Bank Charges.. Only One Possible Outcome??

[DanH84]

whether or not the banks win this i'd expect to see the end of free banking in the uk within 5 years anyway. if they lose then they get an excuse and introduce it, if they win then within a few years they'll come up with something such as costs of combating fraud compulsory value added extras etc etc. free banking isn't here to stay, there's too much money to be made out of charging customers.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I only ask - because Natwest, my bank of 16 years keep trying to 'upgrade' me to one of their paying accounts - whether it be advantage gold, blue or premier - does anybody else have these accounts? Do you benefit from having one? (I must stress that I have no intention of taking them up on their offer!)

I'm a Lloyds Premier Customer on my joint account, so my wife and I share the £15 a month charge.

For that we get:

Full AA membership whuch would be £137 each.
Full travel insurance which would be about £80 each.
Mobile phone insurance which I have no idea how much it would cost because I wouldn't have it otherwise.
Card protection.
Some other stuff.

It's enough to make it worthwhile for me, but I do review it each year to see if it is still worth it.

 

[Slinwagh]

It is not the charges that are wrong it is the levy that the banks place on sometimes very tiny amounts that people go overdrawn etc.

No one can seriously believe it costs a bank £25 - £30 when you go overdrawn by pennies and then and the subsequnt letter to inform you of such.

In my opinion maybe a sliding scale dependant on the amount overdrawn should be levied, £1 - 10 overdrawn charge £x, £11 - £20 Charge £y etc. Maybe a flat fee accross the board even.

Bear in mind last year the made £3.5 billion pounds out of these charges.

 

[itsallaboutyou]

I'm a Lloyds Premier Customer on my joint account, so my wife and I share the £15 a month charge.

For that we get:

Full AA membership whuch would be £137 each.
Full travel insurance which would be about £80 each.
Mobile phone insurance which I have no idea how much it would cost because I wouldn't have it otherwise.
Card protection.
Some other stuff.

It's enough to make it worthwhile for me, but I do review it each year to see if it is still worth it.

Ah - I see - they're actually pretty good benefits! I was perhaps a little facetious before - but Natwest do tend to over emphasise the things they think people will prefer as opposed to those that are actually useful!

Cheers for that,

Tom*

 

[SB118]

It is not the charges that are wrong it is the levy that the banks place on sometimes very tiny amounts that people go overdrawn etc.

No one can seriously believe it costs a bank £25 - £30 when you go overdrawn by pennies and then and the subsequnt letter to inform you of such.

In my opinion maybe a sliding scale dependant on the amount overdrawn should be levied, £1 - 10 overdrawn charge £x, £11 - £20 Charge £y etc. Maybe a flat fee accross the board even.

Bear in mind last year the made £3.5 billion pounds out of these charges.

There was a guy on the BBC news earlier saying how the charges in N.I. are something realistic like £3.90 for going over your limit.

 

[platypus]

I think it is in the interest of the sensible bank customer that the banks win this or, as you say, they will recoup their losses from elsewhere

Indeed, the people so intent on pushing through this court case against the banks will start to complain when their free accounts no longer exist.

A scale of penalty charges should be introduced.

 

[romperstomper]

However, for the other folks who simply don't take responsibility for managing their own finances and get charged accordingly, tough. It's your money and you are getting a free banking service, so take some interest in your finances and you might not get into trouble.

I agree ,I've never had bank charges and can't believe they are getting their money back !

 

[Col_M]

I'm hoping that the banks win too.

Here in CZ I'm paying ~£11.50 per month for a bank account and it's the norm (well a bit more than your average Czech as I have multiple currency accounts and other stuff). The UK can't go backwards to a stupid system like here.
I have a couple of accounts open in the UK just laying dormant with a little bit in. If the banks start charging fees to recoup their losses my little pot is going to decrease each month and eventually I'll have to pay If I have to then so be it but I'd rather not

 

[Broken Arrow]

I have a big problem with that because I don't see why I should pay if other people can't manage their finances.

Because if those people did manage their finances your "free banking" would come to an end anyway. Running a bank account costs money - if you aren't paying for it then someone else is.

 

[singist]

Wow, so many people who, because the those nice banking angels talk about charging for proper banking services, grovel like medieval peasants and accept it as inevitable!

Instead of regailing us with anecdotal stories of how righteous they are with their money, and how absolutely unfair it is that they should be charged because all you evil people keep getting reimbursed, maybe they should be making sure that their banks understand that if charges are introduced, they will take their fat accounts elsewhere.

Bankers are NOT Gods (however much they think that they are), and they are not above the law either.
I'm convinced that they will lose the case, but we'll see, in the fullness of time.

