In message , PeteM writes
You've lost me there.
Necessities aren't 'wanted' they are 'needed' as a necessity for life.
You have claimed that a bank account is a necessity because the government has compelled you to acquire it.
My Interest Paying Current Acount with the Royal Bank of Scotland, doesn't cost me a penny, unless I go overdrawn of course...
john boyle posted
The distinction is in the question, "Who wants me to have this commodity (or use this service)"? If we are talking about food or shelter or then *I* want it, it is necessary to satisfy *my* desires. However if it is a bank account, then that isn't the case. I only "want" it because TPTB - government, employers, etc - have made it a practical necessity for me to have it. Therefore they should pay for it. (It's arguable that the banks themselves shouldn't have to underwrite the cost, although I suspect they were instrumental in the process that led to us all having to get bank accounts)
True, it was a very stupid idea inspired by vodka.
Axel
In this case it appears to have been 3 working days, which isn't long enough.
Who cares about the semantics of RD/RDPR when the basic procedure appears to be flawed ?
Daytona
I didn't get the impression anyone thought anyone should be 'let off', merely that the charges are out of proportion with the 'offence' and seem entirely picked out of the air. In my case, for example, I had an account with 5 quid in it and due to an oversight forgot there was an
8 quid DD due. The building soc. refused the DD and charged me 27.50. This put me 22.50 in the red so they also slapped on a 12 quid charge for unauthorised overdraft. So my account was then 34.50 in the red instead of the 3 quid it would have been had they simply honoured the DD.I fully admit I made a mistake and would be prepared to pay a penalty
- 5 pounds would seem a fair amount but NOT 34.50 for a potential 3 quid overdraft, especially as I have had this account for over 10 years and have never been overdrawn before, and have £5000+ in other accounts with the same branch.
Yep, and 'we' are consumers and it is our right to say 'warning - these people treat you like $h!t.
Out of interest, what level of charge would the bank have to arbitrarily levy before you would agree they are being unreasonable? £1000, £10000, or because they are 'running a business' can they make up any figure with no upper limit?
-LH
In article , john boyle writes
Unless someone wishes not to be paid for his/her labour, some form of bank account is almost always essential since the Truck Act -- whereby a worker could require payment in cash -- was repealed.
The question is, why don't you have an overdraft? From the sound of it they would probably give you one for at least a few thousand, in which case the problem wouldn't arise. If you have decided that you don't want an overdraft you are saying that you *want* them to bounce things, so why are you complaining when they do? I'm rarely overdrawn, but I still have a 5k agreed overdraft - it costs me nothing, so why not?
Since this started I have sent numerous emails to the Alliance & Leicester. Apart from a few generic acknowledgements I received nothing until yesterday when I got a letter from a 'William Chapman, Senior Customer Advisor' giving me 'guidance' to ensure the cash is in my account the day before a payment is due to 'avoid further such charges'. As they had not delayed in processing any deposits there would be no refund.
That makes three levels of A&L staff who point blank refused my request - the original call centre operator, the call centre manager and now this chap.
A couple of days ago however I found the Chief Exec's email address and sent him copies of all the emails I had sent so far and drew his attention to the fact I was attempting to raise awareness via usenet and quoting (anonymously) some of the comments made in this thread. I also wrote a reply to 'William Chapman' (copied to the chief exec & the internet helpdesk) saying giving me one working day to deposit funds was unreasonable as was the way I had been treated.
Today I received two emails from the chief exec's office saying the issue was being investigated. Then this afternoon I got a phonecall from a very understanding and helpful woman. She acknowledged that the situation had been handled inappropriately by customer services, that my account had been managed impeccably until now and 'it should never have come to this'. In addition to refunding the charge for bouncing the cheque the second time she has authorised the refund of the first charge too 'as a gesture of goodwill'. RESULT!!!!
I'm still going to close the account. No-one should have to go to all that effort just to obtain a decision underpinned by common sense and delivered with courtesy. All I've heard in the last week demonstrates that my experiences are far from isolated and the A&L has a long way to go before I'd want to give them my custom again. However, assuming the refunds materialise I now draw a line under the incident.
Thanks to everyone who has shown an interest in and contributed constructively to this thread. Your responses have given much appreciated moral suppport and helped me develop a better understanding of the technicalities involved and construct a more solid rationale to use in correspondence with the A&L. It might be a bit optimistic but maybe just maybe the A&L will learn from the experience and others won't have to experience weeks of battling to get treated fairly and humanely.
Why have an overdraft facility if it is not wanted... the only reason I have one on one of my accounts is because Uunet decided a payment made once was permission for an annual deduction - although that was quickly settled with the bank when it was brought to my attention, although the facility remains.
Axel
It's all very well for you Glaswegians, but here in Virginia Water we are knee deep in dead pensioners.
I hope so. I'm looking forward to my free food and water ;-)
Boyle a Glaswegian? Well, the name fits, but that doesn't stop him being a Scouse!
Talk to Billy Connolly.
He has a way wi' deid punters.
DG
"PeteM" wrote
If you only *want* it, not *need* it, then you are talking about a
*luxury* - not a *necessity*.
Unfortunately, to get food and water these days normally requires a bank account.
Axel
wrote
Every supermarket I've seen, plus every "corner-shop", has accepted *cash* !!
In message , Daytona writes
The thousands of people who sued banks for bouncing cheques RD instead of RDPR.
The problem is getting the cash in the first place.
Axel
Excellent - I'm pleased for you & your daughter. I don't know whether in reality the internet posts had an effect, but they shouldn't have done. I think you're right to close the account. When choosing a new one have a look at Which? in the local library or online as they do regular reviews. I believe FirstDirect and Smile usually come out well.
Daytona
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.