Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Smasher

Here is a collection of T&Cs current and pre Sept 2007
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=122

Notice how all the charges sections of the current terms differ from the original terms and have all now changed in exactly the same way.

Premier_2

Chrysalis wrote: »

...Of course modified t&c's on the web and given to 'new' customers have different terms, but my agreement was made in the 1990's not 2010.

My banks always advise me of when any changes are made to the terms and conditions. If you are not getting these, speak with your bank, the royal mail and/or the police.

There is always an option should you no longer wish to accept the revised terms and consitions which are usually provided in advance of them becoming effective.

By continuing to use the services, you are deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions.

Smasher

Yes, I received notice of the revised terms. My gripe is, I was given no option nut to accept them or go elsewhere. Given that every other bank had done the exact same thing at the same time, my choice was to accept HSBC's enforced new services or accept someone else's. Either that or ask my employer to pay me in cash, which they would absolutely not do.

Banks know that most of us face the same lack of options ,that's how they can get away with it. They are the only industry able to do this. For any other type of service, you can simply go elsewhere or just stop using that service.

Premier_2

Smasher wrote: »

Yes, I received notice of the revised terms. My gripe is, I was given no option nut to accept them or go elsewhere. ....

That is exactly the option.

I'd be really surprised if you found 2 competing banks/financial institutions using identical terms & conditions/tariff of charges.

You can't force a company to supply you something they don't want to forever and a day.
Any ongoing contract must have get out clauses (perhaps with some notice) that either side can invoke.

My mother has a building society account that does not incur any charges. It happily accepts payments in from third parties, such as employers.

natweststaffmember

Premier, RBS Bank and NatWest Bank have identical charges apart from I think it is one single account ie the R21 account. They have slightly different names on their packaged accounts but the fees charged for consideration are identical.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Premier, RBS Bank and NatWest Bank have identical charges apart from I think it is one single account ie the R21 account. They have slightly different names on their packaged accounts but the fees charged for consideration are identical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't RBS buy up NatWest?

We are a member of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (the Group).
...
In March 2000, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group completed the acquisition of NatWest in a £21 billion deal that was the largest take-over in British banking history. ...

http://www.natwest.com/global/about-us.ashx?channel=personal

I thought you'd have known that having worked for NatWest

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't RBS buy up NatWest?

http://www.natwest.com/global/about-us.ashx?channel=personal

I thought you'd have known that having worked for NatWest

I was very specific....RBS Bank and NatWest Bank are separate entities within RBS Group and as such are competitors in the financial services sectors in spite of their obvious link. Remember the picky comment on the other thread? I'm being very precise.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I was very specific....RBS Bank and NatWest Bank are separate entities within RBS Group and as such are competitors in the financial services sectors in spite of their obvious link. Remember the picky comment on the other thread? I'm being very precise.

They both belong to the same shareholders. Yes they may be competing against each other, competition is always healthy despite what they teach the kids in school nowadays, but the shareholders will be up in arms if the 2 sides are cutting each others throats and denying the shareholders of their divi's.

It's like 2 salesman working for the same company - yes they will be competing against each other to get the best results, but not to the detriment of the company that employs them.
Oh, and they probably both have the same terms of employment

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

They both belong to the same shareholders. Yes they may be competing against each other, competition is always healthy despite what they teach the kids in school nowadays, but the shareholders will be up in arms if the 2 sides are cutting each others throats and denying the shareholders of their divi's.

It's like 2 salesman working for the same company - yes they will be competing against each other to get the best results, but not to the detriment of the company that employs them.
Oh, and they probably both have the same terms of employment

Yes they do

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

I'd be really surprised if you found 2 competing banks/financial institutions using identical terms & conditions/tariff of charges.

Well prepare to be surprised.

Historically, banks had very similar charges and terms.

It was as if there was a cartel operating. But surely, there could not have been collusion, could there?:rolleyes: