Outraged over bank charges

High street banks in the UK believed that they are providing their customers a service and can charge them whether or not they are directly related to your account.

They say it is a "fair, reasonable, and transparent" charge. I say they are a bunch of opportunists! It is clearly an excellent example of The Poor Making the Rich Richer! Or best of of all and I think, "The Rich Making the Poor Poorer" fits this entire article.

I do not oppose to charges on overdrawn accounts. The charges in place, per se, is a fair consequence. However the amount that is being charged upon customers is unreasonable and unfair, albeit warned. It is more than the legal maximum amount. It can have a deleterious consequence on a person's financial health.

If you have insufficient funds to pay your bills directly from you account, say for that month, the charges have only made your situation worst. At £35 (average) for each transaction, it could mean more than a penalty charge, albeit this is something that the banks will never admit to. It can be seen as their way of taking advantage of the situation to make even more money out of a poor man's pocket. Many thinks a charge between £5 and 12£ is a fair and reasonable charge--although we all wished there will be no charges at all. Heaven forbids, they could have easily levy a charge of £120 (more or less) each transaction for such a situation! Evidently, that would be tantamount to robbing -- the intention to deprive a person of his belonging indefinitely! Note that the amount could be an arbitrary amount!

I read in newspaper about the unfortunate incident of an English girl who depended on public funds (welfare benefits) as her source of income. She has bills to pay monthly so she has several Direct Debit (DD) and/or Standing Order (SO) instructions with her bank so that her bank will pay out the specified amount on the specified day every month. She did not get paid (her benefits) on time in one of the months and that month alone, her bank has charged her over £750!! This is a CLEAN PROFIT for them! That figure must have included interest rates on late payments as well as fees for unpaid items. Notice that interest rates on late payments (a variable amount) are different from a fees levied for late payment (a fixed charge).

In a forum, I read from a participant's posting saying that she got charged 38£ for an overdrawn amount of 0.29£ on her account. Reasonable? I think many will be furious! If that does not spell out the letters R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S, you should just stop reading and go back and continue sipping your champagne beside your private pool. In some ways, I have occasionally seen these high street banks as robbers hiding behind the veil of a legal business and excluded morality!

The charges are often labeled as "Administrative charges" [for unpaid items].
What [TF] are they?
They say that it is the service that they provide us that gave us the convenience of payments, i.e. DD and SO. That because insufficient funds, administrative works took place. But I thought all these were computerized!? HF once shouted over the phone with a HSBC's customer service, "What administrative work have you done that I have to pay you £38??!!" She was right, they have not done any work! It was just another means for them to make more money. The customer service on the other end of the line kept saying that there was no money. He couldn't answer HF's question. Ironically, if there was no money, they have practically made you worst--a bankrupt!
If you know of a gold mine, wouldn't you want to mine all of it out?! A £38 charge over a 3.08£ overdrawned on HF's account! After the unpleasant commotion over the phone, HF was promised she will get her money back. Indeed, she got her money back!

The banks know they are not doing all of this right. They will take your money and keep quite about it. If you complaint, they will say that it is already in the terms and conditions and YOU have AGREED to them when you bank with them. Many will be deterred by this. But if you don't do anything, you're only letting them keep your money that is rightfully yours! It's like them saying "If you want your money back, you gotta ask for it! Until then, it is ours to keep!" Their terms and conditions of their services allows them to legally do the latter part by levying the said charges. It could be, for all you know, a 100£, per transaction! You gotta fight for it!

See http://tinyurl.com/zl4tg for a list of people who have managed to claim back their money from these 'illegal bank charges'. You'll be quite amazed!

IF they are doing everything legally, then they will have every reasons to refute a claim and NOT to refund. Strange enough, they DID refund many people their money and disguised it as "a gesture of goodwill and without admission of liability or error". Further, banks indirectly threatened (and 'black-list') you if you try to claim your money again by saying "we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities".

One person got back over 8,000£ in the reclaim of over 5 years of these charges! I got back my full amount of the claim I asked for. If the money is not yours, then it will never be yours regardless the number of times you complaint and threatens to take them to court for settlement. Suffice to say that it certainly does not take a financial analyst or a great imagination to realize the blatant truth of this situation.

Hilarious gag: Chinese Takeaway

Lunar eclipse

I was completely unaware that a full lunar eclipse was going to take place on Saturday March 3.

For the past weeks, I have been trying to photograph the moon. I can't wait till the 3rd of March to get my first shot of a full moon. Below are pictures I've taken in February.

A 3/4 moon; Shot at 15:32 GMT Feb 26 2007.

When I stepped out on my balcony on the night of March 3, I was rather surprised. The moon did not look full as it was supposed to be.

A 95% moon; Shot at 19:15 GMT Mar 3 2007.

I was in luck as I checked and it turned out that a full lunar eclipse fell on that night. Thank God for clear skies. I heard there were some other cloudy areas where the eclipse could not be observed at all. Apparently, it seems.

It was a totally different experience for me. All I had was a Canon EF 75-300mm IS USM lens used with a Canon 350D. I think the pictures turned out quite okay, although I think it could have been way better with better lens (L series) and better body (Canon 1D). Here are the rest of the pictures.

Full (umbral) lunar eclipse at 22:44 GMT. One of my favorite shots among the hundreds as stars can be visible around the moon.

Full (umbral) lunar eclipse at 22:53 GMT. Photo cropped to emphasize only on the moon, which appears to be red-orange to the camera.

A collection of all 118 photos shot showing the transitions of the full lunar eclipse on March 3 2007.