Clegg vows to curb 'unfair' bank charges - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Clegg vows to curb 'unfair' bank charges

£0.00 @
best ever........, vote for him......., The Liberal Democrats will pledge to stop banks charging excessive penalties for customers exceeding their overdraft limit. The party's manifesto for cons… Read More
flp14344 Avatar
7y, 1m agoPosted 7 years, 1 month ago
best ever........, vote for him.......,

The Liberal Democrats will pledge to stop banks charging excessive penalties for customers exceeding their overdraft limit.

The party's manifesto for consumers will also contain measures to limit charges for bouncing a cheque and cap the interest rates on credit cards.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said banks should not be allowed to "profiteer" from people making small mistakes.


The move follows a legal victory for the banks last year which prevented the Office of Fair Trading investigating their overdraft charges.

Mr Clegg said: "Banks should, of course, be able to pass on the costs they incur in dealing with these problems.

"But they should not be able to profiteer from customers making small mistakes. We will outlaw unfair charges from now on."
flp14344 Avatar
7y, 1m agoPosted 7 years, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(34) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#2
yeah, but they are the yellow ones :p
#3
magicbeans
yeah, but they are the yellow ones :p


are they?? don't care as long as save some ££££:whistling:
#4
flp14344
are they?? don't care as long as save some ££££:whistling:


yep i remember the last lib dem primeminister

:whistling::roll:
#5
TBH we have more pressing issues in this country than looking after those that can't manage their own finances, half the reason we are in the crap we are in.

They won't get in anyway...........phew.
#6
With a very strong chance of a hung parliament, it could be the Lib Dems who have the deciding factor on votes in the future any way.
#7
tinkerbell28
TBH we have more pressing issues in this country than looking after those that can't manage their own finances, half the reason we are in the crap we are in.

They won't get in anyway...........phew.


point noted:whistling:
#8
If you want to think seriously about the different parties you need to look for 'ideological clues' in the policies they announce.

This is one of them. It tells us that the libdems favour protection for the vulnerable over the profits of big banking (business in general). It's consistent with their approach of intervening wit legislation to ensure 'fair play' in society.

We could contrast this with what the tories are milking at the moment. They look to 'trash' the planed rise in NI by asking big business to support them (it's fairly obvious that businesses would prefer not to pay more tax). So they are saying 'we will do what's in the interest of big business'.

Labour are saying 'we want to protect public services where possible', and that means we are going to have to raise taxes

And yes, a hung parliament is certainly possible and the libdems will gain a lot if their is one.
#9
Heres a thought......don't go over your overdfaft limit!! People know there are charges so its their own fault if they go over their limits then get charged!!
#10
cdm22
Heres a thought......don't go over your overdfaft limit!! People know there are charges so its their own fault if they go over their limits then get charged!!


exactly, banks should just not allow transactions if you don't have the money.
banned#11
So they're gonna reinstate old railways and ditch bank charges?

Desperation. Seriously.

Not a chance in hell.
#12
Vibeone, nothing in this about ditching charges. The issue is that banks charge excessive amounts when customers make mistakes. They see customer errors as a source of big profit. Their business model is inherently unethical and unfair
banned#13
Alfonse
exactly, banks should just not allow transactions if you don't have the money.


some don't and still charge the same for bouncing it - your point is?
#14
colinsunderland
some don't and still charge the same for bouncing it - your point is?


People should take responsibility for their own finances and mistakes I think was the point.

People will never learn if they are spoon fed all the time.
banned#15
tinkerbell28
People should take responsibility for their own finances and mistakes I think was the point.

People will never learn if they are spoon fed all the time.


why not say that then?

regardless, there are times when banks take the p, charges for going overdrawn due to a charge coming out, stuff like that. I've seen cases where people have ended up owing hundreds to a bank because a dd bounced because they were a few £ short. I don't have a problem with charges as such, but also don't think £100's for one bounced dd is exactly fair either.
#16
As long as the banks are making big profits from mistakes, I'm not sure we should rust them to 'teach' consumers tinkerbell. The issue here is profit. Banks currently profit when a customer makes a mistake. Banks actually want customers to go overdrawn. They make more money the less responsible people are. That just isn't an ethical business.
#17
Paidia
As long as the banks are making big profits from mistakes, I'm not sure we should rust them to 'teach' consumers tinkerbell. The issue here is profit. Banks currently profit when a customer makes a mistake. Banks actually want customers to go overdrawn. They make more money the less responsible people are. That just isn't an ethical business.


ethical business, joke right?

