Fed up with unreasonable overdraft charges?

chipbeck

confused90 wrote: »

whether he's keen on it or not he can't prevent my view being put accross in this forum, if he did add me to his ignore list it would only mean he doesn't see it, everyone else will and i think my point is valid and more accurate than his assumptions that we will all be worse off if free banking is lost (which it won't be).

Would i be worse off with fee paying accounts that don't charge unauthourised overdraft fees?, well, lets say over the last 18 months if i'd had an account where i had to pay around £6 per month (what i actualy used to pay by choice to natwest) but in return i got zero bank charges for unauthourised borrowing i could have had 50 years of fee paying banking for what i paid in the last 18 months, sounds like a money saver to me.

LOL I could have had nearly 5 years on the last months from Lloyds so I know where you are coming from.

dunstonh

It is true that some trackers elsewhere charge as low as 0.5%, but I'm sure you are aware that not all trackers are the same.

Yes. I set one up a couple of weeks ago at 0.1%. Most are at 0.20% or 0.25%.

Edit: as for Virgin being 5 times the price of most other trackers, I suggest not. When Virgin entered the market, their 1% charge was one of the lowerst, and whilst other companies have had to reduce fees to compete, most trackers are still in the region of 0.25% - 1% annual charge (but bear in mind that not all trackers are the same as described above) HSBC offer one at 0.25%, L&G is now 0.65% (but total annual expenses are 0.82%) and Scottish Widows are 1%

The point is that Virgin are pricing themselves at the wrong end of the scale and more expensive than advice based funds/products despite them not giving advice or the consumer protection that goes with it.

Premier_2

confused90 wrote: »

it could of course be argued that for the millions who incured bank charges that banking was never really free in the first place.

I would change your question to;

"is this perhaps the start of the end of the poorest members of society footing the bill for all uk personal banking? Well done everybody :j :beer:

You could, but I would suggest there are more millions of customers who have not incurred bank charges compared with those who have

Now, if service charges are to become the norm, everyone will pay.

This is what the banks have always said would happen if they were not allowed to charge the fees they did to those who incurred unauthorised overdrafts. Some said it wouldn't, but the evidence is there for all to see. Watch this space.

Compare & contrast with many business current account holders who can no longer get free banking. In fact I've just recently helped a friend (with the help of MSE) to change from a financial institution that once offered business banking with no services fees and paid interest on credit balances but no longer do to a bank that still offers free banking for business customers ... but it's getting very hard to find them and how long it'll last is any ones guess.

I thought I remember reading that banks should either offer interest on credit balances or no service fees, not no interest on credit balances and service fees. The times they are a changing ...

Premier_2

dunstonh wrote: »

...
The point is that Virgin are pricing themselves at the wrong end of the scale and more expensive than advice based funds/products despite them not giving advice or the consumer protection that goes with it.

When I initially took out a pension, it was via an actively managed fund recommended to me by an IFA.

It had (iirc) 5% initial charge and 1.75 annual charge. That meant it had to produce at least 5% growth in the first year just to stand still and 0.75% growth over and above the Virgin one year on year to be in profit.

I hate to think how much the IFA earned from that deal, but the outcome was it struggled to earn 5% in the first year and I don't think it ever beat the Virgin tracker, let alone by the minimum of 0.75% it needed to to break even.

Eventually I lost faith and moved the fund to Virgin, which I think lost me more money since the manager was trying to stop the rut of everyone transferring their pots due to dire performance. If I'd have stayed with the original fund, I'd in up the proverbial creek by now, but thanks to Mr Branson & his colleagues I'm back on track. Yes, perhaps if someone had picked a better performing fund and or lower charges, I might be better off ... but that's a big IF (and one that the IFA failed to do for me). Lower charges does not always represent better value, even with a so called tracker fund.

I understand the IFA has since retired ... something I wouldn't have been able to do for a very long time if I hadn't taken matters into my own control.

Premier_2

confused90 wrote: »

whether he's keen on it or not he can't prevent my view being put accross in this forum, if he did add me to his ignore list it would only mean he doesn't see it, everyone else will and i think my point is valid and more accurate than his assumptions that we will all be worse off if free banking is lost (which it won't be).

Would i be worse off with fee paying accounts that don't charge unauthourised overdraft fees?, well, lets say over the last 18 months if i'd had an account where i had to pay around £6 per month (what i actualy used to pay by choice to natwest) but in return i got zero bank charges for unauthourised borrowing i could have had 50 years of fee paying banking for what i paid in the last 18 months, sounds like a money saver to me.

You can be assured you are not on my ignore list.

Don't listen to the trolls, for it is only they that have the somewhat exclusive membership of my ignore list. You may want to consider adding them to yours too; it makes for a much more pleasant experience when using MSE

You are fully entitled to your view and whilst I may or may not agree with it, there is no one on my ignore list simply for expressing their views in a courteous and civilised manner as you have done.

dunstonh

I understand the IFA has since retired ... something I wouldn't have been able to do for a very long time if I hadn't taken matters into my own control.

Still doesnt change the fact that both the Virgin ISA and Virgin stakeholder are poor quality products and expensive compared to alternatives.

willo65

confused90 wrote: »

it could of course be argued that for the millions who incured bank charges that banking was never really free in the first place.

I would change your question to;

"is this perhaps the start of the end of the poorest members of society footing the bill for all uk personal banking? Well done everybody :j :beer:

I wouldn't say the poorest, rather the unorganised.

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

Is this perhaps the start of the end of free personal banking?
Well done everybody!!! :doh:

http://www.bankingtimes.co.uk/08032010-virgin-opts-for-monthly-current-account-fee/

Before the conclusion of the test case you bought into the propaganda spun by the banks that if they lost it would be the end of free banking. The banks won and you now you peddle the question, err, 'Is this the end of free banking?'.

There's a sucker born every minute!

confused90

willo65 wrote: »

I wouldn't say the poorest, rather the unorganised.

True, but then if we were unorganised with a million or so pound in the bank we wouldn't get charges when a £50 direct debit went our that we forgot about.