Savers to pay for Accounts !!!

LesU

chopperharris wrote: »

Cmon , banks elsewhere in the world charge for banking , it is a service remember.

Direct debits , atms , pos debits , they all cost money.

Honouring overdrafts/overspends costs them money , mse champions that its wrong to do it , then people start to claim back money they were charged OVER YEARS of not watching their own money in the first place.

And we then expect them not to charge for a banking service?

In a lot of countries the banks do charge. They also don't allow unauthorised overdrafts. In some countries it is illegal. I don't have a problem with that, but I'll bet it will strike fear into the hearts of some people, if it comes about.
The big problem with banks charging is, how much is it worth? We have no background to paying for these sort of services. It is a bit like the mobile phone companies. How much does a phone call from abroad really cost?
Will we end up with a Ryanair style of charging, where every minutia of the service is broken down into a small charge or will we pay one lump sum up front?
Will the on-line banks clean up, if they don't have the overheads of the High Street banks? I've only had on-line accounts for many years, but this year, unfortunately, I've been forced to deal with and visit a few real banks (Icesave casualty!). I really wouldn't voluntarily deal with most of them unless cash was flowing my way!
Perhaps they will become more competent and friendly if you are perceived as a paying customer. Who knows?

Blah99

adambro wrote: »

It doesn't matter though whether Joe's cash is actually loaned out to someone else or not. The fact is that the banks are only able to lend out "vapour money" if they have sufficient deposits to access that money. So whether or not our money is being lent out, us leaving the money in the care of a particular bank is enabling them to lend out more money, even if it isn't actually ours. The banks are therefore profiting from our money and we are risking it by depositing it with them so it makes complete sense that we should be rewarded for helping them make a profit.

You are. It's called "interest". Interestingly, if you've got £20k on deposit with RBS or Barclays or any other major, I'd like to know what you quantify your risk as.

The simple fact is that it costs a bank far more to service your current account than they make off the proportion of your couple of grand that makes up their reserve ratio. Every transaction you make, every withdrawal you make, every direct debit you service, every cashier you harass - it all adds up to cost for the bank. A bank's online banking service alone costs it millions upon millions per year to run, yet you get it for free. Why? Not only is it convenient, it also reduces the burden on branches, which cost even more to run.

I'm on a losing battle here so I'll just give up. You pay for CHAPS, you pay an arrangement fee for your mortgage, you pay a margin interest on a loan, you pay a markup on stuff you buy in a shop, you pay for every other service you receive or product you buy, yet people still think they have a "right" to free banking.

chopperharris

LesU wrote: »

In a lot of countries the banks do charge. They also don't allow unauthorised overdrafts. In some countries it is illegal. I don't have a problem with that, but I'll bet it will strike fear into the hearts of some people, if it comes about.

The big problem with banks charging is, how much is it worth? We have no background to paying for these sort of services. It is a bit like the mobile phone companies. How much does a phone call from abroad really cost?
Will we end up with a Ryanair style of charging, where every minutia of the service is broken down into a small charge or will we pay one lump sum up front?

Will the on-line banks clean up, if they don't have the overheads of the High Street banks? I've only had on-line accounts for many years, but this year, unfortunately, I've been forced to deal with and visit a few real banks (Icesave casualty!). I really wouldn't voluntarily deal with most of them unless cash was flowing my way!
Perhaps they will become more competent and friendly if you are perceived as a paying customer. Who knows?

The thing about the "charges for unauthourised overdrafts" is that they were honouring money that the person didnt have but still spent , ie replaced with the banks money to pay their void .If it wasnt paid to the third party then they would not have had that debit , ie a cheque or direct debit , "cleared".....resulting in a bad credit rating for them , loss of services including voided car insurance , or ccj from that creditor.

The whitewash that the banks are out of order for charging people when they were in the wrong is a joke.If I spend more than I have of my own money in an account then its CALLED unauthorised credit....not an unautorised overdraft.

These charges are nearly always justified.If I spend my wages then dont have enough money in the bank to cover direct debits etc then it is my own fault if I am fined , not the banks for actually doing me a favour by paying them.

If the person has a history of years of this happening regularly , and not stictly a one of or a bank fault , then they have entered knowingly into the practice of being charged for a service even sans contact , its called an accepted agreement.There is arguably a legal contract and easilly broken by taking your business elsewhere or preventing the charges from happening by either party ..... The legal generalisation IMO is if you have the choice to prevent something , and yet choose not to , then the fault is only your own , if the banks had chosen not to honour the customers debt then the customer would have actually been worse off for it.

