Banks Threaten ATM Charges

EarthBoy

Lokolo wrote: »

... But banks are not going to charge for each individual thing if they do, ....

Why not? They used to until about 25 years ago. All the big banks used to charge. It was so much per cheque, standing order and direct debit etc. They did have free banking, but you only qualified for it if you kept a minimum of £50 in your account at all times. If your balance dropped below that, even for one day, then you were hit with the charges. £50 is nothing now, but 25 years ago it was quite a lot.

When ATM sharing first started you often had to pay to use another bank's ATM.

In the history of banking, free banking is still a relatively new concept.

simon_templar_2

At last, Earthboy, a person with a proper point of view!! Many thanks!

Viper_7

stclair wrote: »

Personally I think it would be a really bad move if the banks did try and enforce these rumoured new charges.

I would not let any bank charge me for withdrawing my own money. I kills me to pay the £1.75 charge at the moneybox machines dotted in shops and pubs etc I think it totally disgusting.

so should they not charge? Who pays for the ATM's? Who pays to fill them up with cash? Who pays for the security? the maintenance? The staff?

It's a business... if you want, buy an ATM of your own and connect it to the network.

dzug1

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I think you'll see the likes of Tesco & Virgin flourish when the banks do this - it wouldn't be a bad thing if the banks just went away to be honest, i'd prefer to see Tesco/Virgin banks as opposed to the usual brands that have proven for years, they cannot run a business properly

But Tesco and Virgin don't want to get into the retail banking business so that they can make profits from running current accounts - they are not there to be made, particularly if (as seems likely with increasing regulation) they can't charge more than the 'costs' of running them to the customer.

They want them so that they can cross sell their other products - insurance, investments, phones, loans - to a wider range of customers. Just like the normal banks.

They will be subject to the same pressures, and may or may not perform slightly better - or slightly worse.

simon_templar_2

Someone on here once said that banks should stick to banking so i think supermarkets should stick to supermarketing (and killing off local shops).

Viper_7

Stick to one line of business and it won't be long until you fail and are gobbled up by those who diversify.

oxenryd

I'm not sure about TescoBank either. I mean a customer getting a £35 charge for, let's say, a bounced cheque could then decide he wants nothing to do with them ever again, meaning they have lost a lifetime of that customer's shopping

fischer79

If banks charged for ATM fees it would most likley start with customers using other banks atms.
Under the Link system every barclays customer who uses a natwest ATM means barclays has to pay natwest a fee (between 30-50p). So if I was Barclays I would say if you use our ATMS then no fee but use another banks and you have to pay.

stclair

fischer79 wrote: »

If banks charged for ATM fees it would most likley start with customers using other banks atms.
Under the Link system every barclays customer who uses a natwest ATM means barclays has to pay natwest a fee (between 30-50p). So if I was Barclays I would say if you use our ATMS then no fee but use another banks and you have to pay.

Yes i think it could possibly go back to the days of LINK withdrawls. You have to pay for using another banks machine. I guess it could possibly be coming back to haunt us...

I think the thought of being charged for ATM withdrawls is ludicrous. They start charging us for POS declines before we know it like they do in america lol

97trophy

EarthBoy wrote: »

In the history of banking, free banking is still a relatively new concept.

Not entirely true.

Girobank & RBS always offered free banking. Then Midland joined their ranks in 1984.

I had free banking from RBS in 1983 - I remember it well.