Credit Card charges via Machine withdrawal New Tax ?

Detail_Merchant

I think I mostly agree with you, MarkyMarkD, but there is one point I think you are wrong on. Earlier you said:

Wow - so nice to hear from so many of you who actually understand the issues of ATM charging, and don't adopt the ridiculous "charging is evil ... let's have lots of ATMs, but they all have to be free" approach espoused by the Nationwide

However as far as I know Nationwide aren't suggesting that, rather they are just suggesting that convenience machines should be more honest about their charges, from what I read at http://www.nationwide.co.uk/mediacentre/PressRelease_this.asp?ID=629

Cheers,

Detail Merchant

johnllew

donimmold wrote:

the banks are truely wonderful and magnanimous and generous. And the moon is made of cheese.They really are doing us a favour

Quite right. I never pay ATM charges and never suffer debit interest (apart from a few pence). I get an excellent rate on my current/savings account balances and brilliant customer service (with Smile). I invest my £250 interest-free overdraft on my Cahoot current account in my Cahoot savings a/c @ 5.65% gross (as does my wife). We make thousands of pounds each year by credit card bagging. I've had hundreds of pounds in compensation from various banks for all the mistakes they've made. The list goes on.

These banks are truly wonderful (and I mean it). Get organised and start making money from them rather than complaining.

donimmold

Wonder where all the money went after those huge reductions in bank staff were made a couple of years ago. ?

Walletwatch

MarkyMarkD wrote:

If any "free" machines are under threat, it's those at supermarkets, service stations (especially on motorways), railway stations, etc. In these locations the site owner can make far more money from the provider of a paying machine than a free machine, so having "free" machines is only if they want to do it as a customer benefit.

I personally don't think philanthropy or customer benefit is on the agenda of any of the local off-licence shops / post office franchisees or even the supermarkets for that matter, when it comes to charges. I think we are going to see a clear trend where the small neighbourhood off-licence shop is definitely going to use these ATMs as a cash-cow, and definitely start charging (as indeed we have in our neighbourhood). Similarly, the supermarkets, will definitely decide to keep it free, to serve as a crowd-puller to attact more patrons (again, as I would expect my friendly neighbourhood ASDA at Crossharbour to do)

MarkyMarkD

Detail_Merchant wrote:

I think I mostly agree with you, MarkyMarkD, but there is one point I think you are wrong on. Earlier you said:

However as far as I know Nationwide aren't suggesting that, rather they are just suggesting that convenience machines should be more honest about their charges, from what I read at http://www.nationwide.co.uk/mediacentre/PressRelease_this.asp?ID=629

Cheers,

Detail Merchant

That might be what they say, but the logical consequence of the pressure on the charging operators is that they will go out of business, if taken to an extreme.

Nationwide would appear to prefer no ATM to a charging ATM, if (for example) the charging ATM would need to charge more than their suggested maximum charge in order to be economic.

If your nearest ATM would otherwise be 30 miles away, why should you NOT have the choice of paying £2 for a withdrawal instead of having the machine removed because it's uneconomic? That's the sort of point Nationwide are missing IMHO.

I am surprised that they are not pressing for a percentage based charge (with a minimum, perhaps, to cover telephony charges etc) which would obviously be far more attractive to the lower-waged/benefit claimants - but would mean that those withdrawing larger amounts would pay a higher proportion of the cost of operating the machine - a significant proportion of which is the cost of refilling the machines with cash.

Detail_Merchant

I agree that capping the charge doesn't seem justifiable, as Nationwide's proposed figure seems just plucked from the air.
I think customer choice is a better way to regulate it, as long as the customer can see the charge clearly before deciding whether to use the machine.

A percentage charge would seem more logical, particularly if it does reflect the costs more closely, but again I'm not sure that regulation is the best way to achieve this.

I do agree with most of Nationwide's suggestions, those that relate to giving the customer more information to base their choice on.

bunking_off

I think the issue for me is one of transparency. So long as there's a "core" of free machines, I have no objection to there being fee paying machines elsewhere. However, what I do have a problem with is going right the way through a transaction to the point where the money's about to be dispensed, and only then being informed of the charge.

To my mind, it should be mandatory to have the fees displayed either on the logon screen, or ideally as part of the physical design of the ATM itself. The providers make all sorts of excuses about charges varying according to which card you're using. That's a diversionery argument in my view, and the real issue is that many people will shrug their shoulders having queued and gone through the transaction, and pay up. I can't believe it's beyond the wit of man to display a set of minimum fees prominently, with a note that the final charge will be notified before the cash is dispensed.

MarkyMarkD

bunking_off wrote:

I think the issue for me is one of transparency. So long as there's a "core" of free machines, I have no objection to there being fee paying machines elsewhere. However, what I do have a problem with is going right the way through a transaction to the point where the money's about to be dispensed, and only then being informed of the charge.

To my mind, it should be mandatory to have the fees displayed either on the logon screen, or ideally as part of the physical design of the ATM itself. The providers make all sorts of excuses about charges varying according to which card you're using. That's a diversionery argument in my view, and the real issue is that many people will shrug their shoulders having queued and gone through the transaction, and pay up. I can't believe it's beyond the wit of man to display a set of minimum fees prominently, with a note that the final charge will be notified before the cash is dispensed.

I have absolutely no beef with transparency, but I have to keep harking back to the fact that displaying a minimum fee won't work for some ATM operators, because the minimum fee can easily be NIL if you have the right card.

Something like "this machine will charge you a fee of up to £x.xx but it's free if you bank with XXX Bank plc" would be good for me.

But it still concerns me that anything which implies withdrawals are free is contradictory to the fact that all CREDIT card withdrawals are charged, by the issuing bank, in any case.

bunking_off

See where you're coming from MarkyMarkD, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have a notice along the lines of "This machine charges a minimum of £X for withdrawals using Maestro, £Y for withdrawals using Mastercard/Visa. Your bank may levy additional charges." As you say, if users of a particular bank can use it free, then say so.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect me to look at my bank statement/website to find out how much my provider charges me. In other words, I think it's an individual's responsibility to know if their particular card provider charges for ATM withdrawals (and by the same token there's a responsibility on the provider to make this information readily available). I can't see any reason why this information needs to be conveyed at "point of sale". Personally, if my bank asked me to pay *them* anything for ATM withdrawals in the UK using Maestro, I'd immediately close my account. However, I'd accept that I have to pay a charge on credit cards, and when overseas.

I do think it's unreasonable to expect me to know how much extra the particular ATM supplier at the local newsagent charges, versus the one outside McDonalds etc. I also think it is a thinly disguised ploy of ATM providers to wait until the very last moment before they give you that nugget of information, and it's not acceptable (hence the parliamentary select committee interest).

Can you imagine if this happened in other areas of life? Whether you pay £1 for your newspaper or get it free depends on where you get it from, and by the way we're not going to tell you whether you need to pay at a given store until you get to the checkout till? And for good measure, different stores in the same chain may or may not charge you? Of course, if you're not happy with paying you can go and put your paper back and find another shop, we're not forcing you to pay for it. No, we wouldn't put up with it, which is why there's a handy thing in the corner of the paper saying how much it costs.

jen_jen_2

yes MarkyMarkD, we wouldnt accept not being told how much the paper cost.