If you dont like a business then you dont use its products , you dont sit for YEARS accepting it unless theres a benefit to you to do so.

The mobile phone calls charges/abroad that you mention , there is always other options/providers.A buyer will only pay what they have as a value for any item ... if that value is more than they are willing to pay they simply dont use or buy it.The choice is on the customer as to whether to be one , and that is what a bank user is .... the customer.

Mobiles are a perfect example of service v's charges , good that you brought it up.A payg is enough for everyone , payphones abroad are cheaper but not more convienent as is a local sim.If you only use it when you need it you do actually pay less , or nothing at all too ..... a bit like a banks overdraft really.

As for how much it costs for the bank charge , take cost then add profit , its their money that was used remember.As for what is acceptable for profit margins well the consumer will only pay what they are willing to , or choose not to use the service or product again.

We will all end up paying money to have what was once a "handy" yet emergency service.We will be charged for everything ... online banking , direct debits , debits using a card in a shop and even for actually holding an account.AND WHY, because those that cant keep a buffer are ending up making money at the banks/our expense for their mistakes....sums up the UK these days , "its not my fault" when it clearly is.

Heres a loophole for the banks , DIRECT DEBITS , in most of these cases people overextended and never had enough money (in credit) to pay their debt and thats where the charges resulted.In that by having a d/d set up they entered into a contract to pay that debt (all three parties) , if they did not have sufficent funds to honour them the bank summarilly paid it for them as a service.The legal matter of debt retrieval by the creditor of this amount would have cost the account holder more than the charge itself....they really should be thanking them , nothing else.

While I commend MSE and martin on just about everything , this as you can see IMO has been used to make money for deliberate serial defaulters , and not save them money , laughingly its for those that obviously shouldnt be in control of any money at all.

My wandering point is that if they had actually been moneysavinexperts then they would not have had any charges to claim back in the first place.

I have had one bank charge in over 30 years , and my fault.I think credit is for a need not a want....and if my bank protected my credit rating but charged me to do it then I am happy with that.When I need something on credit and my rating is all the better for them giving me this service then I am thankfull.

thanks

ahai1

I totally agree with you that banks should charge all those people who cannot manage their accounts and they should pay up. I also don't agree with Martin on the bank charges as Martin I think is more interested in getting people money and less on the consequences or how people got into that suitation in the first place.

As for banks they make money everytime you use your debit card. I have read that HSBC charges 25p plus rent and one off payment for card readers to the merchants. They also charge something like 2% of the price of any credit card payment. I am sure there are other charges to businesses. Also the current account is used as a loss leader.

Also to be fair the banks pay everytime you use an ATM machine.

Think about how many times you use your debit card?

BTW Does anyone know about any other charges?

MM46

As I see it banks have made huge profits out of our money for years. They did not charge us but paid very low rates on a lot of accounts. They got greedy and rewarded risk taking (again with our money) and ended up being bailed out by the tax payer. Now interest rates have gone to an all time low there is talk of them charging us. My concern is that once the credit crunch is over they will have got us used to paying bank charges and will not remove the charges.

CCFC_80

So then, I will have to pay banks for giving them my money which they will loan to other people who will then pay back the bank that money plus interest from the money I gave them in the first instance.Plus the fact with interest rates at virtually 0% they will not give me anything back.Sorry am I missing something here ?

Blah99

andy46 wrote: »

So then, I will have to pay banks for giving them my money which they will loan to other people who will then pay back the bank that money plus interest from the money I gave them in the first instance.Plus the fact with interest rates at virtually 0% they will not give me anything back.Sorry am I missing something here ?

Yes. Yes, you are.

JimLad

If banks charged for people to store there money i would just withdraw it all and keep it under my bed

Blah99

JimLad wrote: »

If banks charged for people to store there money i would just withdraw it all and keep it under my bed

Interesting. If you had £50,000 kept under your bed, would you think about installing a burglar alarm monitoring system like that ADT thing that connects to their call center when a young chav breaks in to your house?

Nomad25

So then, I will have to pay banks for giving them my money which they will loan to other people who will then pay back the bank that money plus interest from the money I gave them in the first instance.Plus the fact with interest rates at virtually 0% they will not give me anything back.Sorry am I missing something here ?

Yeah my sentiments exactly.