The future of banking on the back of reclaiming Discussion Area

Mikeyorks

mountainofdebt wrote:

One other interesting point - banks currently charge about £30 for express clearance of a cheque - I was told once that what this actually means is that instead of the cheque being sent to the issuing bank by 2nd class post, it's sent by1st class post....hardly worth £30 me thinks.

You can't expedite the clearance of a cheque - so there is no such thing as 'express' clearance.

There is (as previous post, bar one) a 'special presentation' facility - and which is charged at £10 - £12. Whereby your Bank will send the cheque concerned directly to the drawer's Bank - by 1st class post. And they will then advise your Bank whether the cheque will be met - on presentation. But it still has to formally 'clear' - so funds are not available any earlier than had it gone the normal clearing cycle route.

It's normally only used where you are suspicious a cheque will be honoured - and want to take early action if it won't be.

foreveryoung_3

This seems to be a good alternative to a bank account, its called the Titanium cashplus Mastercard. there is no credit check, you dont need a bank account, you can have your wages paid into it. and you can use it the same as a Mastercard where ever you see the Mastercard logo worldwide, shop on-line, pay bills over phone, top them up at the post office as they are part of the scheme, use in cashpoint machines, shops pay for taxis, no need to carry dosh around. all for 5.00 a month, we only have bank accounts to try and make life easier, when in fact it has become so complicated and underhanded. Most people take it for granted that everyone can read and write, or comprehend the small print. Our laws keep changing, our money keeps changing, our weights and measurs, our morals are being forced aside, causing TOTAL

Andy_L

This seems to be a good alternative to a bank account, its called the Titanium cashplus Mastercard.

Looks like a bank account, walks like a bank account, quacks like a bank account. :rolleyes:

So in exchange for £5/mth, £10 card issue, £2 atm transaction fee & no interest & no direct debits I avoid a credit search - that'll be those sub-prime customers getting shafted again.

Andy

lynzpower

MPH80 wrote:

You might have no desire - but the marketing clearly works or they wouldn't do it. If you want to opt out of receiving it - you can under the DPA.

Once more - you can opt out if you really feel so strongly about it - but it clearly works - any business will have built these items into their cost. So if they DO do either of the above, they won't just reduce they're costs - they'll actually reduce their profit more.

So they have to pay more to the same number of people in the UK ... further reducing profit ...

Never had a problem with any online bank website. Even A&L's security upgrade went fine for me. However, I agree - even more facilities online would save them cash in the long run.

Once again - it clearly works otherwise they wouldn't do it!!

All you've suggested is further ways for the banks to reduce their profits and thus increase the amount they'll have to charge customers day-to-day.

M.

Not strictly so, as my bank have chosen to waste thier resources by targeting me, along with plenty of others that dont require thier services. Im not saying stop promoting stuff all together, but by ensuring that they are not wasting resources, means that their profit margin is higher. This week alone Ive spent well over 2 hours on the phone trying to sort out very basic problems, some of which could easily have been dealt with online should they have the facilities to do so. Which they didnt.

What galls me about this whole cost cutting excecise of my call being automatically routed to india isnt from a "keep jobs in the UK" stance at all, good luck to those in Kolkatta or wherever they are, but the system if you can call it that just doesnt work. In order for me to make a payment to my CC this week, I spoke to India, who then held me on the phone while they spoke to some bod in wales, ( i could hear but not contribute to the call) india rep got wrong end of the stick, so the conversation was pointless, wales advised them to do something ( which was correct, but based on wrong information) then india spoke to me, I reitereated what I wanted to do, they then called wales again, wales told them what to do ( correctly) then the indian representative ballsed it up and said they didnt understand what I wanted, so got put through to wales my self where I told them, then they put me through to another dept in wales.

If the INdia branch of ops cant undertake BASIC transactions like managing credit card payments, then what on earth is the point in having them ?

INcidentally my mother works for a very large co and she was lumbered with overseeing some admin processing arm of ops in India, along with part of the call centre. She knew from the off it wasnt going to work as the targets they have for processing paper is 3 days, so mail opened in the UK,*day1* batch dispatched to india *day 1* ( taking at least 4 days to be opened and piled up for processing) immiediately putting the consumers needs after profit margin. the whole episode has failed and now my mum has to oversee bringing the operations back inhouse, less than 2 years later. The amount they have had to cough up for redundancy payments in the UK, she said is massive.

Sorry to ramble off-topic here, but the point remains. If it aint broke...

student100

Offshoring is basically a waste of time from everyone's point of view. It's not in the best interests of the customer and sooner or later people will start voting with their feet (or wallet) as to where they will shop. It's also a negligble saving to the company because of all the initial set up costs, security, language & knowledge barriers (try buying train tickets from small town X to big city Y from someone who knows nothing of UK geography or the pronunciations of place names) and extra time taken in trying to get the message across. Also clearing up the mess when things go wrong.

