Screw the banks

[Martell Spy]

36 minutes ago, Triskele said:

That cannot be true.  If it is I've made a catastrophic error for not living in Costa Rica for the last seven years.  

It's not true. What happens? They in essence sue you eventually, except since they are the government they don't actually have to sue you, they just get some kind of order. A certain amount is taken from every pay check and bank accounts might get seized. Now if you aren't in the country then checks and accounts can't be taken, but I'm pretty certain this never goes away. 

They can also go after your Social Security, so you'd be giving that up.

It also destroys your credit rating. I'm not familiar with if this has any effect on you overseas.

I've also read that they can actually sue you overseas, but it does make it harder for them to do so and they may not pursue it. I was reading about it in an article about Americans fleeing to Canada to avoid student loan payments. Perhaps fleeing to Italy makes it even harder on them.

The best way to dodge student loans that I've heard of is to find a job where you can get paid without getting a pay check in the normal manner. I heard about this method from a magazine writer who was bragging about doing it. Not sure how those people get paid, but apparently that is one way. Getting paid cash, much like being an undocumented worker, is another way. Of course if you did this, you'd have to use all cash for everything, have no real credit, and not own land.

You can file chapter 13, but it wrecks your credit, and this only buys you about 3 to 5 years. Also you pay a monthly fee to a lawyer.

 

[Martell Spy]

Shitty student loan lender tricks. One of their favorite is to give an extremely unfair deadline you have to meet and get your income verification paperwork in for your income-based payment plan. I had this happen to me. I think the deadline was like 3 days! I got an email from them about it. And if you fail to get it in, your monthly payment goes through the roof, which is easily enough to destroy a person's life.

I caught the deadline with a day to spare, but I really think about the people that didn't meet that deadline. And there is no appeals process that I know of, other than student loan rehabilitation, which you are only allowed to do once in your life.

I later read they do this on purpose!!!

[oberonus]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Congratulations on managing to spew out a truly impressive load of condescending bullshit.

Banks purposefully structure your transactions to maximize overdraft fees.

That literally took me 5 seconds of Googling to find.

It's cute that you think someone who gets an overdraft fee from using their debit card hasn't already thought about using a credit card instead. Protip: people in this situation are either 1) already maxed on out their credit card, or 2) are too poor to have a credit card. But thanks for this piece of truly worthless advice for poor people.

Here's how it actually works: I'm a low-income worker. I have $100 left in my bank account, and since I'm low-income, I've opted-in to overdraft protection because I know how a bounced check can end up with the electricity being turned off for a week. So, it's Friday and I don't get paid until next Friday. I need to put $25 in gas into my car to get back and forth to work for the next week. I need to buy $50 worth of groceries so my family can eat for the next week, and I also know that there is a $115 electric bill due on Tuesday. So, knowing that I need to get to work so I won't lose my job, knowing that my kids need to, you know, eat, and knowing that not having electricity for 3 days will be a Bad Thing, I decide to use my debit card to purchase gas and groceries on Friday, and to write a check to mail to the electric company on Friday. Yes, I'll get hit with a $35 dollar fee for the check, but at least the electricity will stay on. 

But the bank decides they're going to label my debit card transactions as "pending" for several days. The electric company gets my check on Monday or Tuesday and deposits it in their bank. Then their bank sends the check to my bank on Thursday. Then my bank decides, let's process the check first, and then the other 2 transactions, even though the other 2 have been in pending status for almost a week. So now I've incurred $105 in overdraft fees, and I'm $195 dollars in the hole, instead of incurring $35 in overdraft fees and being only $125 in the hole.

That's the type of fucked up system that deliberately and cynically keeps people poor. And the supreme irony is that it's more lucrative to do that than it is for banks to loan out money at interest from all those "responsible" people who have savings. 

Someone who has $1000 in savings will earn the bank $100 in interest in a year if it's loaned out at a 10% interest rate. Meanwhile, the bank just made $105 off of my hypothetical self in just a week. It's a crooked system and it needs to be brought low.

 

 

So let me get this straight. You knowingly choose to opt into allowing debit over drafts to happen, you know how they structure pending transactions,  and then you complain when you get hit with fees. That's called poor money management skills. 

It's cute you think I don't know what I'm talking about after 10 years in this field.

