MSE News: Reaction to Halifax's changes

YorkshireBoy

stugib wrote: »

...have a savings account and two current accounts...withdraw the cash to a zero balance almost immediately...anything else we buy we just use £200-£500 of the overdraft...I could of course just put more in so we don't use the overdraft...I'm not being inconvenienced

So you have savings paying what? 5% max if you're lucky, and possibly as little as 3%? And you're happy to leave that where it is and borrow at 15.9-19.9%, ie up to 6 or 7 times your savings rate?

If that's your idea of money saving you're on the wrong site!

Maybe they will miss you, and your kind, after all.

stugib

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

So you have savings paying what? 5% max if you're lucky, and possibly as little as 3%? And you're happy to leave that where it is and borrow at 15.9-19.9%, ie up to 6 or 7 times your savings rate?

As I've already said it costs me about 50p a month to work my accounts this way now. From December it'll be
40 times that. I couldn't care less about the relative interest rates. The bottom line is the amounts involved are minimal to me given the current system. Halifax will no longer work for me. No big deal, I'll just move to somewhere that does.

tomasfoley

The threads full of forum trolls, "ex bankers" who enjoy coming on here trying to justify huge hikes in bank charges.

They will sting you with talk of off-setting, winners and losers, cost neutral. And then go on to say its all a result of consumers campaigning about bank charges, that in some way the banks hand was forced into our pockets.

I have to say It wasnt what I expected for a forum, but then again it is refreshing to realise the attitude of banks is much more than simply systematic on a corporate level, but that the staff charged with these changes actually are able to find great justification.

Its is said you say something enough times you begin to believe its true and when enough people start spilling the same old BS, we all sit comfortably in the knowledge right or wrong we are collectively irresponsible.

I could debate all day long and I probably will, but ultimately when forums get trolls and these forums have banking trolls who parade themselves as helpful advisor's to us all, but really they are there for the banks and enjoy arguing from indefensible stand points.

the fact always remains you cannot hike a customers authorised (thats right as in we have not broken our agreement to borrow) overdraft anything from 1000-3000% per month and justify it.

Inactive

tomasfoley wrote: »

The threads full of forum trolls, "ex bankers" who enjoy coming on here trying to justify huge hikes in bank charges.

They will sting you with talk of off-setting, winners and losers, cost neutral. And then go on to say its all a result of consumers campaigning about bank charges, that in some way the banks hand was forced into our pockets.
.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bit ( a ) I am not a troll, and ( b ) I have no connection with any part of the banking industry.

To accuse other posters that do not concur with your view as being " trolls " is a pathetic attempt to devalue their input.

The bottom line is, if you are not happy with what Halifax are doing, either pay off your overdraft or move your banking elsewhere.

Perhaps it would be better if all UK banks ceased issuing overdrafts, that way people would perhaps realise that they need to live within their means.

I value my free banking, if Halifax and others need to make changes to protect that, then good for them is all I can say.

opinions4u

tomasfoley wrote: »

The threads full of forum trolls, "ex bankers" who enjoy coming on here trying to justify huge hikes in bank charges.

You need to check out the definition of "troll".

A troll is not somebody who offers an alternative opinion to yourself.

A troll is not somebody who explains their background clearly and honestly.

A troll will rarely post nearly 4,000 times on a forum.

They will sting you with talk of off-setting, winners and losers, cost neutral. And then go on to say its all a result of consumers campaigning about bank charges, that in some way the banks hand was forced into our pockets.

The new overdraft fees can be offset in full or part by the £5 Reward payment.

There are winners and losers under the new structure and I have highlighted this in many of my posts.

The originial proposal was intended to be cost neutral.

The concept was dreamed up as a pro-active and direct response to the OFT.

You may believe your point of view to be true as well. Some of your comment from a socio-economic point of view has merit. I also think some of your comments border on naivity and paranoia.

I have to say It wasnt what I expected for a forum, but then again it is refreshing to realise the attitude of banks is much more than simply systematic on a corporate level, but that the staff charged with these changes actually are able to find great justification.

If you are unable to accept that a company providing products and services to customers will seek to make a return on that, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The new charging structure is nothing to do with me. Why do you imply that in some way it is?