A quote from the BBC story on this:

"But if they lose the High Court argument, the banks will lose a source of income worth about £10m a day, according to OFT calculations."

 

[platypus]

maybe they should be making sure that their banks understand that if charges are introduced, they will take their fat accounts elsewhere.

Bankers are NOT Gods (however much they think that they are), and they are not above the law either.
I'm convinced that they will lose the case, but we'll see, in the fullness of time."

Not above the law, no. But they heavily influence it.

And just what bank are you going to go move your fat account to when they've all collaborated on a monthly fee scale for accounts of differing levels?

 

[itsallaboutyou]

Wow, so many people who, because the those nice banking angels talk about charging for proper banking services, grovel like medieval peasants and accept it as inevitable!

Instead of regailing us with anecdotal stories of how righteous they are with their money, and how absolutely unfair it is that they should be charged because all you evil people keep getting reimbursed, maybe they should be making sure that their banks understand that if charges are introduced, they will take their fat accounts elsewhere.

Good point - but I think any mandatory subscription would be across the board - certainly for the larger banks, RBS, Halifax, HSBC et al - purely because they appear to be leaning that way already...

Personally, I used to be carp with money - but when i had the opportunity to get a mortgage and buy a place of my own - I knew it was time to grow up... I, personally could see myself in the future getting to a point where I don't see a "problem" if I have to pay a nominal fee for using the service - nominal being the operative word. I was simply commenting on the fact that that this is where (IMO) I can see the banks recouping some of their lost money as they simply wont be able to afford to pay out - and still pay credit interest at the same time!*

I've seen an advert on tv - where superhands is offering £100 to customers who switch and a further £100 if you don't like it - something must be going wrong if they're offering this kind of incentive...

All I got was a natwest pig...

Tom

* or something to that effect...

 

[itsallaboutyou]

Not above the law, no. But they heavily influence it.

And just what bank are you going to go move your fat account to when they've all collaborated on a monthly fee scale for accounts of differing levels?

++ another good point - I think somewhere along the line they would have to subscribe to a service agreement stating scales of charges etc..

 

[TheDean]

I think refunded costs are given as a gesture of good will as nobody gets the full amount, so they shouldn't have to pay it back.

That is not true at all. I know people that have got much more back from the banks than they were ever charged. I got exactly what I asked for, which was every single unlawful bank charge returned. They did offer me 60% at first which I rejected immediately, within an hour I had an e-mail telling me they would settle for the full amount I requested

 

[Surfer]

Indeed, the people so intent on pushing through this court case against the banks will start to complain when their free accounts no longer exist.

A scale of penalty charges should be introduced.

What will probably happen: (bare in mind that for all this to be resolved including appeals etc and actual rulings and changes to t&cs etc you're talking about 2 years)

All banks need to do is change the wording in the t&cs to "service" from what it is currently "penalty" (as applied to charges on the account)

I think the OFT will win but it might be an empty victory. That is, the banks might not be forced to pay back the millions of pounds to all its customers perhaps just a compensatory amount.

Still though one has to wonder why previous to this amongst the millions of pounds claimed back by thousands of people from their banks. Not one bank has declared their costs structure in administering these charges to customer accounts. 99% of cases are settled out of court. If the banks had confidence that they were in the right why are they settling out of court? But because courts were inundated with these claims a test case has to be heard and would very much speed up the processing of claims through the courts(basically the banks combine their strength vs OFT)

I highly doubt that if the banks lose, all of them will suddenly come to an agreement to start levying to customers a monthly account fee considering that its practically mandatory to own a bank account these days.

 

[TheDean]

All I got was a natwest pig...

Tom

* or something to that effect...

Ditto - Sold mine on flea bay. I had the set

 

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by Dup
I think refunded costs are given as a gesture of good will as nobody gets the full amount, so they shouldn't have to pay it back.

100% false. And uhh a gesture of goodwill from the banks? hehe

 

[itsallaboutyou]

Ditto - Sold mine on flea bay. I had the set

Heh - I didnt even think of that... - he's(i'm assuming its a 'he')now sitting on myself collecting dust!

Tom*

 

[TheDean]

Heh - I didnt even think of that... - he's(i'm assuming its a 'he')now sitting on myself collecting dust!

Tom*

The Dad pig (in the black suit) is worth the most apart from one called 'Cousin Wesley'. He is ultra rare and was released in very few numbers.

 

[Glaucus]

There will be at least one bank who wont charge as long as you have your pay going in. Thus gaining millions of customers. That's if the banks lose, which it seems likely. It's pretty much an open and shut case imo.