Same applies to credit cards, mortgages, loan repayments, HP loans, parking ticket penalties, train ticket penalties, court charges (you miss one of them, a warrant for your arrest is issued), I can go all day...

So what were you saying about ethical business................:whistling:
#18
Alfonse, that is why we have/need strong regulatory frameworks. The state steps in to protect 'weak' individuals from 'powerful' business interests. Or at least it should. And would do so better if libdems had more influence.

Remember the issue isn't that people should 'get away with not paying bills', it's that such failures should not be profited from.

Of course the Tories are all for small government and big business. When Labour bought into that neo-liberal ideology we saw what happened (the banking crisis).
#19
See this is where I think it works, because if you go o/d by a dd or 2 and say only got a nomial charge of a couple of quid, that would not stop you from doing it again.

Where as if they whack you with a huge charge then you won't do it again., lesson learned, something I think most have done in their early years, you learn from it.

Bank charges of 100s tend to come from people who go o/d right at the beginning of the month as a regular thing or whatever in which case they need to look at their finances IMO.
#20
Paidia
Alfonse, that is why we have/need strong regulatory frameworks. The state steps in to protect 'weak' individuals from 'powerful' business interests. Or at least it should. And would do so better if libdems had more influence.

Remember the issue isn't that people should 'get away with not paying bills', it's that such failures should not be profited from.

Of course the Tories are all for small government and big business. When Labour bought into that neo-liberal ideology we saw what happened (the banking crisis).


business is all about profit and boosting the economy, so yes they should be profited from, most definitely. Who wants a business that doesn't profit?????
banned#21
@ tinks

yes but people who genuinely struggle to pay the first £35 charge will have no chance of paying 10 x £35 charges, all arising from the first one.
Some people do actually struggle to live, either on benefits or low wages. £35 they may manage to afford in maybe 2-3 weeks, but by then theres usually another 2 or 3 gone on.
I genuinely feel sorry for those people who get hit by them.
Having said that I don't feel sorry for the ones on benefits who are out drinking 2-3 times a week, buy fags every day, have a 50" plasma, then complain they have no money!
#22
colinsunderland
yes but people who genuinely struggle to pay the first £35 charge will have no chance of paying 10 x £35 charges, all arising from the first one.
Some people do actually struggle to live, either on benefits or low wages. £35 they may manage to afford in maybe 2-3 weeks, but by then theres usually another 2 or 3 gone on.
I genuinely feel sorry for those people who get hit by them.
Having said that I don't feel sorry for the ones on benefits who are out drinking 2-3 times a week, buy fags every day, have a 50" plasma, then complain they have no money!


I feel sorry for people in absolute poverty as well, I really do and there are people who struggle but if they can't meet their outgoings without incurring all these charges, they need debt help and a basic bank account.

If the bank dropped charges like that everyone would take the preverbial and it would be taken in other ways, such as account fees.
banned#23
tinkerbell28
I feel sorry for people in absolute poverty as well, I really do and there are people who struggle but if they can't meet their outgoings without incurring all these charges, they need debt help and a basic bank account.

If the bank dropped charges like that everyone would take the preverbial and it would be taken in other ways, such as account fees.


Im talking about people with basic accounts though, like the halifax cardcash, you still get charged.
Unless you mean the real basic accounts where you can't even set up DD's but then that costs more as almost everyone charges more for non dd payment, so they can't win.

Oh and I don't mean people who do it every single week/month either. I'm talking about rare mistakes, maybe one month being £2 short of a dd, getting bounced, getting a £35 charge, getting maybe a £10-£15 charge from the company too, then charges on top of charges meaning being a couple of £ short costs £3-400
#24
Because we have to balance business interests with something much more important - society's interests. This isn't about making business unprofitable, it's about reducing their ability to profit from the most vulnerable in society. That's kind of why we have a government at all.

And actually business isn't ALL about profit. It surely needs also to provide something useful for individuals or society. Profit is just the incentive to do this, not the only aim.

I wouldn't be too quick to defend big business. You might also want to look into things like the problem of privatised profit, but socialised risk.

Tinkerbell, yes people need education, but no, banks are not the people to do this. Not at all. Not like this Just think where that just got us.
#25
Paidia
Because we have to balance business interests with something much more important - society's interests. This isn't about making business unprofitable, it's about reducing their ability to profit from the most vulnerable in society. That's kind of why we have a government at all.

And actually business isn't ALL about profit. It surely needs also to provide something useful for individuals or society. Profit is just the incentive to do this, not the only aim.

I wouldn't be too quick to defend big business. You might also want to look into things like the problem of privatised profit, but socialised risk.

