| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Supreme court backs bankers | |
| Posted by: | Phil Andrews | |
| Date/Time: | 25/11/09 19:21:00 |
| The essential point is that anybody who has more money than they feel comfortable leaving under the mattress has to entrust it to a bank, and they are all pretty much the same. I think it's known as Hobson's Choice. So wherever you leave you are going to get slaughtered if you fail to honour the terms of the fine print at the bottom of your contract in every tiny detail. Let me provide an example. An associate of mine was overdrawn to the tune of about £5 for two days. Not intentional, simply miscalculated. As a penalty for this she incurred both a daily overdraft fee plus a monthly overdraft fee. So far so bad but, as she had the misfortune to have been overdrawn for two days either side of the monthly close-off date, she didn't only incur two daily charges but two monthly charges also. A total charge of £130. True, she rang the bank and pleaded with them and they reduced the charge against her to £65, but this is still absolutely outrageous for such a minor oversight by a customer who had never previously transgressed over several years as a loyal customer. They even charge you when they write you a letter, or at least they did before everything went online. Try charging them for your reply and see what they say. It does make one feel particularly angry to consider that public money was used to bail these people out. The truth is of course that servicing the "ordinary" account is regarded by all the banks as a chore they would rather not be bothered with. The banking system in this country needs a radical overhaul. It is supposed to be a service first and foremost, and it's a very long time since it's been that. |