First Direct £10 monthly banking fee (merged)

karatedragon

Turtle wrote:

I really like this website and spend hours on it, however I am really fed up of those people who've claimed all their charges back. If you've incurred charges you've spent money that's not yours. Now, I don't disagree that the charges were too high but what I don't understand is Martin encouraging the claiming back of ALL the charges and interest? Who should expect to borrow money effectively for free? I don't see how this is encouraging responsibility with money if anyone can just expect to do this for free.

On a first direct note, I personally don't see a problem with this. There appears to be many ways you can get out of the fee, and who would argue that any business doesn't have a right to target the market it wants? That's all they're doing. Coutts, for example, have a very small target market and I don't see anyone complaining about how they operate.

I fully agree. I wasnt aware you could reclaim charges until I read this site and frankly people who have incurred penalty charges have a damned cheak moaning and reclaiming them. People should have enough savvy to know if they are about to go overdrawn or beyond any allowable limit and realise the consequences of doing so. Aint they ever heard of balance enquiries, ATM mini statements and internet banking - if you havn't I suggest ya investigate how useful these facilities are for keeping an eye on ya cash.

I feel very imbittered that I might have to pay charges due to the stupidity and down right carelessness of some irresponsible specimens.

I mean if you park on a double yellow line duhhhhh.... ya probably have a sneaking suspicion you might end up getting a ticket. unless ya a down right thick pancake mover! I suppose parking tickets will be "reclaimed" as unlawful next.

Duhhhhh - if ya go overdrawn i think theres a sneaky suspicion you might get charges. Think on...

digp

karatedragon wrote:

I fully agree. I wasnt aware you could reclaim charges until I read this site and frankly people who have incurred penalty charges have a damned cheak moaning and reclaiming them. People should have enough savvy to know if they are about to go overdrawn or beyond any allowable limit and realise the consequences of doing so. Aint they ever heard of balance enquiries, ATM mini statements and internet banking - if you havn't I suggest ya investigate how useful these facilities are for keeping an eye on ya cash.

I feel very imbittered that I might have to pay charges due to the stupidity and down right carelessness of some irresponsible specimens.

I mean if you park on a double yellow line duhhhhh.... ya probably have a sneaking suspicion you might end up getting a ticket. unless ya a down right thick pancake mover! I suppose parking tickets will be "reclaimed" as unlawful next.

Duhhhhh - if ya go overdrawn i think theres a sneaky suspicion you might get charges. Think on...

u sound like a yank from texas

Explain_yourself

I work at first direct. If anyone has any questions regarding the new propositions i'd like to give any info i can. For the record I thouroughly believe that we are the best bank in the country and wont be drawn into any arguments. No business is perfect but I believe we are as close as is possible. If anyone has any queries let me know. I fully agree with the new ideas and I think any existing customers with first direct that hold more than one current account will be content with changes. As the UKs most recommended bank 15 years in a row we wouldnt be doing this if we didnt feel it was for the best for the majority of customers, and of course the business. There is no denying that, but why would we suddenly turn for excelling at customer service to an uncaring corporation? Media hype and frenzy gets people thinking illogcally. Its nice to see some people thinking in a sane fashion. obviously time saved dealing with dormant accounts is more time put into an already exceptional service to genuine customers.

Explain_yourself

Climba wrote:

...with an element of jest. Can't wait for the response.



Re: the current account charges to come in

Having read the public comments by First Direct's chief executive, Chris Pilling, I must convey my annoyance at the charges to be introduced.

Taken from the BBC web site: "I want to focus our efforts on our most important customers: those who use us as their main bank or who have a number of products with us," said Chris Pilling, First Direct's chief executive.

If this 'move was aimed at dormant or rarely used accounts' as stated then the bank has much to consider as my account is in regular use but my monthly income does not bring in enough to let me escape the charges. Having seen other people's comments, it appears that rather than being in a minority, I am amongst a significant proportion of your customers.

This move appears to show the bank losing touch with its customers. Although a previously very satisfied customer, my opinion of First Direct has fallen and I am now considering moving my custom elsewhere.

If Mr Chris Pilling wishes to contact me himself, I would be happy to discuss with him the needs of his customers.

Yours Sincerely

A Not So Dormant Account User

I simply work in the call centre at first direct. Im sorry you feel as you do but I'd like to defend Mr Pilling if I may. As a business we have a commitment to our main customers. first direct pride ourselves on wonderful customer service, but if a customer has a mortgage with us, and therefore a large amount of money, that customer should, in my own opinion, receive priority service before a customer with a current account and no more. While every single first direct customer is treated with the same amount of respect, and will receive fantastic customer service regardless of accounts held, I would like to think customers tied in with us will continue to appreciate the best service possible. Should anyone hold a mortgage elsewere, I would just assume the staff at that company will assist you in any way possible as a prority. first direct as a business is not only a wonderful place to work but I fully believe totally comitted to assisting customers by whatever means possible. If any customers feel they may be forced to pay said banking fee, why not call us and discuss both the fees and options avaliable, with what I can guarentee to be a polite, friendly, down-to-earth, human being? All I ask is that, if you DO have an issue with this new proposal, speak to a representative of first direct before flying of the handle and declaring war against all banks. A view from all sides never hurt anyone. I'd like to hear from one single first direct customer that is unaffected by the fee that has issue with our services.

matty2767

I disagree with a number of posts . Banking should be free. When my money goes into the account do the banks just leave it alone? No it makes them money by them investing it on the markets. I don't see any return on it other than a measly 0.5% or so. Secondly FD have little in the way of overheads as it is a telephone/internet bank. This brings me onto another thought that HSBC are testing the water with bank charges on a relavtively small user base. They can afford to upset a few 'virtual' account customers. The high street is where it matters. If all goes well every account will be chargeable and I will be stashing my cash under the bed.

