Banks Threaten ATM Charges

Viper_7

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.

The money flows the other way as well, both Acquirer fees and issuer fees.
More ATM's you have you're going to acquire more, but without issuers no-one is going to use your atm's making them expensive to run.
Under the rules, they cannot surcharge anymore, following the charging that was present in the early days. It was set up to allow banks customers to shares each others facilities and so reduce costs for everyone and provide a better service to the customer. Charging would really just be profiteering.

97trophy

EarthBoy wrote: »

Oh no they didn't! Not always.

The RBS group history page states:.....1974 ......So they certainly didn't offer free banking before 1974

OK...my memory does not go back to the early 70s. but the result is the same, free banking is not new. Unless you consider 35 years as recent.

97trophy

EarthBoy wrote: »

And not forgetting that before 1971 the government charged stamp duty on all cheques. It was 2d, (two old pence). So nobody could possibly have had free banking then.

Disagree.

a stamp duty of 2p was introduced on every cheque not written out to the bearer which wasn't lifted until 1971

source

simon_templar_2

Tesco are useless mate, who pays £1million for 6 push bikes???

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091125/tuk-tesco-in-1m-cycles-payment-blunder-6323e80.html

Extant

97trophy wrote: »

Disagree.

source

Irrelevant - the bank paid the duty for you, and then printed it on the chequebook before it was given to you. In turn, they levied a charge for each cheque or chequebook.

never-in-doubt

Well it looks like they will be charging us after all - lol..... Can't wait to see the holier-than-thou's faces then! classic!

Consumer_Action_Group wrote:

NEW ROUTE FOR CHARGES CLAIMS

After further consideration of today's judgement, we consider that the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated if the cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges.

Over the next couple of days new templates will be drawn up, but the most important thing is that claims are not allowed to be closed.

Extant

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Well it looks like they will be charging us after all - lol..... Can't wait to see the holier-than-thou's faces then! classic!

I think all the "holier-than-thous" knew that this wasn't the end, they were just expressing that they believed it to be the correct result? :huh:

And yes, there's a new route, but it still remains to be tested in court, or if the OFT will pursue it. If they do pursue it, then the banks, FSA, etc. will be well prepared to deal with it this time - and tackle the issue head on. That could well mean a waiver being put in place post-haste, meaning that nobody would "get in the door" as they did last time. Banks would let it go straight to the courts.

never-in-doubt

Extant wrote: »

I think all the "holier-than-thous" knew that this wasn't the end, they were just expressing that they believed it to be the correct result? :huh:

And yes, there's a new route, but it still remains to be tested in court, or if the OFT will pursue it. If they do pursue it, then the banks, FSA, etc. will be well prepared to deal with it this time - and tackle the issue head on. That could well mean a waiver being put in place post-haste, meaning that nobody would "get in the door" as they did last time. Banks would let it go straight to the courts.

No, you miss my point! Regs 5 & 8 are for us (the consumer) to reclaim charges - the courts will accept it thus their blatant hint to the OFT earlier :D

oxenryd

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yea but mate, thats only cos you're a snob and these firms are below you :rotfl::rotfl:

My weekly visit to Tesco is a family day out -

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Can I have a poundland current account please?

System

oxenryd wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Can I have a poundland current account please?

Everything would cost just £1
:rotfl: