If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Protest vs. bank charges: get 'I fought the Lloyds to no.1'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This is a rip from my moneysavingexpert newsletter, but I thought I'd post it up 
I've just spent 50p, well worth it I think. Not that it will make any difference, but at least you can say you made your voice heard (in a small way).
moneysavingexpert wrote:Help get the Bank Charges Reclaiming Protest Song to No 1
Join the fight to show the banks who?s boss!
Over a million people have reclaimed an estimated £1bn of bank charges; today the "I fought the Lloyds" protest song by Oystar goes on pre-release. This e-mail is to ask everyone who?s reclaimed, wants to reclaim, or supports the cause to spend 50p via text to buy the song. Help get it top of the agenda by being top of the charts in the week of the big test case.
Get this to no. 1; to order a 50p download, text bankers to 82822
Please forward this to everyone you know who?ll be interested
Neither the band, record label nor MoneySavingExpert.com profit from the song
This is a good ol'fashioned protest song about taking on the banks and winning. It's being released via this site, but we need your help to get it to the top of the charts, and send a message to the Government, the banks and the FSA.
Can it really get to number one?
This has been sent to the 1.5m people who choose to get the free weekly MoneySaving e-mail; and it takes 30,000 downloads to top the charts, so it's possible! All pre-release sales will count in the first week of launch, hitting the charts on 13 January; the day before the likely trial date.
If you order the song you'll be sent a text on 7 January giving you a download code. Texts cost 50p, plus the phone provider's standard text costs (see full info). On the day of release, you'll get a text reminding you to download the track from MoneySavingExpert.com.Find out more, listen & watch the video at
www.moneysavingexpert.com/bankchargessong
I've just spent 50p, well worth it I think
. Not that it will make any difference, but at least you can say you made your voice heard (in a small way). 0
Comments
lending money and investing people's deposits of course.....
Charging interest on loans/mortages, charging their business customers, lending money on the money markets (until the credit crunch), sahre dealing, acting as factors to companies (they buy your credit sales and chase the customers for payment), etc.
Not through illegal disproportionate charges.
So that makes it ok? :no:
Go go go!
Or text 82822, costs you 50p
P.s. LOL pissing myself at the song, real pisstake
But of course, people won't exercise personal responsibility, because they think that the banks are there to bail them out. Do us a favour. The banks, due to their own stupidity, have already got enough problems with credit. They can't make a lot of money by lending to customers at the moment, because they haven't got much to lend in the first place. In any case, for years, banks have been rightly criticised for lending money to practically anybody. I remember a few years ago, I went to the bank with my mum. Whilst she was being served by the cashier, she gets two offers for fucking credit cards! Banks shouldn't be lending out money to people who can't afford it - the property crash in the USA shows the terrible results when that goes wrong.
To all those who want bank charges ruled illegal - I hope you're all happy when you have to pay a monthly fee just to have a bank account, further penalising the poorest in society, the very people you claim to care about. And I hope you're happy when you have to pay a fee every time you withdraw money from the cash machine, just like you do in the Republic of Ireland.
It's funny how you're favouring banking corporations that make billions of pounds in profit, instead of the individual who's might be charged a days pay for slipping up once and going a couple of pence over their limit.
If somebody fucks up, it's not a invitation for the bank to take the piss, which is what they're doing. They're illegal and they're wrong.
- are 'stealing' from the bank (LOL!)
- are irresponsible spongers who expect their banks to bail them out
Unless you (or your family) happen to be very rich, I can guarantee you in a few years from now your opinions on a great many range of things will have changed by 180 degrees.
:yes:
Stagalaxy, you've obviously had it pretty cushty financially up to now, not too many financial responsibilities?
Well then you're an idiot. If you think an automated letter to house at a cost of £20 is acceptable and proportionate for somebody going a couple of quid over their limit is, you're in la la land.
Then you do think they're illegal? Which is it?
That doesn't tell you anything then? That maybe they don't disclose it because they are infact breaking the law, and making a huge profit from people already havign money problems.
It's disgusting.
You make it personal.
I'm prepared to wager that the people who are complaining the loudest about this are the very same ones who get hammered in charges because of their pathetic inability to keep an eye on how much money's in the bank.
Again you obviously havn't had to live on the bread line with many financial responsibilities because you would be playing a different tune. Don't be so naive.
If the customer inccurs the REAL cost what it the problem?
And if the banks don't like it the bank can close the account.
Well the banks don't, which is why they will pay back any charges that anyone asks for. The law is quite clear, so your opinion of whether it is illegal or not is inconsequential. It is illegal to charge someone in a fine more than you incur in costs. My bank charges more for an overdrawn bank account than my video shop charges for an overdrawn DVD. Blockbusters lose a potential sale, whereas the bank loses the cost of one automated letter. You do the maths.
And incidentally your claim that yearly banking charges for everyone would hit the least well off most is way off the mark. Who do you think pay all of the fines at the moment? Basically the fines paid for inevitably by those with little or no money in their account allows the financially responsible (rich) to have banking for free. Your free banking comes on the back of those with debt problems essentially.
I have to say I agree with both in some respects. I used to work for the bank and know what it's like from the other end
Of course the solutions are: the bank immediately witholds all credit, cash cards, debit cards, cheques and anything that's not cash should you not fit their criteria. Or that people when they don't have sufficient income do not use credit to pay for things. I think it's a better situation that people are empowered, but there you go. I can tell you from the other side, if you have a bill that goes out on the 12th and your wages come in on the 13th - the bank can see this. And if you get charged for a direct debit, you will 99.9% of the time be refunded without question. You're a valuable customer to the bank.
Since I dealt with cheques a lot, if I received a cheque and you had not the funds, I was supposed to fine your account. However, since customer service was fairly important to us (believe it or not!), we would check the customers records to see if they received pay near the date - since some customers write cheques in advance of their wages. On these occasions I would not charge the customer and just wait until the funds hit their account.
However, if a customer has been slapped with 3 such charges in the last few months, and their account is in the red, and they have no substantial or regular income coming in then they're a bad customer who are trying to pay for things they can't afford and we would charge them. They would still probably get the money back if they complained, it takes up a ridiculous amount of the banks time trying to sort out bank charge refunds.
However, what I do not agree with is the severity of the charge - £30 is way too excessive as it does far exceed the cost.
Banks don't always pay the charges back, and they do believe they're legitimate (even if I disagree), it's not some fear it's more because they want to keep their customers. I've read of cases where people have had their accounts closed, however. The cost in time and manpower to the bank for these kind of refunds is massive though, vs. any real financial cost of settling your £60.
But yea, don't draw me into an argument about whether they're right or wrong because I've made myself clear
Of course banks do massive marketing - I wouldn't get a loan for frivolous purchases as some do (a friend whose 19 is considering getting a £3000 loan for a litre sports bike - what a complete tard). They have a highly specialised system of marketing and sales, but I think people forget that these are products - much like any other on the high street - that the banks sell for a profit. (Also: the culture in banks is that profit is good - it shows that the bank is providing a service that people are using and getting their own benefit from, and this is returned to investors / shareholders / whatever in dividends, who spend it in topshop who pay some guys wages - it's no evil conspiracy)
Well it's the bank who still allow the payment to be made when you don't have the money, not the customer. When I pay for something at the shop with a debit card, and I don't have enough money, it rejects it (I think - I always have money). It doesn't get taken out and then an extra £20 charge slapped on the top of it. Why should Direct Debits be any different? They seem to deliberately allow you to go over your limit in order to charge you. If they were really bothered about "obtaining goods by deception" then they wouldn't enable you to use more funds than you had. Back in my student days though, the cheeky bastards at my bank not only stopped the payment from going through, but then attempted to (unsuccessfully) charge me £30 for the service. I'm no banking expert, but how is a failed direct debit any different to a rejected debit card payment?
It doesn't automatically reject a debit card, as I found out to my misfortune one weekend