Tinkerbell, yes people need education, but no, banks are not the people to do this. Not at all. Not like this Just think where that just got us.


So what's the incentive to run a business at a profit loss then.......................please

Would you start a business that will definitely run at a loss? (direct answer only accepted)

This post is rated IR
#26
colinsunderland
Im talking about people with basic accounts though, like the halifax cardcash, you still get charged.
Unless you mean the real basic accounts where you can't even set up DD's but then that costs more as almost everyone charges more for non dd payment, so they can't win.

Oh and I don't mean people who do it every single week/month either. I'm talking about rare mistakes, maybe one month being £2 short of a dd, getting bounced, getting a £35 charge, getting maybe a £10-£15 charge from the company too, then charges on top of charges meaning being a couple of £ short costs £3-400


Basic bank accounts, don't allow dd's that are going to bounce to go out, that's the whole point they are for higher risk customers generally, they don't allow any unauthorised od........and when one bounces it's around £20.

The most basic of basic bank account allows dd's and will give you a one off charge if they bounce and refuse it.

So yes people who can't manage their money should be looking at these accounts as they don't allow any o/d or cheques.
#27
Alfonse, I wouldn't choose to run a business, but that's not the point.

I'm not sure you read my posts correctly. I'll try to simplify

1. Yes to profit for business
2. No to exploiting vulnerable people for profit
3. Government referee needed because of possibility of 2.
4. We vote for government that might do best job of 3.
5. OP noted that on this policy (bank charges) that could be the libdems and I agreed
#28
Paidia


And actually business isn't ALL about profit..


Paidia
Alfonse, I wouldn't choose to run a business, but that's not the point.

I'm not sure you read my posts correctly. I'll try to simplify

1. Yes to profit for business
2. No to exploiting vulnerable people for profit
3. Government referee needed because of possibility of 2.
4. We vote for government that might do best job of 3.
5. OP noted that on this policy (bank charges) that could be the libdems and I agreed


If you enter into a contract the individual is responsible for abiding to that contract, end. You go OD into an UNAUTHORSIED credit zone then you pay the penalty, its the same if you park where you shouldn't and get a ticket, ignore it and the costs increase, many many examples, thats life. Harsh? Maybe, all in all its just carrot policy headline to boost votes, why just bank charges then why not review ALL penalty charges including speeding fines, non-payment of Council Tax, Debt Collectors, Court Fines, etc etc :whistling:
#29
Alfonse, of course we need some way to know if a contract is fair don't we? Libdems are saying the current contracts are not fair and I agree. I can see that you don't. That's politics.

yes it's to boost votes, we have an election soon.

If you care about those other things (and that seems reasonable) why not try to find out what each party says about them? You could even start a thread on each when you have researched it. I'm with you on debt collectors and maybe council tax (although they don't impose large fines for paying a day late). I don't see how speeding fines are the same though. I don't see speeding motorists as a particularly vulnerable group I'm afraid. I see them as more sort of 'dangerous'
#30
Paidia
Alfonse, of course we need some way to know if a contract is fair don't we? Libdems are saying the current contracts are not fair and I agree. I can see that you don't. That's politics.

yes it's to boost votes, we have an election soon.

If you care about those other things (and that seems reasonable) why not try to find out what each party says about them? You could even start a thread on each when you have researched it. I'm with you on debt collectors and maybe council tax (although they don't impose large fines for paying a day late). I don't see how speeding fines are the same though. I don't see speeding motorists as a particularly vulnerable group I'm afraid. I see them as more sort of 'dangerous'


Yes I do care about those as well, I do research the policies/manifesto's of the parties, to try and make my vote informed.

Speeding motorist are dangerous true, but the penalty points are there for that reason, fines just add to that penalty.
#31
Speeding motorist are dangerous true, but the penalty points are there for that reason, fines just add to that penalty.


That seems like a reasonable argument. But is it also reasonable that the speeding motorist pays the cost of enforcement (i.e., the fine)? Different topic/thread though.
#32
Paidia
That seems like a reasonable argument. But is it also reasonable that the speeding motorist pays the cost of enforcement (i.e., the fine)? Different topic/thread though.


yeah agreed but then we get into what services Council Tax and other Taxes already pay for.

another day
#33
Another topic we can all agree on.

*olitics

http://www.bolitics.org/
[mod]#34
They are saying what they want the general public to hear and not look at the bigger picture.

If you are in your overdraft you are already loaning money from someone. Why should you not be taught a lesson for using someone elses money!? Whilst I appreciate the charges were high, it certainly teaches you a valuable lesson...

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!