Tim_L

Turtle wrote:

I really like this website and spend hours on it, however I am really fed up of those people who've claimed all their charges back. If you've incurred charges you've spent money that's not yours. Now, I don't disagree that the charges were too high but what I don't understand is Martin encouraging the claiming back of ALL the charges and interest? Who should expect to borrow money effectively for free? I don't see how this is encouraging responsibility with money if anyone can just expect to do this for free.

NOBODY is borrowing money for free. What is happening is that people are going in many cases a few pounds over a completely arbitrary limit, and for each transaction when this happens, the banks charge something like £30. The transgressions can literally be for pennies and the "unauthorised" overdraft can last for a matter of a day or so.

Interest is payable on overdrafts. When it is paid back, interest is no longer payable. Interest is a completely legitimate way for banks to make money from people who borrow money from them. There is nothing to stop a bank putting tiered interest rates in place to discourage unauthorised overdrafts.

Anyone borrowing from a bank is spending money that is not theirs. They pay for this money in interest. No-one has any problem with this.

The issue of unlawful (almost certainly) penalty charges is that they are in effect fines imposed by one party to a civil agreement, and this is not allowed under English law. Banks are entitled to charge to cost to them of a transgression - which is fair enough - but no more. They have taken money that doesn't belong to them, used it to boost their profits, and they now have to give it back. It doesn't affect me in that I haven't had charges made, but I am encouraging everyone I know who has to claim them back. As, incidentally, is Martin.

I think that you have to realise that the effect of these charges is massive on people who are in marginal difficulties. One small transgression can easily lead to 90-150 of charges, which makes it much more likely that further transgressions will follow the following month. This cascading effect is costing perfectly decent people thousands of pounds.

Unfortunately there is a strand of opinion that wants to paint anyone in this situation as an irresponsible idiot. These are people who presumably watch their finances like an anally retentive hawk and never make the slightest mistake. For whatever reason they seem to believe that people reclaiming fees are getting money for nothing. This is rubbish: what they are entitled to claim is the difference between the cost to a bank of a transgression and the amount they have been charged: since the banks have so far declined to indicate what their costs are this is defaulting to the whole amount. And the people borrowing have paid interest on their overdrafts, which certainly is subsidising the banking for the virtuous.

And of course one of the founding premises of this site was using 0% credit card offers to borrow money for free, which is estimated at costing the industry 600M a year. So if you object to this, you're probably on the wrong site.

Amusing to note in this context that if the banks had to choose between two sets of customers: those that always managed their finances carefully, and those who bumped along the bottom of their overdraft limit, they would choose the latter group without a moment's hesitation.

mrcow

Explain_yourself wrote:

I think any existing customers with first direct that hold more than one current account will be content with changes.

Then you are very wrong.

I have (well had as I cancelled yesterday) a current account and a credit card wth FD. My b/f also has a current a/c which he uses regularly which he will be cancelling as soon as he gets the letter through.

I am not content with the changes (even though I personally would have been exempt from the charges for now). I think that FD are penalising those customers who are worst off. Why should customers be held to ransom to take out mortgages or insurance products that may not be the best products for us as individuals? It's trying to suffocate consumer choice and I won't stand loyal to a company who tries to twist its customers' arms like this.

Perhaps in the future FD could have interested me in their insurance, mortgage or savings products, but not any more! I will look elsewhere thanks very much.

The £10 per month does not represent value for money on a poorly performing product. As for the customer service? So what if it's a UK call centre? Is that worth £10 per month to the lowest earning customers? My mortgage is with C&G and the customer service that I receive from them is second to none IMO, so as far as I'm concerned, FD are not offering anything unique.

tomstickland

I think it's reasonable; have a dormant account like me and I'm not making any money for First Direct. I'm happy to close my account. They're probably happy because they'll lose x% of customers who are deadwood to them.

If any customers feel they may be forced to pay said banking fee, why not call us and discuss both the fees and options avaliable

You could have a "financial review" and sell some product.

digp

Explain_yourself wrote:

I work at first direct. If anyone has any questions regarding the new propositions i'd like to give any info i can. For the record I thouroughly believe that we are the best bank in the country and wont be drawn into any arguments. No business is perfect but I believe we are as close as is possible. If anyone has any queries let me know. I fully agree with the new ideas and I think any existing customers with first direct that hold more than one current account will be content with changes. As the UKs most recommended bank 15 years in a row we wouldnt be doing this if we didnt feel it was for the best for the majority of customers, and of course the business. There is no denying that, but why would we suddenly turn for excelling at customer service to an uncaring corporation? Media hype and frenzy gets people thinking illogcally. Its nice to see some people thinking in a sane fashion. obviously time saved dealing with dormant accounts is more time put into an already exceptional service to genuine customers.

ARE THEY PAYING U TO POST HERE? JUST CURIOUS.

MPH80

Explain_yourself wrote:

Its nice to see some people thinking in a sane fashion. obviously time saved dealing with dormant accounts is more time put into an already exceptional service to genuine customers.

Then I think I'd like you to explain the logic of how a dormant account, which by definition isn't in use, uses up any customer service time?

Simply - it doesn't.

You're pruning the customer who aren't worth much money to you.

So allow me to rephrase your statement:

Obviously time saved dealing with customers who don't make us much money is more time put into an already exceptional service for those customers who make us more money

But I don't begrude FD that. They are a business - they want the customers who will earn them the most.

I just wish they'd be honest.

M.