I have trounced the bank!

[Mark Davies]

I see I'm going to have to explain just how bloody simple it is to guarantee you never have to pay these charges.

I have two current accounts (in fact I have several, but two are enough). There's no law or banking regulation that says you can only have one account - you can have as many as you like. All you have to do is ask.

One of my accounts is the one my income goes into. Regular account; debit card, cheque book etc. The second is also just a standard current account but I use it only for direct debits. A debit card and cheque books do get issued, but I just dispose of them when they arrive. All my regular monthly outgoings are paid by DD and are fixed amounts - I don't think there's anybody you can't do this with these days and they usually give you a discount if you do. Once a month a standing order goes out of my main account with a fixed amount sufficient to cover all these payments. That SO is timed for when I've usually got the most money in the bank - just after I've been paid. That account now has a permanent, pre-arranged overdraft facility of £200, just to cover the re-occurance of the bank paying out a DD days early, as I described before.

I never have to think about that account - it manages itself. I know all my DDs are covered and will be paid - hence no charges there. I review it perhaps once every six months - checking whether I'm paying too much or not enough on those DD schemes to cover my bills and adjusting accordingly. And naturally, I make adjustments whenever I have a new DD or stop paying one. I'm sure nobody could genuinely claim to be too busy to do even that little.

In addition my main account has a permanent, pre-arranged overdraft facility of £2500. Previously it has been much less, but has always been set at roughly whatever my monthly income has been. I've found the bank has always been happy to have it at that sort of level. It's automatically reviewed every year without question, except for them to check whether it is enough and would I like it extending. These days I'm fortunate enough to hardly ever need to use that facility (though that wasn't always the case!) but it means that even if for some reason I don't get a whole month's income without notice I can still carry on as normal and have a whole month to sort the problem out. It also means I'm covered for those months where my outgoings are higher than normal - even if they are twice as much as normal, and that's rarely going to happen. Also, because I don't pay any bills out of that account and no DDs I know whatever is in there I can spend.

Those very simple measures (together with a simple effort to generally live within my means) are all that's needed to ensure I can cope with whatever financial emergencies, disatsers or just simple hiccups life might throw at me - and all without even thinking about it, because the measures are permanently in place in advance. As a result I never pay charges, and with no efort at all. And as I've already said, it's hardly rocket science, is it?

Now I didn't arrange all this when I was flush with cash and when my bank manager was my best mate. I set all this up 15 years ago when I was unemployed, really strapped for cash and seriously having difficulties making ends meet. In fact, that's exactly why I did it. So, if my bank was happy providing me with these arrangements given those circumstances then I struggle to see why they would refuse them to anyone else. In other words, unless you've already proved yourself to be a complete liability, anyone can do this - all it takes is being bothered.

So no Graham, I never have to put over a payment until next month.

[milldog]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

I see I'm going to have to explain just how bloody simple it is to guarantee you never have to pay these charges.

I have two current accounts (in fact I have several, but two are enough). There's no law or banking regulation that says you can only have one account - you can have as many as you like. All you have to do is ask.

One of my accounts is the one my income goes into. Regular account; debit card, cheque book etc. The second is also just a standard current account but I use it only for direct debits. A debit card and cheque books do get issued, but I just dispose of them when they arrive. All my regular monthly outgoings are paid by DD and are fixed amounts - I don't think there's anybody you can't do this with these days and they usually give you a discount if you do. Once a month a standing order goes out of my main account with a fixed amount sufficient to cover all these payments. That SO is timed for when I've usually got the most money in the bank - just after I've been paid. That account now has a permanent, pre-arranged overdraft facility of £200, just to cover the re-occurance of the bank paying out a DD days early, as I described before.

I never have to think about that account - it manages itself. I know all my DDs are covered and will be paid - hence no charges there. I review it perhaps once every six months - checking whether I'm paying too much or not enough on those DD schemes to cover my bills and adjusting accordingly. And naturally, I make adjustments whenever I have a new DD or stop paying one. I'm sure nobody could genuinely claim to be too busy to do even that little.

