MSE News: OFT delivers 'flaccid' report on future of bank charges

Alpine_Star

the_insider wrote: »

Think about it. Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?

So why the letter then?

davidgmmafan

"Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?"

Interesting that you mention this because its a question I've been asking to myslef and other on forums such as this for years. What the banks actually do is the latter option and I, like you, cannot fathom this. My best guess is they have some fabulous insurance policy which means they can't lose. Otherwise they'd be making a loss selling it on to a DCA, or an even worse loss if the customer goes for an IVA or bankruptcy.

Bear in mind you are speaking to someone whos brother got £3000 worth of charges when he was not working. Once the first charge was incurred there was nothing he could do. Natwest did NOTHING to help and it appears they have got away with it.

There are literally THOUSANDS of stories like this on CAG and elsewhere so now I don't buy you account of things.

As an aside on the report itself I have a day off today and I'm reading it and I've noticed a massive clanger already

"Consumers have had, for some time, the ability to opt out of unarranged
overdrafts by choosing to have a basic bank account. However, the
basic bank account may not be a suitable alternative for many
consumers who value other features of a PCA that are not available with
a basic bank account."

This is simply not true. Most basic banks accounts allow direct debits and standing order and, as such, would have returned item fees which WOULD cause an unauthorized overdraft and associated charges upon charges. Now the person, on setting up the account, may have said I don't want to even be able to have an OD and the bank staff may have thought this was the case but it is not.

Who do I speak to if I am unhappy with the OFT's performance? I need to point out this factual error at least, as well as comment on thier wild assumption that they alone brought about change... Not to mention thier wait and see appraoch when they are dealing with a load os shysters.

chipbeck

the_insider wrote: »

Presumably you're unaware that I'm a Customer Relations Manager in the Collections Department of one of the high street banks and that I help people in financial difficulty for a living. Think about it. Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?

Nice one mate, you don't work for Lloyds do you? It's just that the people who ring me from India are very nice but are unable to offer any assistance. I could do with dealing with someone in Brighton.

the_insider

I don't work for Lloyds, but if you would like to speak to someone local pop into your branch and see if they can put you on to someone based in the UK.
David, I can't agree that bank's deliberately let cases get to the Ombudsman. As I said, sometimes the bank doesn't help out the customer as much as they could have done and these cases are the ones that get through. I can't remember off the top of my head what percentage of customers end up with a complaint with FOS in relation to total customer base but I'll find out and let you know.

natweststaffmember

the_insider wrote: »

Presumably you're unaware that I'm a Customer Relations Manager in the Collections Department of one of the high street banks and that I help people in financial difficulty for a living.
Presumable you are aware that customer advisors who man the telephone are targetted on INCOME and have when they have been short of targets agreed to payment plans which have later been rejected. I'm sorry but the later paragraph below does not entirely fill me with great joy since theoretically the banks does do and practically that policy many not be followed due to pressure from above. That DOES lead to sackings because of following the policies dictated from above.

Think about it. Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?

Please see above but if you have seen complaints then you will see that sometimes the complaints may be related to the above, ie agreed over the phone and declined later.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"Is it in the bank's interest to help people (by refunding charges, suspending them for a few months, accepting reduced payments to loans/credit cards etc) or to be unhelpful and end up with complaints going to FOS and ultimately ending up with their processes being assessed by the FSA?"
The THEORY and the PRACTICE is unfortunately different. In Theory, the_insider is right, but in practice that may well not be the case.
Interesting that you mention this because its a question I've been asking to myslef and other on forums such as this for years. What the banks actually do is the latter option and I, like you, cannot fathom this. My best guess is they have some fabulous insurance policy which means they can't lose. Otherwise they'd be making a loss selling it on to a DCA, or an even worse loss if the customer goes for an IVA or bankruptcy.

Bear in mind you are speaking to someone whos brother got £3000 worth of charges when he was not working. Once the first charge was incurred there was nothing he could do. Natwest did NOTHING to help and it appears they have got away with it.

There are literally THOUSANDS of stories like this on CAG and elsewhere so now I don't buy you account of things.

As an aside on the report itself I have a day off today and I'm reading it and I've noticed a massive clanger already

"Consumers have had, for some time, the ability to opt out of unarranged
overdrafts by choosing to have a basic bank account. However, the
basic bank account may not be a suitable alternative for many
consumers who value other features of a PCA that are not available with
a basic bank account."

