Of course the charges are ridiculous, but they are lawful.

If I agree to lend you $100 for a week and you agree that if you dont pay me back within that week I can charge you $500 fee plus a packet of M&Ms, then however ridiculous that charge is, you agreed to it.

In this or any economic climit they could not risk the possibility of banks being forced to charge the public for services.
Appart from whatever laws or economies that would be affected consider the following...

Banks charge the public...
The Public (Already pissed at the banks) would stop using them...
...People would withdraw their money, or at least stop depositing salarys.
I for one would insist on my employer paying me in cash or cheque. Then cashing the cheque.

People would return to paying for things in hard currency to avoid on bank charges (why use a credit/debit card that charges 0.05
% per transactio - for example?, or charges a monthly admit fee for just holding your money)

Banks would crash becuase cash-flow would dry up.

The only real income banks have is the difference between the interest they earn investing public money minus the interest paid to public savings. Public stop saving, banks stop earning, so the banks loose. They will never charge the general public for using current accounts, but credit services are a different matter....as the state has just shown.

 

Basically bank charges are stupidly high and a bit of a twat (I got stung £39 for going 17p overdrawn). It going to be a case, or already is, that people are going to open new accounts/move banks not based on interest rates or customer services but based on the penalty charges.

Its only a matter of time when banks start doing adverts based on it "We only charge £30 when you make a mistake!!!!!!!!" woo!

I thought HSBC was bailed out on the quiet weeks before the sh*t really hit the fan.... when they thought it was better to keep it quiet and it would all blow over ?

I thought HSBC was bailed out on the quiet weeks before the sh*t really hit the fan.... when they thought it was better to keep it quiet and it would all blow over ?

maybe so, I dont know, but the rest of my post remains valid.

Im just saying, if you dont like the policy your bank has, perhaps you should consider switching to someone with a better one.

I got let of a £35 fine from HBOS a few months back when a DD went out and put me £1 over, though I was warned that I would not be let off again.

I think like a lot of people its not so much that they are charging you a fee if you go overdrawn, but the fact that in most cases it’s so hugely disproportionate.

at the end of the day in the uk the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

edit : interesting read below

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=105&a=169

bah.... lawyers will fight anything..... most of them get paid either way...


the banks were just giving in because they didnt want it going to court.... if they lost in court, it would set a precedent and they would pretty much have to give everyone back there bank charges... it was cheaper for them to pay off the small percentage of people who were claiming than it was to fight it, and risk loosing and having to pay everyone back...

then as more and more people put claims in... it was cheaper for them to fight it and save giving the money out.... and of curse... there chances of winning increased massively because of the current economic situation