"Ending free bank accounts 'fair'"

It is certainly true that if you manage your account properly you can avoid charges - but only someone who has never 'been there' would say that! The problem many people face is that a fairly minor slip can lead you into a bank charges spiral that it is sometimes very, very hard to get out of. And it doesn't get away from the fact that currently people who get hit by account charges are, without a doubt, subsidising the running of the overall product range. And if you don't have enough money to pay your bills it is not a good situation to be in.

A delinquent account clearly costs more to administer than a properly managed one but the charges the banks apply should only reflect the additional costs they incur - currently such customers are seen as cash cows to be kicked when they are down. There is a big difference between what is right and fair, and what the banks are doing now.

And finally, to take the suggestions made here by some to their logical conclusion - we all run our accounts totally within the terms with not a single slip, not a single bank charge and not a single penny over our overdraft limits. What happens then?

mikael wrote:

Judging by the record profits forecast for the UK banks, it does not seem like it costs them very much to run accounts, otherwise their profits would be far lower. It is just another way to justify taking even more money for looking after money.

There sseems to be a misunderstnading: banks do not generate all theiir profits from customer acounts, I think you'll find

Allthes other things as shown in the linkk contribute to Group profits, and all the othe major players are similar.:beer:

Banks make money from having use of our money, by charging interest etc. I have no objection to banks making a profit, but they are greedy. If you get charged unfairly, challenge them! My father was, to be polite, cantankerous, and if he ever got bank charges he phoned them up and complained until they backed down. He never ever paid bank charges, it just takes a bit of effort.

I'm going back a bit before free banking was the norm, so I don't think he did deserve to be charged (it not being due to being overdrawn or mismanaging his account). He didn't 'have a right go', he never swore, he was never abusive, he wore them down. I work for a government department, and believe me I hear far worse on a daily basis - and I'm fairly sure I don't deserve it, I accept the majority of it as part of my job as I am the person representing the institution that is the problem. If anyone is out of order I deal with it. However if you are polite but reasoned and won't go away, I guess in the end it can be more productive for a bank to back down, especially as most of the charges are indefensible in the first place (why do you think they back down?). Anyway, this was back in the day when you - gasp - phoned your branch and spoke to someone who handled your account. So no, in that respect my Dad wasn't out of order - me now, I'm a right cow when I get going... But I don't get personal when it's just someone's job rather than someone's fault. I don't advocate being rude, just that persistance can sometimes pay off.

I can see that cantankerous may have been the wrong word and given the wrong impression. I would never suggest that being unleasant was the right way of doing things. Perhaps I should have said 'pig-headed'.

so it was employers fault