This is simply not true. Most basic banks accounts allow direct debits and standing order and, as such, would have returned item fees which WOULD cause an unauthorized overdraft and associated charges upon charges. Now the person, on setting up the account, may have said I don't want to even be able to have an OD and the bank staff may have thought this was the case but it is not.

Who do I speak to if I am unhappy with the OFT's performance? I need to point out this factual error at least, as well as comment on thier wild assumption that they alone brought about change... Not to mention thier wait and see appraoch when they are dealing with a load os shysters.

David on that basic account comment can you name the providers who charge on basic current account for unauthorised borrowing when a DD is bounced?

davidgmmafan

the_insider wrote: »

I don't work for Lloyds, but if you would like to speak to someone local pop into your branch and see if they can put you on to someone based in the UK.
David, I can't agree that bank's deliberately let cases get to the Ombudsman. As I said, sometimes the bank doesn't help out the customer as much as they could have done and these cases are the ones that get through. I can't remember off the top of my head what percentage of customers end up with a complaint with FOS in relation to total customer base but I'll find out and let you know.

Erm that's what Halifax are telling customers to do when THEY have chosen to change the contract and customer say no thanks I don't consent to those terms. Maybe you have to believe what you believe to get on with the job, I believe the opposite which is why I got the hell out of that industry.

On hardship they did exactly that hence the letter rerred to above.

Here's another question for you why do banks respond with some meaningless template when a customer wishes to complain? Isn't it simple courtesy to respond to the points raised not look at your batch of templates and go ahhh that ones close enough???

davidgmmafan

natweststaffmember wrote: »

David on that basic account comment can you name the providers who charge on basic current account for unauthorised borrowing when a DD is bounced?

No but I know Nationwide would, and I think the Natwest Step account would. It'd probably be quicker to ask people does your basic bank account support standing orders. It'd probably quicker to ask people unless I can find an old list I had of basic bank account providers...

I have a list of people who would charge for an unpaid DD, and I would assume most of them would levy the other charge...

Abbey
A & L
Bank of Ireland
Bank of Scotlan
Barclays
Clydesdale
Co-Operative
First Trust
Halifax Easicash (this may be out of date though)
Lloyds
Nationwide (certain on this just verified on website)
Natwest
Ulster Bank
Yorkshire Bank

If someone fancies trawling the websites, or if people have basic accounts with the above maybe they can advise?

To thier credit I believe HSBC doesn't charge for returned items on basic accounts at least DD's or SO's.

I also find the comment about being able to opt out strange, it suggests increasingly, I've only heard of the HSBC one. Maybe there are more out there unless increasingly equals one.

Re OFT I got this

Thank you for your further email dated 19 March.

"I am writing to confirm receipt of your email and to let you know that we are treating it as a complaint against the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

A response to your email will be sent by the Head of Enquiries and Reporting Centre (ERC) as soon as possible and in any even within 30 working days in accordance with our complaints procedure."


If you are unhappy and think they've let you down let them know, then take it to the MP's. We must exhaust every avenue and leave no doubt that this must be looked at again.

natweststaffmember

NatWest Step account DEFINITELY does NOT charge maintenance charges nor does the student account and nor does adapt accounts.

OPT OUT accounts:
LloydsTSB Control account but you pay
Santander Zero account with no charges but unlikely to include financially excluded customers
HSBC account but you pay for something they should do anyway.

blackanchorage

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I'm sorry but before commenting on the report, please at least read the report. Yet again another misinformed and blatantly incorrect post from someone just looking to points score(which is unfortunate that I have to do the same thing I am criticising you for).
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/oft1216.pdf
The above is the report
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft1005c.pdf
The above will help you to understand that YOU not paying charges are in FACT the party been done up like a kipper on the free banking argument since revenue from interest forgone on credit balances was higher than unarranged or irresponsible people as you have summarised.

I don't even know what "points score" means. And the bit about the kipper I'm struggling to understand.

I hadn't read the report. I was just disappointed that they hadn't capped charges in the same way as they had done with credit cards a couple of years ago. I still can't understand why Nationwide can charge £30 for NOT paying a direct debit.

Regards