Presidential Candidate Mimics A Sex Act
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Outrageous charges
3 Answers
My wife had an account with a well known building society.
She got into overdraft, close to her �100 limit.
She cancelled all but one of her dd and so, the one was quarterly so she forgot it.
Then that dd came out, sending her to about �125 overdrawn.
The building society then charged her �25 for a letter, to inform her, and then started adding overdrawn charges of �5 per day. So in the first week she was charged �60 for going �25 over her agreed limit.
Now my wife has an ostrich policy when it comes to debts, and doesn't tell me because I will get mad at her.
The question to fellow answerbankers is are they right and just to charge �150 per month for an original debt of �125. They have sent her a letter detailing some claptrap about test cases to do with charges, but they also appear to have blocked her internet access to her account, so she cannot check her current position. They are also threatening a CCJ against her. Whilst I appreciate that she should not have gone over her limit, and should have remembered the dd, I feel their charges are scandalous and totally out of proportion.
The Grump
She got into overdraft, close to her �100 limit.
She cancelled all but one of her dd and so, the one was quarterly so she forgot it.
Then that dd came out, sending her to about �125 overdrawn.
The building society then charged her �25 for a letter, to inform her, and then started adding overdrawn charges of �5 per day. So in the first week she was charged �60 for going �25 over her agreed limit.
Now my wife has an ostrich policy when it comes to debts, and doesn't tell me because I will get mad at her.
The question to fellow answerbankers is are they right and just to charge �150 per month for an original debt of �125. They have sent her a letter detailing some claptrap about test cases to do with charges, but they also appear to have blocked her internet access to her account, so she cannot check her current position. They are also threatening a CCJ against her. Whilst I appreciate that she should not have gone over her limit, and should have remembered the dd, I feel their charges are scandalous and totally out of proportion.
The Grump
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TheGrump. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no doubt in the terms and conditions of allowing her an account the penalties for getting credit off them were set out, so her forgetting to cancel a direct debit is not a reason for not charging. She has made it worse for herself by not communicating with them. as to whether the charges are appropriate - of course they aren't - but she is stuck with them for the moment. She may be able to claim back excess charges later, when the test case has gone through
If they are threatening court action this must have been going on sometime.
The claptrap about the court test case is not claptrap - it is the current legal position.
The UK has an odd way of looking at unauthorised overdrafts and complain about the charges. In many countries, including the US, it is a criminal offence - after all, it is helping yourself to money that is not yours
However, to answer your question - they are within their rights as your wife agreed to the terms and conditions that she was supplied with, in writing.
Whether they are just or not is a moral issue - from your view point, they are not. From their view point they are.
As already said, she may be able to claim the charges back when the courts have made their final decisions.
The claptrap about the court test case is not claptrap - it is the current legal position.
The UK has an odd way of looking at unauthorised overdrafts and complain about the charges. In many countries, including the US, it is a criminal offence - after all, it is helping yourself to money that is not yours
However, to answer your question - they are within their rights as your wife agreed to the terms and conditions that she was supplied with, in writing.
Whether they are just or not is a moral issue - from your view point, they are not. From their view point they are.
As already said, she may be able to claim the charges back when the courts have made their final decisions.
Thank you both for your prompt repies.
She has just informed me that the account was stagnant for 3 months prior to this dd. She also tells me that on previous occasions the building society has always contacted her to tell her there were insufficient funds. On this occasion, they didn't (not that the have too of course) and the �25 charge was for them to review and allow the payment. This on a stagnant account, not used for 3 months.
Yes Ethel, it has been going on for some months, and is now in the region of �600, of which �480 is their charges.
As I said, she doesn't disclose things to me, because I grump at her.
Thanks once again.
She has just informed me that the account was stagnant for 3 months prior to this dd. She also tells me that on previous occasions the building society has always contacted her to tell her there were insufficient funds. On this occasion, they didn't (not that the have too of course) and the �25 charge was for them to review and allow the payment. This on a stagnant account, not used for 3 months.
Yes Ethel, it has been going on for some months, and is now in the region of �600, of which �480 is their charges.
As I said, she doesn't disclose things to me, because I grump at her.
Thanks once again.
1 to 3 of 3
