MSE News: Call for banks to help financially excluded

Paulgonnabedebtfree

Lokolo wrote: »

and then...


Maybe theres a reason the banks don't want to lend them money!!?!

---

A bank account for spending, setting DDs yes. An account with an overdraft, ability to borrow money, no.

Agreed, everyone should have the right to have a bank account. However, some services should be a priviledge, not a right.

---

Affordable credit as a right!? No. It should be a privildge imo.

I'm generally quite liberal about this sort of stuff and I really don't have much time for the BS that banks generally put out. But borrowing money is not a right and shouldn't be. I do feel that banks should be more flexible in their attitudes though and look more closely at individual circumstances.
Although I have a lot of debt (past mistakes that are no longer an issue), I'm better equipped to handle it than many people as I have no dependents and a fairly flexible income stream. Indeed, I anticipate my income going up around 30 - 40% this year at the same time as me reducing my living costs. Not everyone has that much flexibility.
Having said that, I won't borrow any more unless I need an emergency vehicle repair that is outside the scope of my rather small emergency fund.
Everyone's circumstances are different and credit scoring doesn't seem to take such stuff into account. It seems that someone with say, wife and three children stuck in a moderately paid job is viewed the same as a single person who is self-employed.
Nothing wrong with either situation of course but there needs to be a more flexible approach.

jos004

Lokolo wrote: »

Your point has nothing to with all customers being allowed affordable credit, which is what the article is to do with.....

Lokolo, people like you are simply worried about high street banks losing business to the post office, if they (PO) were granted full banking rights.

Note: it was the banks themselves who got us all into this terrible mess with their damn greed in the first place. To hell with them.

Lokolo

jos004 wrote: »

Lokolo, people like you are simply worried about high street banks losing business to the post office, if they (PO) were granted full banking rights.

Note: it was the banks themselves who got us all into this terrible mess with their damn greed in the first place. To hell with them.

No I don't. You are just blabbering on about something completely unrelated to the story! Read it !!!!!!! Has nothing to do with banks business and the Post Office!

jos004

sillystudent wrote: »

Really?? Even if you pay hundreds/possibly thousands more in interest? I wouldn't!! And tbh I think you'll find the payday loan people are far more likely to be "low lifes" than the bank manager who's probably well-educated/has a good university degree

...and is well schooled in the art of mis-selling financial products ( ppi, endowment mortgages, etc ) to customers, regardless of how well, or not, the customer is educated. Invoking charges upon charges in order to meet specific targets, just to get a decent bonus. The list is endless.

In short they're pathetic.

chattychappy

jos004 wrote: »

...and is well schooled in the art of mis-selling financial products ( ppi, endowment mortgages, etc ) to customers, regardless of how well, or not, the customer is educated. Invoking charges upon charges in order to meet specific targets, just to get a decent bonus. The list is endless.

In short they're pathetic.

And so now the thread has come full circle. We have a culture of people not taking responsibility for their financial decisions. Anything that goes wrong - whether it's the wrong mortgage, lost savings in Iceland, just spending too much of what they haven't got ("the list is endless") - all this can never be the consumer's fault. Must be the "greedy banks".

So now the "greedy banks" say no. The chattering classes chirp up on "exclusion"... so let's force the banks to allow them into the party and then blame the banks when it ends in tears (again).

jos004

Lokolo wrote: »

Read it !!!!!!!

Ooh, temper, temper!

You're behaving like some high st. bank CEO when they're hauled in front of a commons select committee, to explain themselves.

Lokolo

jos004 wrote: »

Ooh, temper, temper!

You're behaving like some high st. bank CEO when they're hauled in front of a commons select committee, to explain themselves.

And you're acting like a troll. What's your point?

Mikeyorks

jos004 wrote: »

about high street banks losing business to the post office, if they (PO) were granted full banking rights.

That's absolutely not the case. Govt Agencies (in particular Treasury / DWP / HMRC) have been working behind the scenes for over 10 years in a bid to 'bank the unbanked' (broadly the subject of this thread!).

And the people who already have the infrastructure in place to handle the extra traffic .... ie the Banks ..... have shown not a glimmer of interest. Leaving the PO as a poor Hobson's choice. So the Banks aren't exactly going to be livid if it (ever) goes that way.

trynsave

jos004 wrote: »

Note: it was the banks themselves who got us all into this terrible mess with their damn greed in the first place. To hell with them.

I really think I am a bit stupid when it comes to these circular arguments as I really fail to see the other side of the coin. I am very fortunate to not have ever been in a finacially desperate place, although money has never grown on trees in my garden either! I cannot understand what makes a person so desperate for money that they have to take money from a loan shark, and as a result am not at the front of the queue openly condeming people who do find themselves in such positions.

I also understand that the banks sold on debts which eventually went belly up and caused the credit crunch, but am I wrong in thinking that if the people who took out the loans hadn't defaulted on them then there wouldn't have been a problem regardless of who owned the debt? Therefore, to play devil's advocate, is the Govt now spending millions propping up the banks as a direct result of people gaining access to credit that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place?

Perhaps the root of the problem was financial institutions lending money to people they shouldn't have. Is that what is being proposed again? Do we never learn from history?

By all means offer banking facilities eg passbook, cashcard, savings accounts to all, until a proven track record has been established. Only a decade ago I left university, got a job and applied for a mortgage only to be be told by my bank that they wouldn't entertain it until I had been working for a year. Fair enough I hear you cry, but their blanket decision was made despite a long banking history with them, not ignoring the fact that prior to going to Uni and whilst studying, I had been employed by the very same bank! They knew me and still were unprepared to entertain a mortgage.

Was I surprised, yes. Am I horrified that someone with no job, a poor credit history etc, etc can expect to walk in off the street and get all they ask for because it is a deemed 'basic human right' ... most definately! We need to protect all in our society, sometimes from their themselves. Although I have no proof, I would guess that many in our society with debt problems (although not all I accept), just spend above their means.

Unrealistic I know, but I think a move to get a bank to agree to additional lending would be a step in the right direction. We have too many people applying for credit from many different lenders eg. numerous credit cards, hp loans, car loans, bank loans, mortgages etc. etc. I am not advocating having all your eggs in one basket, but if there were a space on the CCA forms where a bank official had to countersign additional borrowing based on income, then everyone would be more aware of potential problems.

Some people need BIG BROTHER - just ask channel 4.

snugglepet20

I think that people should be given debit cards as standard to access their own money and be able to pay bills etc (ones that work only if there is sufficient credit). These basic accounts only give out cashcards and as there are not many proper cash machines except in town centres and at supermarkets people have to pay £1.50 + each time they need cash at those little machines in shops which is disgusting.

I also agree with people who say that the basic account holders are treated poorly by their banks, no matter how well the account is managed they will always be denied better facilities. A friend who had previous debt problems banked with Nationwide's basic account. All his debts are gone and the account has been persistently well managed with £1600 paid in every month for over 2 years. He has consistently been denied a debit card by them and had no confidence that another bank would want him. I persuaded him to apply at RBS and he has been given a debit card and a chequebook straight away which proves that Nationwide are just jerks who don't deserve his money.

On the subject of doorstep lenders they should be banned as they prey on the desperate and stupid people who don't understand that the repayments will cripple them in the long term. However I don't think people should have easy access to credit especially if they are poor payers like they are suggesting in the article. Surely it would be better to teach people how to manage their finances so they don't need to borrow in the first place especially as the amounts these doorstep lenders loan are generally very low anyway?