Protip: Once again if you're maxed out on credit cards or too poor credit to have credit maybe you shouldn't be buying that coffee on the go and risk overdrawing your account (as in Larry's comment from earlier)

 

Also I'm going to explain this again one more time. There are 2 types of overdraft you can set up. Debit card overdraft and account overdraft. You can opt out of debit card overdraft and still allow checks to go through even if you don't have money in your account.

 

So in the example provided it will come out the exact same way you wanted to if you set up your account the way I recommended because you would write a bad check (which by the way is technically illegal knowingly writing a check that doesn't have enough funds to be covered) for 115$ when you only have $100 in your account. You mail out the check and then you go ahead and buy your groceries and your gas. Because you made those purchases before your check was attempted to be deposited your 2 purchases will not cause you to get hit with overdraft fees. So your account will just be negative. Your check will then go through and then you will get hit with an overdraft fee.

 

You say it's a crooked system and it needs to be brought low how would you change it? They were forced to change it with the card act back in 2010 and that was by allowing you to choose not to allow your debit card to overdraw, but you choose to be ignorant of how the system works and are allowing yourself to be taken advantage of.

 

Once again if you do the advice I gave you can avoid most overdrafts. 

 

Now if you guys were complaining about the NSF ACH fees that they run 3x for one attempted payment those are 100% bullshit and I don't like them one bit. I reverse those fees for my members all the time because I don't agree with companies being allowed to attempt mulptiple times for one payment overdrawing each time without the payment going through.

 

 

 

 

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Congratulations on managing to spew out a truly impressive load of condescending bullshit.

Banks purposefully structure your transactions to maximize overdraft fees.

That literally took me 5 seconds of Googling to find.

That article is from over 6 years ago. If I remember correctly, they got caught doing this and no longer do it.

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Someone who has $1000 in savings will earn the bank $100 in interest in a year if it's loaned out at a 10% interest rate. Meanwhile, the bank just made $105 off of my hypothetical self in just a week.

Not quite. Leaving aside the fact that this form of trickery can no longer be practiced, the bank hasn't actually made anything yet. In fact, they're currently out $90 in addition to whatever the fee is. Do you think the hypothetical person's paycheck is going to stretch to cover all of the family expenses for the next pay period and the $90 that they couldn't come with this time and the fee? It's certainly possible, but it is also possible that they'll find some other way to cash their paycheck and pay the electric company at which point the bank is going to have to hire somebody to go and try to recover the money.

Banks try to structure their fees and account minimums to get a certain average return despite the fact that some people will fail to pay up. This is the fundamental idea that leads to the poor being charged more for practically everything having to do with finance (well, technically there's another fundamental idea here -- basically the same one as leads predators to choose weaker prey over the stronger -- but the former one is the official justification).

[DireWolfSpirit]

6 hours ago, oberonus said:

Now if you guys were complaining about the NSF ACH fees that they run 3x for one attempted payment those are 100% bullshit and I don't like them one bit. I reverse those fees for my members all the time because I don't agree with companies being allowed to attempt mulptiple times for one payment overdrawing each time without the payment going through.

I'm pretty sure that was one of the exact complaints of an earlier poster.

Im done with this thread, sounds like a bunch of pissing contests honestly.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

That article is from over 6 years ago. If I remember correctly, they got caught doing this and no longer do it.

Not quite. Leaving aside the fact that this form of trickery can no longer be practiced, the bank hasn't actually made anything yet. In fact, they're currently out $90 in addition to whatever the fee is. Do you think the hypothetical person's paycheck is going to stretch to cover all of the family expenses for the next pay period and the $90 that they couldn't come with this time and the fee? It's certainly possible, but it is also possible that they'll find some other way to cash their paycheck and pay the electric company at which point the bank is going to have to hire somebody to go and try to recover the money.

This is absolutely false that banks no longer practice "reordering" - organizing transactions to maximize overdraft fees. Here is a New York Times article from 2016 describing the very same practice.

TD Bank collected $11 billion dollars in overdraft fees, for just one example.

Banks still regularly leave debit transactions "pending" for days on end, hoping that additional charges come in that will allow them to restructure the transactions to maximize overdraft fees. Some banks will even, when deposits and debits are made in the same day, will process the debits before the deposits, in order to incur overdraft fees.

And even if things got marginally better for a short while through the CFPB, what the fuck do you think is going to happen when Mulvaney continues gutting the regulatory power and oversight of the bureau?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, oberonus said:

 

 

So let me get this straight. You knowingly choose to opt into allowing debit over drafts to happen, you know how they structure pending transactions,  and then you complain when you get hit with fees. That's called poor money management skills. 

