Free banking 'will be axed'

dchurch24

CopperPlate wrote:

Is it???!!! Goodness, I thought I'd stumbled onto a one man site which detailed the legality of bank charges! Must be a virus on my computer that's caused it.

Clearly you missed the reports in the media.

The reasons HSBC claimed to be ditching 'free' banking was because of the level of people reclaiming their unlawful bank charges.

M_Thomson

Tell us in your opinion exactly how much a charge should be to be fair?

dchurch24

His irresponsible preaching of 'get a charge? sue!'

Far less irresponsible to punish those that can least afford it of course.

The level of people taking legal action is now having an effect - it's making the banks unlawfulness unworkable.

dchurch24

M_Thomson wrote:

Tell us in your opinion exactly how much a charge should be to be fair?

Impossible to say without being privy to the costs.

Although I would estimate it to be around about £1.

A cost that the banks have even faced fines for not revealing to the TSC.

It is not I who has something to hide.

tomstickland

Banking is a similar market to car insurance. If every customer chose the most cost effective insurance provider then the industry would probably make a massive loss. However, apathy and laziness mean that a large proportion pay over the odds. I reckon the same will happen with banking. Each bank will come up with a model of the customer they want; some will be uncompetetive and attempt to make easy money from fees, but that will leave another one advertising "fee free banking" and MSE etc will be running detailed comparisons of which bank suits a situation best.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

The level of people taking legal action is now having an effect - it's making the banks unlawfulness unworkable.

And it's making people like myself on very modest income face the prospect of having to pay a monthly fee for my current account. Thanks!

YorkshireBoy

dchurch24 wrote:

The reason my partner sued twice...

As I recall (you have detailed a great many reasons for your and your partners charges), there was a problem with a cheque wasn't there? Abbey had told her that the cheque (for some charges refunded?) 'should' clear in x days and it didn't. Rather than check her correct account balance, she drew on the cheque before it had cleared - thereby incurring yet more charges.

dchurch24

M_Thomson wrote:

And it's making people like myself on very modest income face the prospect of having to pay a monthly fee for my current account. Thanks!

Far better that than people on a very low income having to pay huge fees to subsidise you, wouldn't you agree?

dchurch24

YorkshireBoy wrote:

As I recall (you have detailed a great many reasons for your and your partners charges), there was a problem with a cheque wasn't there? Abbey had told her that the cheque (for some charges refunded?) 'should' clear in x days and it didn't. Rather than check her correct account balance, she drew on the cheque before it had cleared - thereby incurring yet more charges.

That is true. She believed them when they told her that the cheque would clear on the Wednesday. It cleared on the Thursday.

It was 'would clear' and not 'should clear', just to be clear on the matter.

Our local cashpoint is one where you cannot get a balance - and it costs £1.75 to get to your money. She had nothing but their word to go on - sadly, she did not learn that her bank could not be trusted, and believed their lies.

This occured long before the notice of her account closure.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Far better that than people on a very low income having to pay huge fees to subsidise you, wouldn't you agree?

Rubbish, a lot of people who run up charges, tend to be quite well off. That is a very guardianista point of view and very offensive to the majority of people on low incomes who do not get charged, yet face having to pay for their current account.