There’s a difference, however, between accepting that banks are inept and shady (which is true) and suggesting that the best way to make up for this fact is to ban them from penalising customers who break the rules.

The practice Jim outlines is the kind of thing that a government that cared about the welfare of poor consumers ought to be banning. Penalising people for not making regular payments, when setting up regular payments makes life easy for banks and themselves, is not.

And I don’t think someone who actually can’t afford to pay the minimum payment (is that 2.5% of the bill? It’s not a large proportion, anyway) should have a credit card with the credit limit that they do. I think that anyone who finds him/herself in that position seriously needs financial help.

I seriously doubt, however, that most of the people who miss their minimum payments do so for this reason (not least because if that were the case, then the banking system would be in the verge of collapse). Rather, it’s people who can’t be arsed to pay *despite* the penalty. And I have little problem profiting from their lack of arsedness.

Now, where to begin? You will be familiar with the notion that apparently voluntary expenditure is not as fair as it may appear. Your example of the lottery represents a massive transfer of money from the poorest sections of the population to sectors which ought properly to be funded through general, progressive, taxation. So, although “voluntary”, such schemes in fact represent a subsidy of the rich by the poor.

Similarly, the history of retail banking over the past 25 years – and especially more recently – shows a disproportionate burden being pushed onto those least able to afford it. Many economically inactive citizens have been forced into having bank accounts by changes in benefit rules, while those on low incomes may be unable to make payments as regularly as others for many reasons other than ineptitude. Surviving on a low income means that even a minor expense – such as a few pounds on a rising utility bill – can upset finances which are far more finely, and ingeniously – balanced than I suspect your or mine are.

Banks, like every other corporation, use a variety of tricks to part their customers from their hard-earned money. I accept completely that there are those who sail through life without ever incurring debt, or who never get ill and fall behind on payments, or who never fall foul of any of those tricks used by the large financial institutions. And for those people, bank charges are completely voluntary.

For the other 95% of us, however, they can turn out to be problematic.

Yes, yes, I know that the banks set rules, and we should follow them. However, I don’t get too worried by the government basically saying that some rules are so stupid, and so exploitative, that they should be moderated a bit.

Finally, my personal experience of this was when I have once missed a payment. My own fault, hands up. However, on my statment was a refund to the credit card of much, much more than the minimum payment. After complaining to the bank as to why this didn’t count towards my minimum payment, they offered up the excuse that the “transaction date” of the refund was for the previous month: apparently the fact that a computer error had left said refund in digital limbo for weeks on end didn’t matter. They did refund the late payment fee though, but it didn’t exactly improve my rather dim view of them…