In addition my main account has a permanent, pre-arranged overdraft facility of £2500. Previously it has been much less, but has always been set at roughly whatever my monthly income has been. I've found the bank has always been happy to have it at that sort of level. It's automatically reviewed every year without question, except for them to check whether it is enough and would I like it extending. These days I'm fortunate enough to hardly ever need to use that facility (though that wasn't always the case!) but it means that even if for some reason I don't get a whole month's income without notice I can still carry on as normal and have a whole month to sort the problem out. It also means I'm covered for those months where my outgoings are higher than normal - even if they are twice as much as normal, and that's rarely going to happen. Also, because I don't pay any bills out of that account and no DDs I know whatever is in there I can spend.

Those very simple measures (together with a simple effort to generally live within my means) are all that's needed to ensure I can cope with whatever financial emergencies, disatsers or just simple hiccups life might throw at me - and all without even thinking about it, because the measures are permanently in place in advance. As a result I never pay charges, and with no efort at all. And as I've already said, it's hardly rocket science, is it?

Now I didn't arrange all this when I was flush with cash and when my bank manager was my best mate. I set all this up 15 years ago when I was unemployed, really strapped for cash and seriously having difficulties making ends meet. In fact, that's exactly why I did it. So, if my bank was happy providing me with these arrangements given those circumstances then I struggle to see why they would refuse them to anyone else. In other words, unless you've already proved yourself to be a complete liability, anyone can do this - all it takes is being bothered.

So no Graham, I never have to put over a payment until next month.

well thanks for you skill and expertise in this matter i have a similar system, but you must have thought of that first so credit Must go to you, just like all the people you arrest who are drop out and drug addicts as you say and not loyal tax paying public!! sorry you dont do that anymore you moved to the airport because you couldn't cause trouble there! (your words)

Am i being sarcastic ....Yes! there are people that do have problems divorce, company's going bust and not paying funnily enough even people getting made redundant, which have these charges forced on them, if i could claim i would also, it's called getting your money back for unfair charges. But you must be part of a kick a bloke when there down brigade!

i find your comments Fcuking annoying if i need to suck eggs I'll get some

Graham

PS because of this postal strike my company are currently using the overdraft for payments as cheques from VAT, Court and government haven't turned up yet about £15,000. but i dont see the banks saying dont worry we'll wait they charge us!!

[Woz]

Originally Posted by milldog

..But you must be part of a kick a bloke when there down brigade!

Well he is a policeman..... you know why they wear Doc Martens? So they can keep kicking and kicking and kicking and their victom's heads won't cave in cos the soles are too soft.

Ahem. Tongue firmly in cheek. Please don't arrest me Mr Nice Policeman.

Me and Missus Woz have an identical system. In fact we have at the last count 3 bank accounts- one that the payckeck goes into, another for the DD stuff and a 3rd for a diving and holiday slush fund. That's not to say that until relatively recently we didn't struggle and had several charges whopped onto the account that we claimed back a few months ago. But surprisingly the bank (First Direct) were everso reasonable about it.

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by milldog

Am i being sarcastic ....Yes! there are people that do have problems divorce, company's going bust and not paying funnily enough even people getting made redundant, which have these charges forced on them, if i could claim i would also, it's called getting your money back for unfair charges. But you must be part of a kick a bloke when there down brigade!
Graham

Yes, some of the charges are unfair. I have no argument there. However don't you think it is fair to pay for the cost of debts you incur? Why should someone else pay for them?

Not everyone that has incurred these debts has none so because they have been made redundant etc. There are a lot of people who willingly go into debt just to have the lates gadget, holiday etc.

I've been made redundant 3 times so far, and twice in the last 4 years. So I do know what it is like. However I didn't keep spending money on luxuries such as eating out, holidays or diving Making the sacrifices is a way to keep control of what you have left. It is not that hard and reaps dividends when things are not so bad as you are not paying off debt, but earning interest instead. Then save for the next rainy day.

Adrian

[milldog]

Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland

Yes, some of the charges are unfair. I have no argument there. However don't you think it is fair to pay for the cost of debts you incur? Why should someone else pay for them?

Not everyone that has incurred these debts has none so because they have been made redundant etc. There are a lot of people who willingly go into debt just to have the lates gadget, holiday etc.