Also I'm going to explain this again one more time. There are 2 types of overdraft you can set up. Debit card overdraft and account overdraft. You can opt out of debit card overdraft and still allow checks to go through even if you don't have money in your account.

So in the example provided it will come out the exact same way you wanted to if you set up your account the way I recommended because you would write a bad check (which by the way is technically illegal knowingly writing a check that doesn't have enough funds to be covered) for 115$ when you only have $100 in your account. You mail out the check and then you go ahead and buy your groceries and your gas. Because you made those purchases before your check was attempted to be deposited your 2 purchases will not cause you to get hit with overdraft fees. So your account will just be negative. Your check will then go through and then you will get hit with an overdraft fee.

 

You say it's a crooked system and it needs to be brought low how would you change it? They were forced to change it with the card act back in 2010 and that was by allowing you to choose not to allow your debit card to overdraw, but you choose to be ignorant of how the system works and are allowing yourself to be taken advantage of.

 

Once again if you do the advice I gave you can avoid most overdrafts. 

I'm going to ignore your disgusting condescension towards the poor by your implication that they're poor and getting overdrafted because they're grabbing Starbucks coffee in the morning, especially when my example was about necessities that the poor have to make decisions about every day. 

I'm also going to posit that I don't give a good goddamn about how fucking long you worked in the industry because I think you're full of shit because banks absolutely keep debit transactions pending for days, for no good reason other than they're still trying to maximize overdraft fees.

As to my solution? String enough of the motherfucking thieves up on some lampposts until the rest of those fucking criminal bankers, complicit in money-laundering, arms dealing, drug dealing and sex slavery and human trafficking get the fucking picture that we're not going to tolerate their rapacious profiteering off the backs of the most vulnerable any longer.

[Yukle]

8 hours ago, oberonus said:

So let me get this straight. You knowingly choose to opt into allowing debit over drafts to happen, you know how they structure pending transactions,  and then you complain when you get hit with fees. That's called poor money management skills. 

I'm not sure banks can claim any particular skill in being good with money.

Here's a thought: how come banks aren't required to reimburse customers any time they make a mistake? Today, for instance, NAB bank in Australia barred all transitions of any kind in their banks due to a system error. The error went on for almost the entire business day, causing millions in lost revenue around the country.

If banks practised what they preached, there'd be a nice fee sitting in every NAB account as punishment for their stupidity with money.

So I don't really agree with your argument. Banks aren't charging such fees because they need disincentives for certain monetary practices among clients. They do it because they're unethical organisations at heart.

[Proudfeet]

55 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Here's a thought: how come banks aren't required to reimburse customers any time they make a mistake? Today, for instance, NAB bank in Australia barred all transitions of any kind in their banks due to a system error. The error went on for almost the entire business day, causing millions in lost revenue around the country.

If banks practised what they preached, there'd be a nice fee sitting in every NAB account as punishment for their stupidity with money.

I'm not familiar with Australia laws and regulations, but they should at least be incurring fines. If you fudge it a bit, fines -> government revenue -> reimbursing customers. It is no consolation, but the problem with reimbursing customers directly is quantifying the loss. It is hard to calculate and prove so its not really feasible.

Not sure how hardware failure is stupidity with money though. Failing to invest enough into backup systems? 

[oberonus]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm going to ignore your disgusting condescension towards the poor by your implication that they're poor and getting overdrafted because they're grabbing Starbucks coffee in the morning, especially when my example was about necessities that the poor have to make decisions about every day. 

I'm also going to posit that I don't give a good goddamn about how fucking long you worked in the industry because I think you're full of shit because banks absolutely keep debit transactions pending for days, for no good reason other than they're still trying to maximize overdraft fees.

As to my solution? String enough of the motherfucking thieves up on some lampposts until the rest of those fucking criminal bankers, complicit in money-laundering, arms dealing, drug dealing and sex slavery and human trafficking get the fucking picture that we're not going to tolerate their rapacious profiteering off the backs of the most vulnerable any longer.

 

So you just spew bullshit because you are too ignorant to listen or understand. You still haven't addressed my recommendations to avoid those needless overdrafts. Or you know another way to avoid them? How about you use cash and stop using an overdraft. Or do you still want to advocate check fraud (knowingly writing bad checks)

 

Oh that's right you don't want to hear the very logical and easy solutions that are there for you to use to avoid those overdrafts.

