Talk:Bank charge

Criminal

Bank Charges is a universal term for the application of charges to ones account! the article regarding bank charges has been made in order for every citizen concerned with bank charges to be able to look upon the free encyclopedia and educate themselves on the current and future (changing) situation of bank charges. It would be a crime in itself to write the article and leave out some of the most influential organizations concerned with the claiming of bank charges. It is contended then that the article should remain and the community entrusted to delivery a well written concise explanation of the bank charges and the effects of them on that same community. It would be a crime to delete the entry.

The original article was intended only as a starting point and should I AGREE be changed to include those entities that have played such an important part in the process. --Bank Buster 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A crime? My, such hyperbole! No this article violates multiple Wikipedia policies. First of all, it is a blatant violation of {{WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], as it very much advocates a particular view or position. Secondly, the article appears to exist almost solely to promote companies or organizations which fit this point of view, and which stand to profit from the publicity given by this article, thus violating advertising prohibitions. Your cause may be just, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote or denigrate any cause. It is an encyclopedia. This article must be deleted. Realkyhick 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite not Delete This is a major issue in the UK, and so i think a small rewrite would make it perfectly valid. At the least, it should be put to WP:AFD Willow177 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now, though it still needs fleshing out a bit more. Any more sources to cite? That would help. Realkyhick 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Did it myself. Got curious about the topic. I wish we had this sort of regulation here in the States, though our bank charges are typically lower - about $30 or $35, or roughly GBP 15-18. Realkyhick 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rewriting substantially the whole of an article and replacing it with a biased perspective, interlaced with blatant links to ones own website, is not what Wikipedia is about.

If there are specific points which needed amending in the previous version, why not discuss them here, without throwing out the baby of neutral point of view with the bathwater.

There is no place for links to "ambulance chasing" websites charging people almost 1/4 of the proceeds for doing little that the individuals could not do themselves.

MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Overlaps with Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National and Others (2008)

A large proportion of what has been added would sit better under Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National and Others (2008) and duplicating it here is a waste of time given that there is a cross-reference to the other article in any case. That article is also a better place for things relating to reclaiming/unfairness of bank charges, rather than the subject of what bank charges themselves are.MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(referred from WP:3O) It appears to me that this article represents Wikipedia at its worst: it is a soapbox for pushing one particular POV and breaks countless policies on a whole range of issues. To quote the article:

Bank charges ... are a charge levied against a consumer by their bank or provider because they have gone overdrawn...

So a monthly fee for running a back account is not a bank charge? Nor are fees relating to (non-bounced) cheques or foreign currency transactions? Loan arrangement fees? All of these are bank charges in my book. The obsessive focus on one particular issue is distorting the very definition of the subject of the article.

I also have strong concerns about the very assertive and unsourced comments littering this article. For example, the whole of the paragraph starting "The terminology "Penalty charges"..." falls into this category. Where are the sources? "Penalty charge" is a widely used term in all sorts of contracts for when one party fails to satisfy its obligations under the contract. A contract for the construction of a building may have a penalty charge written into it in case of construction running overdue for instance. If memory serves a judge in the ongoing case ruled that the term was inappropriate here but the grounds for that were that consumers were not in breach of the terms of their contracts, rather than any notion of it being improper to apply caghrges for any breaches. This whole paragraph is ill-informed and POV pushing. Who has decided that banks "have no authority to "penalise" a customer"? Even in the context of the UK (which this article does not limit its comments to) that is the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. Taking a position is fundamentally not in accordance with NPOV.

The OFT case is one aspect of bank charges: it is not the only one even in the UK. This article is wildy unbalanced at the moment. I would say that it is not a question of what to remove in this case: everything surrounding it should go and new material selectively reintroduced as it can be blanced and verified.

Happy to discuss. I'll be keeping an eye on this page at any rate. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Banking fee, transfering charge. Which one is correct?

there seems to be a variety of terms for this? Like Banking fee, transferring charge. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson20072000 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)