I've been made redundant 3 times so far, and twice in the last 4 years. So I do know what it is like. However I didn't keep spending money on luxuries such as eating out, holidays or diving :o Making the sacrifices is a way to keep control of what you have left. It is not that hard and reaps dividends when things are not so bad as you are not paying off debt, but earning interest instead. Then save for the next rainy day.

Adrian

lets give you a few examples

1. solider in the army lost his legs in a roadside bomb disabled from the service, and no prospect of a job for the future due to condition no house and no furniture as he was in army accommodation, and with the payout he gets from the forces it's not enough for a deposit on a small flat. age 27 it was obviously his fault wasn't it

2. office manager of a brewery in Devon company sold and redundancy given at the government standard, he is 49 so very little chance of a new management position and he is currently cleaning tables until something turns up he was made redundant 7 months ago dam him he should have found a better job by now

I'd agree in paying for overdraft facility's etc but these are £60 admin charge for returning a check yes charge something but not £60 it's what the ombudsman wants as well thats why they are changing there procedure to make it easier for people to get the money back! but they must all be wrong eh Adrian i just wish i was as holy than tho

the charges banks impose are based against those that can't afford it which is wrong

Graham

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by milldog

lets give you a few examples

1. solider in the army lost his legs in a roadside bomb disabled from the service, and no prospect of a job for the future due to condition no house and no furniture as he was in army accommodation, and with the payout he gets from the forces it's not enough for a deposit on a small flat. age 27 it was obviously his fault wasn't it

2. office manager of a brewery in Devon company sold and redundancy given at the government standard, he is 49 so very little chance of a new management position and he is currently cleaning tables until something turns up he was made redundant 7 months ago dam him he should have found a better job by now

I'd agree in paying for overdraft facility's etc but these are £60 admin charge for returning a check yes charge something but not £60 it's what the ombudsman wants as well thats why they are changing there procedure to make it easier for people to get the money back! but they must all be wrong eh Adrian i just wish i was as holy than tho

the charges banks impose are based against those that can't afford it which is wrong

Graham

Graham.

Did you not read the bit where I said I agreed that the charges are unfair? The charges should be fair, ie reflect the cost of servicing the loan that an overdraft is. And as for me being holy, don't be so insulting

The charges of whatever level, fair or unfair are not directed against those who cannot afford them, they are directed at those who incur them. I could not afford to keep paying out £30 for every bounced cheque. So I manage my money to make sure I don't.

Most people don't come close to your first example. Personally I happen to think that he should get high compensation for the injury and some kind of pension in lieu of work. Age has nothing to do with it except perhaps to calculate the overall payment for the rest of his life. Also if he does get a good job (it can happen, but I know it is unlikely), he should make the same contributions as the rest of us. And not get the in lieu payment or prorata.

As for the second example, well as I said, I have been made redundant twice in the last four years. I have had to compromise each time on salary to continue to live where I do. Who know what the future brings. Apparently we have a company wide announcement next week. Oh, no not again...

Giving the above examples does not excuse the way a large amount of people seem to expect the banks to work. I myself have recovered a small payment from a credit card company for one of their standard charges. They also refunded the interest (not very much) as well. This was unexpected as it was my fault a bill was not paid on time. No one elses.

Adrian

[milldog]

Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland

Graham.

Did you not read the bit where I said I agreed that the charges are unfair? The charges should be fair, ie reflect the cost of servicing the loan that an overdraft is. And as for me being holy, don't be so insulting

The charges of whatever level, fair or unfair are not directed against those who cannot afford them, they are directed at those who incur them. I could not afford to keep paying out £30 for every bounced cheque. So I manage my money to make sure I don't.

Most people don't come close to your first example. Personally I happen to think that he should get high compensation for the injury and some kind of pension in lieu of work. Age has nothing to do with it except perhaps to calculate the overall payment for the rest of his life. Also if he does get a good job (it can happen, but I know it is unlikely), he should make the same contributions as the rest of us. And not get the in lieu payment or prorata.

As for the second example, well as I said, I have been made redundant twice in the last four years. I have had to compromise each time on salary to continue to live where I do. Who know what the future brings. Apparently we have a company wide announcement next week. Oh, no not again...

