager. I ended up in a meeting with the area manager who apologised etc, and I advised him that I was going to charge him. He reluctantly agreed and so I sent him an invoice for my time and travel cost. He was not impressed and challenged that it was a made up figure. I emailed him and stated that it was a standard hourly rate as he could work out from my business account, and that it was not multiplied as the bank charges were. I gave him 7 days to pay it else I would add an £5 per day charge to the unpaid bill in the same fashion tat the bank now does. In the end he has paid it but advised that I may want to bank elsewhere in future as he agrees that they cannot supply the standard of banking expected of them.

People are so busy getting angry at the banks they forget to just play back at them. It really is that easy.

You're no muppit, that's for sure.
Or a pit bull one, if you are.