End of free banking

Inactive

It doesn't have to be a " cheapskate " one, just one .. any one that doesn't charge is going to clean up, possibly Nationwide.;)

Why volunteer to pay for something that is currently free, seems crazy to me.

PROLIANT

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Full stop?

Employers will pay you by BACS into *any* account capable of receiving such payments. Some examples being...

Building society savings accounts
Post Office Card account
Offset mortgage savings account

In fact, any account with a 6-digit sort code and 8-digit account number (plus 'reference' where applicable).

Granted, you may lose the features you currently enjoy with your bank, but that may be the price you pay (instead of £5/10 per month) for having a less than perfect credit file.

For those with a reasonable credit history, full feature free banking will always (at least in the foreseeable future) be available IMHO.

Agreed, but who will be willing to ditch their Visa debit and overdraft for a 20 min queue in their local Post Office?

PROLIANT

Inactive wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a " cheapskate " one, just one .. any one that doesn't charge is going to clean up, possibly Nationwide.;)

Why volunteer to pay for something that is currently free, seems crazy to me.

The charge will be levied in one way or an other, directly or in-directly.

tuggy12

I would be more than happy to pay a monthly fee as long as the bank pays at least base rate on my current account balance.

Scousebird_2

Lokolo wrote: »

Indeed but with the amount of banks, theres always going to be a cheapskate one.... theres Primark for clothes, Iceland for food, Wilko for general stuff...

There is-it's called the Post Office-lol!!!!

MrsTinks

PROLIANT wrote: »

Agreed, but who will be willing to ditch their Visa debit and overdraft for a 20 min queue in their local Post Office?

Ehhh me... Especially as it would actually get some of our postoffices re-opened and maybe it would make people generally more careful of their money
Ultimately you pay for convenience - if you don't want to go to your post office then you can pay (whatever the fee will be) and have a visa etc account. Right now everyone still pays for it - but indirectly so you don't tend to notice. Most current accounts don't pay you intrest if you're in credit for example. As I am always in credit I loose out on several pound of intrest payments on my money (until I move it to my savings account) where again I get a poor savings rate because I use my bank. So actually they are already making money off me despite me not getting silly bank charges. Yes I could shop round but I like convenience at the moment - if they were going to charge me on TOP of the poor rates then I would reassess and probably move to a "free" account elsewhere - even if as you say I'd have to stand in a queue for 20 mins at the post office

Inactive

PROLIANT wrote: »

The charge will be levied in one way or an other, directly or in-directly.

Oh you know this?... I somehow doubt that it will happen.

gt94sss2

Inactive wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a " cheapskate " one, just one .. any one that doesn't charge is going to clean up, possibly Nationwide.;)

Nationwide are actually one of those who want to introduce charges - partly as they have so many customers who only have current accounts for overseas use!

More generally, some banks - HSBC comes to mind - have said that regardless of the result of the court case, they intend to continue to provide a 'free' current account option. Having said this, I imagine it might be something like a basic bank account with no cheque book or paper statements and limits on the number of direct debits/standing orders or other transactions per month..

Regards
Sunil

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Good post

I think that the argument that those paying for the accounts would be subsidising is somewhat misguided - it assumes that the £40 is a legitimate and fair reaction to someone going 50p over an agreed limit - yes, people are responsible for managing their own finances, but the banks are behaving very very badly in how they apply penalties and are preying on the poorest (and possibly least financially literate) account holders as easy targets to boost their massive profits.

I used to be in that position, miscalculated a few payments and ended up with £100s of pounds worth of charges, it's terrifying how quickly they spiral. I am fortunate enough that I am now in a position where I am no longer at risk of getting charged, partly through educating myself and taking responsibility, but also mainly down to being fortunate enough to have got a new job with a much better wage. I am aware that a little bit less luck, and I could still have been in a sticky situation.

While I am now (hopefully!!) unlikely to be a victim of excessive charges again, I would still 100% say yes to a £5-10 monthly charge for my bank account, if the alternative is that those who are vulnerable, naive, on low incomes and desperate get screwed to the wall by the bully boy banks.

Not everyone who gets charged is in that position because they are out spending willy-nilly on frivolous things. Some people are in that position through genuine hardship. And even those that aren't, the banks should deal with them in a fair and measured way, but not use them as a cash cow. It's immoral.

*me stepping off my soap-box...ithankyou!*

Inactive

Well they obviously ain't in a hurry, that article is over 2 years old.;)