b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 576078 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | Popular

Anyone know anything about overdraft charges?
Just read that a ruling is due on overdraft charges. Its says in theory if the banks lose (again) it should trigger an automatic refund on all charges since 2001. Is this really likely to happen? I was charged loads when I was at uni between 2000 and 2004 and haven't filled in any forms requesting it back as I don't have any statements and am not sure when and how much so don't have a case on hold. Am I likely to just get some money back?

Are you expecting any money back? How much? What will you spend it on if you get it?
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:45, 27 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
I'm going to make three predictions.
1. Few, if any, denizens of this board will know anything much about the ruling, least of all read it;
2. this will not stop them offering "advice" based largely on imagination; and
3. many will take this as an opportunity to complain about how badly they've been treated by the banks just because they've been living off their God-given right as freeborn Englishmen to live off bounced cheques for the past decade.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:51, Reply)
One of the reasons I never claimed back is I knew the rules and I fucked up
but if I can get free money from them I will as they are now charging me £12.50 a month for the privilege of having a bank account. Oh and no interest. So why bother having an account?
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:55, Reply)
Why are you being charged? Is it a business account?

(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:04, Reply)
Nope, its halifax
and I shall be moving soon but its generally thought that all banks will start charging soon like Australian banks have been doing for a while now.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:37, Reply)
It's not generally thought at all
it's been mentioned by the banks as a scare tactic if they were to lose this case.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:38, Reply)
I'm all for charges
If you don't got it, don't spend it. The main issue was the amount they charged, and before Internet banking you wouldn't even know until you got three letters on your door mat saying you owe us £30 for going 2 squid O/D. Also, banks would often allow you to keep spending even when you are over drawn or over your O/D. Cunts.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:00, Reply)
I hate to leap to the defence of the banks...
... but curbing spending is the responsibility of the overdrawn. The bank is a business, and its bosses have a legally enforceable responsibility to maximise profits. That means that they'll frequently be willing to lend to the overdrawn.

It's only a partial defence, though: I can't see how some of the charges reported are a realistic representation of the cost of administration.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:06, Reply)
Yep
I agree. Barclays have stung me in the past with three consecutive DAILY fees of £25 for going over drawn by a very paltry sum so there's £75 you need to make straight away. "get an over draft then... It will be cheaper" and sadly the rest is history. I'm much better now, some years later but I still essentially live half in my od. Frustrating.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:48, Reply)
ha
banks won!
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:53, Reply)
well that ruins this thread then hahahah

(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:56, Reply)
The banks will win
Based on the state of the economy. No way will the govenment make the banks shell out billions at the moment.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 9:55, Reply)
Fuck!
I've just clicked "I like this" instead of "Reply".

Arse.

Your reply is specious: the government has nothing to do with the courts: one of the main arguments behind the establishment of the SC was precisely to maintain the distance between the courts and the legislature and executive. And, let's face it: even when the Lords represented the highest legal authority in the land, it wasn't exactly as if the government always got its way.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:03, Reply)
Fair enough

(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:05, Reply)
When you say "The SC"
Are you referring to me?

Wind-ups aside, a little present for you, if you hadn't heard it before:
On "advice" based largely on imagination
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:07, Reply)
They really are SO much better on the radio
This sketch aside, I thought series 3 was a bit patchy - but series four was fantastic.
:)
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:15, Reply)
Why don't we start a bank
The bank of b3ta.

We should make shed loads of dosh from our incompetance and unwise investments. Then the government will bail us out and we win again.

BGB for CEO, Bert and Al for investment directors. Vipros for public relations and smug denial of responsibility director.

I'll just count the money and wipe my arse on the fivers.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:05, Reply)
Didn't Edmund
Work in the City? He's probably got some time of his hands at the moment. I nominate him as CEO.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:08, Reply)
No, he is a cunt
We need a CEO people will follow to the end of the world.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:09, Reply)
Surely
We need someone who is prepared to expose us to a huge amount of risk? How else will we get billions in bail-out money?
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:13, Reply)
I am sure BGB would expose us to huge risks
I did not want to imply any level in of competance in her nomination, just that we would follow the figure head. Exactly like any chairman of the board.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:17, Reply)
'Swipe does.
And she'd choose us all the best company cars.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:13, Reply)
Honda Accords all round then?
but painted all different colours.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:18, Reply)
Can I be a Non Executive Director?
I can draw a massive consultancy fee and then slip away when it all goes tits up.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:09, Reply)
Yup, we will all be non executive directors
and it should be breasts up, not tits, as that is offensive.
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:11, Reply)
The picture they've used
of Lord Phillips is one of him looking rather pleased with himself.

Smug even...?


(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:26, Reply)
'king smug
who wouldn't be?
(, Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:32, Reply)

« Go Back | Reply To This »

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1