 

 

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

I'm not sure banks can claim any particular skill in being good with money.

Here's a thought: how come banks aren't required to reimburse customers any time they make a mistake? Today, for instance, NAB bank in Australia barred all transitions of any kind in their banks due to a system error. The error went on for almost the entire business day, causing millions in lost revenue around the country.

If banks practised what they preached, there'd be a nice fee sitting in every NAB account as punishment for their stupidity with money.

So I don't really agree with your argument. Banks aren't charging such fees because they need disincentives for certain monetary practices among clients. They do it because they're unethical organisations at heart.

 

Where did I say banks we're good with money? Where did i say that they are charging these feeds because they are trying  to disincentives monetary practice?

They do it to make money on

1) people who can't manage their money *

2) people who have horrible credit (because they can't manage their money). *

3) people who are to stupid ton understand how bank accounts work

*Yes there are things out of your control that can wipe out your accounts (loss of job, health emergency, etc) however most overdrafts are fo bullshit purchases that people shouldn't be buying if they could manage money (going out for coffee going out to movies/lunch/etc). Those are the habitual overdrafters.

 

 

Example: member at my credit union (early 70s) and her son helps her with her banking. Since November mom has had over 40 overdrafts on her account. Why? Bullshit purchase like going out for coffee, McDonald's, etc. I've reversed , 12 fees for her. I've begged her and her son to set up a 1000$ credit card for overdraft protection and to turn off the debit card overdraft (since our credit union has pre approval we know she's already approved). She refuses to turn it off because then she can't buy stuff and she doesn't want a credit card. I've showed them how much she has lost. Nothing. Should I feel sympathy for those who don't want to help themselves? 

 

 

This conversation was about individuals overdrafting their accounts because they are stupid and don't know how to manage money. I gave numerous options to avoid most overdrafts and instead of anyone listening to my suggestions they instead chose to insult me or demean my lack of experience on this subject matter. 

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

It's nice to see a condescending douchebro here to reveal his industry's true nature and character.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

I'm not familiar with Australia laws and regulations, but they should at least be incurring fines. If you fudge it a bit, fines -> government revenue -> reimbursing customers. It is no consolation, but the problem with reimbursing customers directly is quantifying the loss. It is hard to calculate and prove so its not really feasible.

Not sure how hardware failure is stupidity with money though. Failing to invest enough into backup systems? 

Generally the cost of paying fines is less than the cost of embezzling funds, among other illegal practices. It's something the ongoing Royal Commission is exposing at the moment.

And yes, banks aren't spending enough on redundant infrastructure. They spend lots on security, as they should, but skimp on areas of critical infrastructure. This eats into their profits, so instead they just tolerate the points of failure since they won't be held to account for such practices.

I agree that it's hard to quantify the losses the bank has caused. But they have done it anyway when it comes to charing fees for things such as overdrawing an account. If they're allowed to do it, then it should work both ways.

Banks also charge far more with their fees than whatever cost they'd incur. The most disgusting of their practices is charging $2 to use an ATM from a rival bank; the cost to them of such a transaction is a few cents at best.

[Yukle]

27 minutes ago, oberonus said:

This conversation was about individuals overdrafting their accounts because they are stupid and don't know how to manage money. I gave numerous options to avoid most overdrafts and instead of anyone listening to my suggestions they instead chose to insult me or demean my lack of experience on this subject matter. 

I get to play the banker every time we play Monopoly. It's a great trade-off because my son always wants to be the car.

I hardly ever lose any of the $500 notes and I can do all of the maths in my head.

[Larry of the Lawn]

29 minutes ago, oberonus said:

 

So you just spew bullshit because you are too ignorant to listen or understand. You still haven't addressed my recommendations to avoid those needless overdrafts. Or you know another way to avoid them? How about you use cash and stop using an overdraft. Or do you still want to advocate check fraud (knowingly writing bad checks)

 

Oh that's right you don't want to hear the very logical and easy solutions that are there for you to use to avoid those overdrafts.

 

 

 

Where did I say banks we're good with money? Where did i say that they are charging these feeds because they are trying  to disincentives monetary practice?