Sooner or later companies will realise this and be bringing the jobs back to the UK again...(some have already started doing it)

moneyandmountains

Rafter wrote:

So how could banks recover their lost £1 billion in fee income?

Introduces charges for cheque payments or current accounts?
Reduce interest rates on savings?
Increase interest rates on loans?

There is a major issue in the transparency of charging by UK banks. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If you compare the banking sector compared to regulated investments through IFAs, one of the differences is in the understanding of the true cost of the service. Whilst this allows some flexibility on how the product is marketed, it makes it difficult for the consumer to differentiate on a cost basis.

Personally I would like to be incentivised to operate my account efficiently for my bank.

So higher rates of interest are available to those people who pay in £500+ pcm.

humfer

I can see the long term closing of more and more branches as lets face it with internet and telephone banking the need for using branches in becoming less and less. I only use my branch nowadays which isn't very often to pay in cheques which themselves are becoming more and more rare. Prehaps some of the banks will start collaborating and run combined branches/centres where various customers can use them

foreveryoung_3

In our Laws the Banks are using daylight robbery, they are thieves, taking money from people who are obviously in a financialy difficult situation, as they obviously have no money.
The trust has now gone towards the banks and credit card companies.
Once people become aware of all the alternative ways of using money and making transactions without using a major bank, the banks will put up all thier inertrest rates, so thoes of you who were spending within your means will no longer be able to, as the banks will be taking more of your money to cover the loss of stealing money from the poor.
I am querying the charges I may have to pay if I no longer pay by direct debit, as that should be illegal, to be made to pay more for a product because I wont pay by direct debit. Does anyone know the law on this one?
So far I have stopped paying by direct debit for a couple of things and now will ring them up monthly and pay using a card, I explained why I no longer wanted to use direct debit because of the illegal charges being applied if things go wrong, so far I've had no problems or been told i'd have to pay any extra.
Also lots of outlets are refusing cheque payments now.

Chrysalis

gt94sss2 wrote:

I'm not saying this would happen but some ways I could think of:

a) Scrap Basic Bank Accounts (i.e. I assume they are loss making)
b) Introduce charges for current accounts and credit cards
c) Introduce charges for cash withdrawals and issuing cheques (or even for giving you a cheque book)
d) Smaller overdrafts and credit limits with a monthly "service" fee if you want any overdraft facility at all.
e) make credit cards more like chargecards and insist that all balances are paid off within 1 or 3 months of the transaction date - no more carrying balances on cards for years
f) charge per direct debit, BACS or debit card transaction
g) scrap 0% credit card offers (or low % for life deals) and cashback cards
h) stop paying interest on current accounts. Lower interest on savings accounts and a higher interest rate on loans.
i) make it a lot harder for customers to open new accounts (wanting letters of recommendation etc - as they used to want to do)

Now I am not saying that all or any of these are going to happen but those are just the ones that come to mind - almost without thinking... and I believe all of them (apart from "a" perhaps) currently exist in some other Western countries or used to exist here.

Regards
Sunil

Regarding A, its supposed to be a fundamental right to be able to open a bank account if basic accounts are scrapped will they give out current accounts with the same ease?
Regarding B, in principle I agree but their is potential flaws here that the charge needs to be very nominal or we are going to financially exclude many low income people and benefit claimants.
Regarding C, for same reason as B this needs to be done fairly so % of total withdrawal rather then fixed fee as poorer people are likely to make small withdrawals more often rather then £200+ withdrawals.
Regarding D, most overdraft facilities have a charge anyway I see no problem with the current system, why reduce overdraft limits?
Regarding E, no problem with this.
Regarding F, again % of charge and make sure nominal.
Regarding G, this should have been done a while ago fully agree.
Regarding H, agree, people with anything worth earning interest on dont use current accounts anyway.
Regarding I, strongly disagree I think its already too hard to open a bank account it actually should be made easier, no photoid needed eg. and give people a chance, if they high risk start them off with limits.

Chrysalis

ejones999 wrote:

I have a vested interest as I work in a bank.
Some of the points posted by above posters are very valid but if the government get really tough with the banks then I see the following scenarios
1 Banks will get rid of 'basic' bank accounts as they produce no income and cost to run.
2 They will introduce fees for things like current accounts, extra statements, cheque books etc etc as they do in France.
3 A lot of people who have bank accounts now due to the existance of basic acounts will be disenfranchised - how will they get paid their benefits, pensions etc etc?
4 My last point is this - why should I who follow the terms and conditions of an account have to pay for some of the above because some people won't follow the t&c? If they get away with it now it will be anarchy and IMO it is only right that where a bank has refunded in full charges for last 6 years they have the right to give that customer 30 days notice to find another bank!
If they can't because of poor financial records then tough!

I guess you all for social divides then.

I dont think penalty charges should be scrapped they just need to stop be !!!!!! taking, cover the bank's costs and perhaps a small profit on top but not a 1000% markup.