Its is said you say something enough times you begin to believe its true and when enough people start spilling the same old BS, we all sit comfortably in the knowledge right or wrong we are collectively irresponsible.

The same could be said for yourself, perhaps. It is not wrong for somebody to believe something.

I could debate all day long and I probably will, but ultimately when forums get trolls and these forums have banking trolls who parade themselves as helpful advisor's to us all, but really they are there for the banks and enjoy arguing from indefensible stand points.

Would you support a one party state?

Look, products and services have to be paid for. Companies need to make a return from offering them or there is little point in making them available.

You have been asked to offer up alternative charging strategies that enable this but, as far as I can see, have failed to do so.

What do you believe is the best solution?

- keep the exsiting structure that basically charges large fees for those exceeding their overdraft limiits?

- apply something along the lines of the new Halifax / BOS proposition?

- charge customers for each service they use (e.g. 50p for each direct debit, £5 for the issue of a debit card, £1 each time an ATM is used, 75p for drawing a cheque)?

- applying the First Direct model of charging customers with lower salaries £10 a month?

- charging all customers a flat fee of, say, £7.50 a month?

- some alternative that you can come up with?

So put yourself in charge of the business for a moment. You are going to have to lose a solid stream of income by not charging the £28/£35 fees in future, but you still need to deliver the same level of profit that you were achieiving before and at the same time offer a proposition to customers that will attract them to your bank.

How would you do it?

Grimlyfiendish_2

My wife and I have our current accounts with the Bank of Scotland - I've had mine there for over 30 years - and we are fuming over this. Although I don't use the overdraft facility on my account (a modest £400), hers regularly floats around just under £1000.

I'd like to know if BoS (or Halifax) are prepared to raise the overdraft limit for everyone with these accounts to £2500? Because surely if they don't, those people with a regular overdraft of just under £1000 within a £1000 limit are going to be hit proportionately harder than someone who has a £2500 limit and an overdraft of £2400 - for whom this would seem to be a fairly good deal!

Also, surely once one gets a large overdraft of say £2450, there is less incentive to pay it off is you're effectively being charged the same as you would be if your overdraft was one pence! For them, it would make more sense to leave the overdraft at £2450 paying the circa £30 charges each month, and open a savings account into which you pay money until you have a lump sum of £2450 to pay off the overdraft!

To those people who correctly but rather self-righteously say "don't get an overdraft in the first place", I'd say that in the real world for a lot of people on low incomes, that's easier said than done.

I'm actually rather sad to say this because after over 30 years banking with BoS you build up a relationship with staff (yes, we live in a small town), but I think they've made a bad decision here and we'll both be shifting to another bank.

apt

Grimlyfiendish why move both accounts in a fit of pique, especially as you like your local branch? Yes, it makes sense to get a cheaper overdraft elsewhere if you can. But once you've shifted the overdraft to another bank why not keep the 2 Bank of Scotland accounts as Reward accounts. That way HBOS will be paying you £10 per month to help cover the cost of your overdraft elsewhere.

Grimlyfiendish_2

Apt, perhaps you're assuming we can put £1000 per month into both accounts. Unfortunately at present we couldn't even manage to put £1000 per month into one account.

John28_2

rb10 wrote: »

A few points from the article...



"No, this is incorrect. The Ultimate Reward account currently has an interest-free overdraft of up to £300. This will continue as a fee-free overdraft of up to £300."

You don't mention the £12.50 monthly charge for this account.

YorkshireBoy

Grimlyfiendish wrote: »

Apt, perhaps you're assuming we can put £1000 per month into both accounts. Unfortunately at present we couldn't even manage to put £1000 per month into one account.

Doesn't have to be just the one transaction. Can be £500 in/£500 out/£500 back in again. As long as total credits for the month are at least £1,000 you'll get your free fivers. And the money doesn't even have to leave BoS...simply transfer it over to a BoS savings account and straight back again.

On a more serious note, moving to another provider, at least for your wife, might not secure a matched overdraft facility in order to repay BoS. And if she shifts her banking, specifically monthly credits, BoS may call in the overdraft as it's 'repayable on demand'. Have you considered that as a possible outcome?