Aibu to think that using financial penalties to punish people for not having money should be banned??

[Lanark2]

You know, banks who charge you more money when you don't have enough money, councils who fine people for sleeping rough, dvla fines for people who struggle to pay car tax and council tax fines for people who can't pay their council tax. Its completely mental.. Isn't it?

You're not allowed to say that Katenka. I got deleted on the last thread for doing that.

aye ah well. I have never been deleted for it before. I'll take it on the chin.

The question isn't really 'how to budget' its about whether increasingly disproportionate financial penalties are effective at managing behaviour that only exists because of financial disadvantage.

Its only making budgeting more difficult if a £2 error results in £60 of charges..in fact it's a way of guaranteeing you can try to charge again next month (and with banks its an artificial way of prioritising your (frankly made up) debt way ahead of actual debts, and ensuring its more difficult for your customer to pay those other bills, and perhaps if you are lucky, charging again for a missed direct debit for them too.

If the idea is that they help good behaviour, I am struggling to see it.

Also it clearly frightens some of you a great deal to think about whether the status quo is OK, or whether businesses are actually making the most effective decisions.

Where does this fear come from, and why do you project it on to me?

Come to the food bank and see how many 'choices' people have sometimes. Car breaks down, needs to be fixed to get to work otherwise lose job, have no money...put on card. Not rocket science to see how it happens and it isn't always fecklessness.

There is no fear or projection

So - are you going to answer any of the questions put to you? Offer any credible alternatives?

Did you agree to the terms and conditions when you took the bank account??

Hackney council issuing £100 fixed penalties to rough sleepers

This happens in my city, too. A fixed penalty of £80 which, if unpaid, escalates to a court case and £1,000 fine plus costs. If it isn't paid, the homeless person is sent to prison. Of course, the only way they can make the £80 to pay the fine is by begging - which, in my city, will earn you another £80 penalty.

Don't tell me that's fair or right or that nobody needs to be begging in the 21st century and that there is help if people need it. There isn't. And clearly, very little compassion or understanding, either.

I don't think bank accounts should default to allowing you to go overdrawn then charging you a fortune for the privilege. Unless you've specifically signed up for that, they should default to bouncing cheques and not honouring direct debits. And I don't believe doing that costs them anything, so they don't need to charge for it.

Theoretician I agree, actually. But you can get bank accounts that don't allow any overdraft I think.

The problem comes when people want to use things that cost money, but then not pay for them.

Which is what the OP thinks. He should be able to use electricity/Internet/car but then not pay for it. He borrows money off a female friend that he can't pay back and then blames her for lending it to him.

I do still struggle to understand how a single man, with no children, with 3 jobs, who only spends £20 per month on food and who owns a property where the mortgage is a lot lower than renting a room would be has so little money. You must be spending it somewhere on something unnecessary.

But no matter how often people offer ideas or advice of ways to help yourself you default to "it's everyone else's fault" and ignore anything doesn't conform to your narrative of how you shouldn't have to pay because businesses/other people have more money than you.

So I'm not sure how we can help?

Ophelia as I posted earlier, Hackney's homeless fine was repealed shortly after the Metro piece. Also, despite a fairly good google, I haven't found any evidence of any city actually fining anyone, possibly for the reasons I found earlier. All councils I have found, so far, have said that they intend to use it on 'false' beggars and people who refuse to accept all the usual help offered.

The headline's wouldn't be quite so shocking if they were accurate though!

Sorry if this has already been said, but I do think that there are examples of this being the case- my biggest bugbears though are along the lines of high charges on pre pay meters. I cannot see any reasonable reason for this. The person is now a lower risk, as they cannot go over the top up amount, and I assume that these meters are always installed after someone has defaulted

I have no problem with paying for things.

In principle. I also think, that wages should be enough to cover food, clothes, shelter, heating, a phone travel to work and council tax, and that if they don't, charging people more as a penalty won't magic more money from the employer or encourage payment of either the bill or the charge. All it does is provide further opportunities for pointless unchangeable charges. Its mental, as I said, and cannot be good for the country.

