The Co-operative Bank – A little less customer led, a little less ethically guided

It's largely academic anyway - if they charge anyone these punitive charges, then you can recover the money in the county court, cheaply and easily.

I've done it twice - Abbey and Smile, and am currently about to go after Barclays too. The banks know that this practice is of dubious legality, and will continue to make these charges all the time that they can get away with it.

I suggest that the Co-op (who incidently own Smile) have seen the obscene amounts of cash that the other banks are squeezing from the poor and want their slice of it before the OFT rule that these charges are 'properly illegal'.

I have written to the OFT and they agree with my legal analysis, and are counting these types of charges as the same as the credit card charges that they are currently investigating.

I have written to the Treasury Select Commitee (via M. Howard), and they are watching any legal proceedings with interest - which is probably why, no bank will ever let themselves be taken to court for these types of charges - they always give in just before the court date is set (or in Barclays case, just after!).

You're probably right. I really do think that the writing is on the wall for these charges, and that is why both Abbey and Halifax have put theirs up and the reason behind Co-op introducing them on their accounts.

However, the OFT have let the deadline that they gave the OFT slip - the reason I think (and this is only my opinion), is that the Govt. are in a bit of a quandry after having put so much effort into getting peoples benefits paid directly to banks (maybe a more sinister reason for this than I first imagined) - the premise being that banking is free in this country.

If the OFT stop all the charges on poor peoples accounts, then this premise no longer stands up, as banks will recover this cash in other ways - perhaps an annual fee for banking like the old days.

With this in mind, I believe that the govt. has put pressure on the OFT to keep it under a pile of papers in a filing cabinet until they work out what to do about it.

I also believe that anyone, and I mean anyone, who gets these charges from any bank, should sue them - it's cheap, easy and risk free (if the amount is less than 5k) - this would make their abuse unworkable.

It doesn't matter how much I thought about it - it still didn't stop my employer not paying on-time or the correct amounts.

Plus, even though I've tried. I just can't find an intant savings account that pays 8% (as allowed by the County Courts Act when you claim your money back :-)) Inadvertantly, the banks have given us a nice easy access savings account.

dchurch24 wrote:

I suggest that the Co-op (who incidently own Smile) have seen the obscene amounts of cash that the other banks are squeezing from the poor and want their slice of it before the OFT rule that these charges are 'properly illegal'.

As the co-op doesn't have any shareholders and any profits are ploughed back into the organisation I fail to see how this charge against them sticks.

What would you prefer? That banks subsidise basic bank accounts as some sort of charity? That rather than processing payment and charging that the bank simply refused withdrawl from the account until the benefits catch up with the overdraft, potentially denying the customer access to money for essentials such as the electricity meter or food bill?

The charges are too high and should not include a penalty element, but the idea of not paying and expecting other customers to pick up the bill is unfair too.

I hope technology catches up and that a true electronic wallet, perhaps incorporated into a mobile phone is the way to go.

I don't see why someone who doesn't qualify for a full bank account should be denied access to direct debits and forced to use expensive payment methods. Nor should they expect to commit to payments they don't have funds for and expect there to be no comeback.

R.