Giving the above examples does not excuse the way a large amount of people seem to expect the banks to work. I myself have recovered a small payment from a credit card company for one of their standard charges. They also refunded the interest (not very much) as well. This was unexpected as it was my fault a bill was not paid on time. No one elses.

Adrian

Adrian

you should spend a day answering the phone to people who have got these problems even if they get the money from the bank it wouldn't help them keep the house etc I DO,

yes i would agree there are a few that take the piss but regardless of that it's still their money!! no one Else's and it has been taken against the banks terms and conditions which is wrong and theres no argument you can come up with that will change that,

if as mark said the charges are insignificant to what banks earn from corporate banking then why even charge? Your wrong! simple as that if the charges were fair we wouldn't be talking about this and Courts wouldn't award the money back would they!

Graham

[Mark Davies]

Graham, it's not about giving people a kicking when they are down. I think you are over-personalising it and deliberately making too much of what I'm saying just for the sake of a fight (and we both know how you so do enjoy getting into a ruck with me!). This debate all started because I said incurring these charges is a result of mismanagement - and that's all I said, full stop, nothing more.

I'm simply responding to this suggestion that incurring these charges is all the fault of the bank and nothing to do with those incurring them. I appreciate people get into difficulties, get into an awful state and at times are not capable of dealing with such issues. And yes, it's bloody disgraceful of the banks to go and compound their problems with charges like this.

But the fact of the matter is that these charges are avoidable. 'Mismanagement' does not necessarily mean actively doing something irresponsible - at times it's just failing to take reasonable steps of control. I made no criticism regarding the reasons people might not have managed their finances properly - I've not been judgemental at all - I simply initially pointed out what I thought was an irony and subsequently have been forced to defend a view that persistently going into an overdraft without prior planning or consent is, by definition, 'financial mismanagement'.

Nothing more than that.

[milldog]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

Graham, it's not about giving people a kicking when they are down. I think you are over-personalising it and deliberately making too much of what I'm saying just for the sake of a fight (and we both know how you so do enjoy getting into a ruck with me!). This debate all started because I said incurring these charges is a result of mismanagement - and that's all I said, full stop, nothing more.

no I'm not over personalising this, your comment was

"So now people will basically profit from incompetent financial management - and the worse you've been, the more money you will make"
how can they profit it was there money they paid out to the bank in the first place? and because the bank doesn't have a set charge which is fair the court will allow people to claim it all back thats the banks fault for not having a set fair charge!

lets look at it another way you leave your key in the door i enter your house and nick your TV and DVD i get caught later say a week and you then get your goods back so you are now are you profiting from your incompetents? No it was yours to start with

The charges that people claim back are for returned cheques and not interest on overdrafts it can only be the charge that was unfair and a case was thrown out because he wanted interest on unauthorised overdrafts. the court wont allow that,

If the bank had fair charges and published them as such then this would not be happening. If you think i'm bothered about an argument with you, dont kid yourself.

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

I'm simply responding to this suggestion that incurring these charges is all the fault of the bank and nothing to do with those incurring them. I appreciate people get into difficulties, get into an awful state and at times are not capable of dealing with such issues. And yes, it's bloody disgraceful of the banks to go and compound their problems with charges like this.

But the fact of the matter is that these charges are avoidable. 'Mismanagement' does not necessarily mean actively doing something irresponsible - at times it's just failing to take reasonable steps of control. I made no criticism regarding the reasons people might not have managed their finances properly - I've not been judgemental at all - I simply initially pointed out what I thought was an irony and subsequently have been forced to defend a view that persistently going into an overdraft without prior planning or consent is, by definition, 'financial mismanagement'.

Nothing more than that.

OK lets look at one of the cases Mr Tindle from Essex claimed £790 in charges because nationwide changed the cheque clearing from 3 to 7 days? was it his fault? if they kept it the three days then he wouldn't have had charges, yes people do take the piss and go overdrawn with the bank this postal strike is killing my company in bank charges for using the overdraft and it's currently £43,000!! nearly £1100 for the money for 30 days!!

If i could claim anything back from my bank I'd be in the front of the Que especially if it was my money they had already taken, you made a comment without thinking about it and your now changing the argument to fit you comment. your wrong simple as that like another thread i can think of

anyway i cant be arsed anymore I'm bored talking to a brick wall.

Graham