Aye - yes you can. My bank refused me any overdraft facilities as a result of me getting myself into a spiral of bank charges / debt after uni. They insisted that I take out a loan to pay off the overdraft and wouldn't lend me anything until I had. I paid that loan off last year (after 10 years). Now they are desperate to lend to me as I've got a good income but their bank charges fucked me over for a very long time.

Has everyone forgotten that the banks were fined for their charging practices?

I think freezing the account is a much better idea. Isn't it the case that they don't pay the bill but charge you too for having to reject payment?

OurBlanche DH works with homeless people, I volunteer at a food bank. We've both met people who've been fined for begging/rough sleeping.

Freezing Accounts is awful, they did that to me after payday. I couldn't pay any bills, I couldn't put petrol in to get to work, I couldn't buy food.

Drop the account to the most basic level, treat the overdraft as a loan with a repayment plan.

The electric and gas top up situation is awful. People shouldn't pay more for it just because they have to pay upfront

Hi again, Ophelia In 20 years working/volunteering at food banks and other community charities I haven't met anyone who has been fined 'merely' for begging or rough sleeping. I have met plenty who have been fined for being drunk, abusive, aggressive and leery whilst begging, peeing and defecating on the street and all of the above whilst rough sleeping.

Most councils don't fine for the sake of it, they use agencies, presumably like the one your DH works for, to offer (often utterly inadequate) solutions. But I do appreciate that it probably could and does happen in many places, just not in the manner OP seemed to suggest.

I also think, that wages should be enough to cover food, clothes, shelter, heating, a phone travel to work and council tax

They do though. Take one full time NMW job. It's a few pounds shy of net/take-home-pay amount of 1000 per month.

In a typical city (mine) for a single person:
Rent for a room: 300pcm
Council tax: 60-100
Gas/electric: 60
Monthly bus pass: 50
Phone: 20
Food: 100
Clothes: 50

And that's not even going for the cheapest options.

It's very doable. I've done it, actually. Leaves hundreds after this essential bills are paid and it will go up significantly soon. And if you have another two jobs on top then that should be extra.

It wouldn't keep a whole family or pay for childcare, but it's enough for a single person to live on (if you're not trying to live in London).

Lanark if you work full time you must have at least £1000 per month income. What on earth do you spend it on if you have a very low mortgage and only spend £20 on food?

I agree, actually. But you can get bank accounts that don't allow any overdraft I think.

I have one

Funnily enough, poor people can't fine their employers for not paying them on time, for 'losing' their timesheets, for 'the person who signs off payroll wasn't well yesterday so it didn't go through' - or the DWP for stopping their benefits because they had a heart attack half an hour before they were due to sign on...

You just can't believe the poor can you.

I have less than £1000 take home, circa 900.
Rural
Council tax 110 + 70 arrears
Rent / mortgage - 200 (should be 450/but have agreement)
Travel to work £100
Car tax £69
Car insurance £70
Electricity £100 (card meter)
Food (background) £20
Food (grabbing between jobs if starving) -£10
Two beers Friday and Saturday.at home -£25
Phone £25
A wetherspoons breakfast -£4
This month.. £90 on drain clear after a block at Christmas + £30 one month gym membership so that I could have a shower, toilet etc before work each day.
A bank charge at Christmas because my employer didn't pay an agreed £80 bonus (still in grievance as a result) meant I was £120 down at the start of the month.

Note I am not the only person using the gym showers daily because of poor living conditions, a lot of people in shared houses and semi homeless do too, and wetherspoons also is on the list because I had no drain and so cleaning and washing up was very difficult, and they have a toilet.

You can shout at the poor as much as you like and deny till you are dead with the effort, but it all exists.

No-one is denying it exists, but you still haven't come up with any credible alternatives.

Is your username an indication of the region you live in?