They do it to make money on

1) people who can't manage their money *

2) people who have horrible credit (because they can't manage their money). *

3) people who are to stupid ton understand how bank accounts work

*Yes there are things out of your control that can wipe out your accounts (loss of job, health emergency, etc) however most overdrafts are fo bullshit purchases that people shouldn't be buying if they could manage money (going out for coffee going out to movies/lunch/etc). Those are the habitual overdrafters.

 

 

Example: member at my credit union (early 70s) and her son helps her with her banking. Since November mom has had over 40 overdrafts on her account. Why? Bullshit purchase like going out for coffee, McDonald's, etc. I've reversed , 12 fees for her. I've begged her and her son to set up a 1000$ credit card for overdraft protection and to turn off the debit card overdraft (since our credit union has pre approval we know she's already approved). She refuses to turn it off because then she can't buy stuff and she doesn't want a credit card. I've showed them how much she has lost. Nothing. Should I feel sympathy for those who don't want to help themselves? 

 

 

This conversation was about individuals overdrafting their accounts because they are stupid and don't know how to manage money. I gave numerous options to avoid most overdrafts and instead of anyone listening to my suggestions they instead chose to insult me or demean my lack of experience on this subject matter. 

 

 

So people with bad credit or who are generally poor deserve to be taken advantage of because they are 'stupid'?

 

Hilarious that you think your arguments refute the idea that this behaviour on the banks part is wrong.

And btw, you were the one that started lobbing insults.  

[Loge]

14 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Congratulations on managing to spew out a truly impressive load of condescending bullshit.

Banks purposefully structure your transactions to maximize overdraft fees.

That literally took me 5 seconds of Googling to find.

It's cute that you think someone who gets an overdraft fee from using their debit card hasn't already thought about using a credit card instead. Protip: people in this situation are either 1) already maxed on out their credit card, or 2) are too poor to have a credit card. But thanks for this piece of truly worthless advice for poor people.

Here's how it actually works: I'm a low-income worker. I have $100 left in my bank account, and since I'm low-income, I've opted-in to overdraft protection because I know how a bounced check can end up with the electricity being turned off for a week. So, it's Friday and I don't get paid until next Friday. I need to put $25 in gas into my car to get back and forth to work for the next week. I need to buy $50 worth of groceries so my family can eat for the next week, and I also know that there is a $115 electric bill due on Tuesday. So, knowing that I need to get to work so I won't lose my job, knowing that my kids need to, you know, eat, and knowing that not having electricity for 3 days will be a Bad Thing, I decide to use my debit card to purchase gas and groceries on Friday, and to write a check to mail to the electric company on Friday. Yes, I'll get hit with a $35 dollar fee for the check, but at least the electricity will stay on. 

But the bank decides they're going to label my debit card transactions as "pending" for several days. The electric company gets my check on Monday or Tuesday and deposits it in their bank. Then their bank sends the check to my bank on Thursday. Then my bank decides, let's process the check first, and then the other 2 transactions, even though the other 2 have been in pending status for almost a week. So now I've incurred $105 in overdraft fees, and I'm $195 dollars in the hole, instead of incurring $35 in overdraft fees and being only $125 in the hole.

That's the type of fucked up system that deliberately and cynically keeps people poor. And the supreme irony is that it's more lucrative to do that than it is for banks to loan out money at interest from all those "responsible" people who have savings. 

Someone who has $1000 in savings will earn the bank $100 in interest in a year if it's loaned out at a 10% interest rate. Meanwhile, the bank just made $105 off of my hypothetical self in just a week. It's a crooked system and it needs to be brought low.

Not to defend the bank, but it's not their fault if you run out of cash at the end of the month. Your real problem is somewhere else. I suspect that a large fraction of your income is eaten up by recurring payments. Are you sure that nothing can be done to bring them down? 

[Rhom]

9 minutes ago, Loge said:

Not to defend the bank, but it's not their fault if you run out of cash at the end of the month. Your real problem is somewhere else. I suspect that a large fraction of your income is eaten up by recurring payments. Are you sure that nothing can be done to bring them down? 

This is essentially my argument earlier. Get on a strict budget.  Before every month, assign every dollar a “name.”  Then most importantly, stick to it.  

Don’t go inside a restaurant unless you are working there.  Don’t pay the stupid tax of financing everything you owe.  Cut up the credit cards and pay cash.  You’re broke.  Broke people don’t go out to movies or the bar and they don’t take vacations (if they want to stop being broke).  Until you get your finances under control, you can’t afford those things. 

