MSE News: MPs hit out at RBS and Lloyds over ATM access

jen245

glasgowdan wrote: »

I guess the key point is that the government owns 83% of this bank and therefore has the right to a say in how the business is ran. RBS made a big mistake and don't deserve much freedom to do as they please.

Would the loss made on ATM payments be recouped by, say, cancelling bonuses until the bank can be bought back?

The government doesn't know anything about running a bank (or the country for that matter, but that's a whole other thread!) or what makes it profitable, so they will allow the bank to do what it needs to do to cut costs, make money and become profitable again, so that ultimately we can get our money back.

I'm sure I read during the week that the government want to cap bonuses for RBS execs

tagq2

jen245 wrote: »

The government doesn't know anything about running a bank or what makes it profitable,

The bank drove the bank into the ground, not the government.

The civil service is full of smart individuals with the responsibility of planning further into the future than most private businesses would dream of. But these people would never be assigned to the job of managing a commercial bank because it does not fit the ideology of the government. Indeed, we've gone too far the other way: the elephant in the room is that much of our public financial problems are due to private advisors and contractors replacing a cadre of state employees, creating a bloated mess where everyone wants his finger in HM Treasury's pie.

so they will allow the bank to do what it needs to do to cut costs, make money and become profitable again, so that ultimately we can get our money back.

The bank was "allowed" to do that before it had to be rescued. Since the rule can be sidestepped and bank costs increased by anyone willing to open a First Reserve account, it's clearly little more than a punishment for the underinformed (who may be tempted to a fee-paying account) - a pathological version of cost-cutting rather than one achieved through increasing efficiencies. Exploiting ignorance rather than serving an informed consumer is (1) not viable as a long-term business plan; (2) not going to contribute toward a functioning society. And it starts with the bad PR...

glasgowdan

jen245 wrote: »

The government doesn't know anything about running a bank (or the country for that matter, but that's a whole other thread!) or what makes it profitable, so they will allow the bank to do what it needs to do to cut costs, make money and become profitable again, so that ultimately we can get our money back.

I'm sure I read during the week that the government want to cap bonuses for RBS execs

I have far less faith in the banks than I do in the government.

chambta

staircase2 wrote: »

MOre of the same tired rubbish from Opinion4All - And you STILL havent listened to either what I was saying or the other people....

And when I was refering to Trolling I meant the kind of uptight practice of taking every single thing someone says and replying to each point with all the smugness of a 6th Former who's just learnt how to conjugate verbs in French... Noone is asking you to 'correct' their reading of the situation.

Chumbta is doing exactly the same thing too - I dont think either of you have any idea what other people are going thru generally or specifically. Which therefore begs the question: aside from the obvious, why are you sitting on this thread posting/'correcting' everything thats written here?

Noone is asking you to 'correct' them - people are discussing the situation which affects some of them/us greatly. Your arrogant pomposity doesnt help the situation at all.

And Jack - how dare you sit there and try to undermine what Im saying on the basis of what you think you know about my own financial situation. I find you arrogant, insensitive and rude.

This thread is specifically about the problems this action by RBS will cause people who have basic accounts. If all you can do is sneer and make value judgments based on that then you really have no place being here in the first place (that, by definition, is the very Trolling I was talking about....)

How bout we all start LISTENING to what people have to say eh? Revolutionary I know...
This is not the forum for trolling or showing off what a condescending !!!! you are....

I'm doing exactly what precisely?

'Arrogant pomposity' as you put it, sits just right with you.

Hank_Marvin

Why didn't they just remove say the cashback facility from the card and leave the cashpoints alone. After all if it was about saving "them " money surely cashback costs more for them than, the cashpoints does. Still think 100% that there's more to this than saving them money. Why pick on a certain account!!. It's obvious to me that Step customers are looked on as being 2nd rate. And that hurts/angers me greatly.

jalexa

Hank_Marvin wrote: »

It's obvious to me that Step customers are looked on as being 2nd rate.

Well if it wasn't obvious before, now that they have slapped "Basic" on the cards it certainly is:D

Slightly more seriously, I tested my "downgraded" card in a HSBC ATM. The first response was that a charge might be levied if I proceeded. Then the transaction was rejected as I expected.

However it appears to me that the functionality is there to charge and if this was a cost thing as RBS/Natwest unconvincingly allege, a better solution seems obvious.

Toe-Jam

The best solution at the moment is to transfer the money via faster payments to another bank who will gladly let you use any atm's.

RBS will have to pay for the transfer and ultimately it will cost them more money.

If enough people do it, then it will be one less bottle of champagne at the executive Christmas party.

chambta

Hank_Marvin wrote: »

Why didn't they just remove say the cashback facility from the card and leave the cashpoints alone. After all if it was about saving "them " money surely cashback costs more for them than, the cashpoints does. Still think 100% that there's more to this than saving them money. Why pick on a certain account!!. It's obvious to me that Step customers are looked on as being 2nd rate. And that hurts/angers me greatly.

Cashback costs virtually nothing for the bank. It's processed as a purchase transaction, regardless of how it's made up.

JuicyJesus

With cashback, the retailer pays their merchant acquirer for processing the transaction. With ATMs, the customer's bank pays the ATM owner.

Debit card transactions, which cashback falls under, cost the customer's bank next to nothing. ATM transactions cost the customer's bank something.