As a victim to the tune of nearly £3000 in fees since Jan 2006 i would just like to point out that i agree that people like yourself should not be affected by all this. Personally i envy you and aspire to be like that myself. However sometimes through ill health and other cir$%^&tances we need the banks to be more understanding instead of blasting us with £38 charges for a £5 dd. The fact that my bank has reduced this down to £5 would indicate that they now agree that their stance was indeed excessive. I actually agree that transgression should carry some sort of penalty but £38 is a bit harsh. On 2 occasions all of my sickness benefit was swallowed up in charges leaving me no money to support my family.

Jo,

I agree.

I myself have not used my overdraft facility and beleive that if you take an unauthorised overdraft you should pay.

However it should be a reasonable fee for admin and maybe a little profit for providing the service.

Maybe even weighted against the amount i.e £5 for every £100.

Currently the banks are screwing the already distressed! And making it harder for them to get back into the black.

Jo,

"However sometimes through ill health and other cir$%^&tances we need the banks to be more understanding instead of blasting us with £38 charges for a £5 dd"

Banks are not any type of social service or insurance policy for when times are tough - nor should they be. Govt is the one to provide a safety net for people who can't earn, not the commercial banks, never, it's not what they are for. Either the govt isn't providing enough or you are spending too much - I can't and don't make any judgement either way in your case.

Recent ruling on banks was reasonable - you know (or should) the rules of engagement when you get into a contract with a bank - if you don't like the rules don't sign up. Use cash then you are in control of your own spending.

"As a victim to the tune of nearly £3000 in fees since Jan 2006 "

If you really have racked up £3000 of charges then I'm sorry for you but you have acted ignorantly (no offence intended) but you are only a "victim" of your own unwise actions.

On charges - Banks will charge as much as they can get away with (as they should they are in business to maximise profits) - it is kick back by customers, politician, regulators and competition that causes reductions - there is no acceptable right level of charges as you imply, just business.

Banks should treat such unauthorised overdrafts on a case to case basis. And waive such charges using their commonsense to maintain a good relationship with their customers.

Eddy,

OK but the customer should also be responsible for their own affairs and use some commonsense too.

I agree.

If you don't want overdraft charges don't get overdrawn! simples

If you can't manage that then get an account that does not allow even 1p of overdraft.

Do you think any one would like to be overdrawn? it is only because you do not have enough money at that time.The worst is you might be overdrawn because you had 10p less in u're ac but you have to pay the bank £30/-. What a rip off

I agree with Alan S. But if you need an overdraft then arrange it although I suggest you try living within your means. We have never had much money - Food and housing comes first. If we can't afford something we don't go into debt - we do without. As for copping an unauthorised overdraft my advice is to engage brain before spending.

Believe it or not Mr Alan S. not all people who have overdrafts are reckless as you so blithely state. Generalisations display ignorance. I had a bank account for 20 years and never went overdrawn. Then, as fate would have it, I was made redundant 2 months after my second daughter was born. The lack of income tipped the balance. I arranged an overdraft but when an I had to have unexpected work done to the car I inadvertently (not recklessly) went over my overdraft. I got charged. The problem was that it then becomes a vicious circle on a limited income - you're trying to play catch-up and each month if you can't catch up you get more charges. I was lucky and got back in to work after 4 months but it took me a further 2 months to get on an even keel again but during those 6 months I got £300 worth of charges. All this at the same time that city whizz kids were taking home £million bonuses. You obviously don't know much about the real world Mr Alan S. And when the banks get in to trouble they have no qualms or conscience about taking our money to shore up their dubious systems. And no government dares stand up to the banks.

Only a small minority of those charged for unauthorized transactions, returned transactions, declined dds etc argue that they should not have been charged at all. Most, like me, feel that the charges imposed are disproportionate, both in relation to the sums involved and the COST to the banks of dealing with such activity.

Immediately after the Supreme Court's decision I received an e-mail from my bank advising me of a reduction in the charges for all manner of transactions and unauthorised activities. The conspiracy theorist in me immediately concluded that a deal had been done... After all, the last thing this Government needs is another whopping bill hitting the banking sector.

As for those who believe that just because they conduct their accounts within their agreed terms at all times they should receive free banking - WHY??? You receive a banking service, branches, cheque books, telephone banking and so on. Surely this is of some value/benefit to you? Why on earth should you not pay something for the service you receive? Of course, this should not be more expensive because of other less wealthy/frugal/fortunate/organised customers but the argument that your banking service should be subsidised just because you do not breach the terms of your banking arrangements is entirely lacking in logic.

Lots of online commentators are drawing a comparison with speeding fines. This partly demonstrates that many view these charges as PENALTIES. This is fine when dealing with criminal behaviour but the Law of Tort, i.e. civil wrongs, has evolved so that a party should not profit from its loss. Why on earth should the banks be allowed to do so?

Lastly, what on earth has the OFT been doing? How much has this case cost? Why did it get the wrong section (assuming it did)? Will it bring another case?

Have a good weekend

C

Nobody receives "free Banking". The Banks have a massive amount of money overnight in countless Current Accounts earning overnight interest. Its highly lucrative. Going after the 20 percent who overdraft without permission for high charges just enhances those massive profits ...