Yes, times are hard; but where you live or what you have chosen to practice as a career does not exempt you from math.

People in this topic have chosen to rail against the evils and injustices of the banks.  All the while, they are ignoring personal responsibility and the time proven examples of others to work their way out of debt.  Go down to the corner and visit a community bank, those folks are your neighbors and they are hard working, honest folks like you.

[Yukle]

16 minutes ago, Loge said:

Not to defend the bank, but it's not their fault if you run out of cash at the end of the month. Your real problem is somewhere else. I suspect that a large fraction of your income is eaten up by recurring payments. Are you sure that nothing can be done to bring them down? 

I haven't waited for a response from @The Great Unwashed to know the answer to this in advance: this has already occurred to them.

Not all jobs pay fair wages and not all regions have a realistic cost of living. Not all people have the same expenses.

If either of my children had a disability, for instance, I would not be able to afford to keep paying our current expenses. Similarly, while we have rainy-day savings set aside, it's not improbable to have a glut of bad events happen in close succession. For instance, we had a major car service, a hot-water service replacement and asbestos removal from the house, which was discovered during a minor repair to steps.

Which, by the way, we could pay, but the setback will take some time to recover from. Another big blow will be hard to cope with.

[Yukle]

2 minutes ago, Rhom said:

 Yes, times are hard; but where you live or what you have chosen to practice as a career does not exempt you from math.

People in this topic have chosen to rail against the evils and injustices of the banks.  All the while, they are ignoring personal responsibility and the time proven examples of others to work their way out of debt.  Go down to the corner and visit a community bank, those folks are your neighbors and they are hard working, honest folks like you.

This is probably speaking cross-purposes to the complaints made about banks. The argument about budgeting is not the same as banks acting unethically.

Throughout 2008 the entire world was in turmoil due to criminal and unethical banking practices. Far more people fell into poverty than bank executives were prosecuted for that.

Also, equating banks with the people who work in their branches isn't a fair comparison. I think there's a world of difference between a teller and a bank executive. For instance, I think I'd trust the former to behave ethically much more than the latter. There's cynicism in there, I agree, but it's hard to find examples of banks making any effort to pay their due taxes, to handle transactions fairly, to charge fees that actually represent the costs they incur, to avoid collusion with other banks surrounding rate levels and on and on the list goes.

[Proudfeet]

37 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Generally the cost of paying fines is less than the cost of embezzling funds, among other illegal practices. It's something the ongoing Royal Commission is exposing at the moment.

And yes, banks aren't spending enough on redundant infrastructure. They spend lots on security, as they should, but skimp on areas of critical infrastructure. This eats into their profits, so instead they just tolerate the points of failure since they won't be held to account for such practices.

I agree that it's hard to quantify the losses the bank has caused. But they have done it anyway when it comes to charing fees for things such as overdrawing an account. If they're allowed to do it, then it should work both ways.

Banks also charge far more with their fees than whatever cost they'd incur. The most disgusting of their practices is charging $2 to use an ATM from a rival bank; the cost to them of such a transaction is a few cents at best.

Yeah, its hard to hold banks to account. They play such a critical role that you can't just take away their license to operate or give them too substantial a fine. As the financial crisis showed, we prefer to bail them out rather than let them become insolvent. 

As far as overdrawing an account, its a cost that is easy to quantify($x per transaction or x% of transaction value). Not so for lost sales, or inability to purchase that cascades into increasing costs.

I don't think you are charged by your bank but the rival bank you are withdrawing from. Banks want to attract more deposits. Accessibility is a competitive advantage and it doesn't make sense for them to allow users of other banks to use their facilities when they are the ones spending money to setup and maintain the ATMs. It may seem like a penalty to the consumer, but to do otherwise is a lose/lose scenario for them. They don't get your money and they still have to pay for the costs of the ATM. 

That said, it would be better if they charged the rival bank rather than the consumer. It is probably already in practice. Just maybe not all banks are in the network.  

[Which Tyler]

4 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

I'm not familiar with Australia laws and regulations, but they should at least be incurring fines. If you fudge it a bit, fines -> government revenue -> reimbursing customers. It is no consolation, but the problem with reimbursing customers directly is quantifying the loss. It is hard to calculate and prove so its not really feasible.

Not sure how hardware failure is stupidity with money though. Failing to invest enough into backup systems? 

I'd also suggest having a look in the British press about TSB, and the last 5 weeks

for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44253335