MSE News: Lloyds TSB's partial re-think over basic account cash access

mikesten

Ten98 wrote: »

"Basic" account holders *are* pretty much pariahs. "Basic" is a bit of a misnomer, really they should be called "Red Card" or "Bankruptcy" accounts, as they are only offered to those who have been declared bankrupt or are in so much trouble with debtors that they are as good as bankrupt... The banks are forced to offer these accounts by the govt, as it is pretty much impossible to live these days without a bank account, if they had a choice they would just refuse them altogether.

If anything, restricting these people, who have a track record of being crap with money, from getting money out from a shady portable cashpoint installed in a pub, amusement arcade or betting shop or is in their best interest!

All this bleeding heart nonsense about the "most vulnerable" needing help is a load of old tosh.

My mother, who is 75 and widowed, does not need anything more than a basic bank account for her pension. She has no need for the added value accounts, and is quite happy with one card and one pin number to remember. When my father was alive they, as a couple had a premium account, but when he died the bank, quite rightly, advised her that she would be paying for services she did not need - a kind of reverse hard sell, and downgraded her account, with her approval. She is not poor at managing money, she has never been bankrupt and the only debt she had was a mortgage which was paid off years ago. Nor does she frequent pubs, betting shops or Cash Convertors.;)

These accounts ARE basic, but for some people that is just fine.

It's good to see that you have a balanced view of society, and aren't one to use sweeping generalisations. :mad:

opinions4u

yorkshirekev wrote: »

Thank you for your abrupt love-letter to Lloyds TSB. The reason why they should welcome people with poor credit ratings with basic accounts is because they are people.

Not a love letter. I have little love for LTSB. But 99%+ of applications for a basic banking facility are accepted, so it's not as if there's a problem here.

I understand that you may be happy with the present situation, but the restriction of banking facilities is not going to do anything to help those in trouble remove themselves from it. People may live in small towns and villages where there is only one ATM (probably not a post office)

Well if you know who offers the ATM then you know who to bank with.

tifo wrote: »

It was more to do with the global banking casino they played with customers' money that lost them our money.

In the case of HBOS (as owned by Lloyds Banking Group) it was bad lending to businesses. Predominantly property developers in the UK and Ireland.

And if they lent irresponsibly, to people who clearly may not be able to pay it back, who's fault is that?

Clearly the idiots making the lending decisions. Where did I imply otherwise?

debrag

davethorp wrote: »

Worth mentioning that other banks are also sending their basic customers back in time to pre 1990s and only allowing use of group ATMs. Natwest/RBS recently did this though in my case I have gone to bank elsewhere having been point blank refused an upgrade to the proper account despite 5 years of clear account conduct with them.

Ironically I've moved to Lloyds TSB who have given me a full account with full ATM access

Anyone who can't move to an account with another bank can usually open a savings account which comes with an ATM card to work around the problem

What I don't get with Natwest is that they say you can use them at their ATM's and certain others but 've not found one non Natwest ATM to allow me to take cash out.

jen245

debrag wrote: »

What I don't get with Natwest is that they say you can use them at their ATM's and certain others but 've not found one non Natwest ATM to allow me to take cash out.

You can only use Natwest, RBS, Tesco and Ulsterbank (if you are in N.I.) ATMs

tagq2

Ten98 wrote: »

T"Basic" is a bit of a misnomer, really they should be called "Red Card" or "Bankruptcy" accounts, as they are only offered to those who have been declared bankrupt or are in so much trouble with debtors that they are as good as bankrupt...

Braggadocio is no substitute for ignorance.

There is no general rule on who will be restricted to a particular bank's basic account. Someone with a perfect credit history but low income or who otherwise has a history of operating unprofitably might not be offered an account with more features. Or need it.

I have to say that if any bank had a basic account which came with a red card branded "RED CARD" or "BANKRUPTCY ACCOUNT" then I'd find it funny enough that I'd have to get one and use it all the time. :T

All this bleeding heart nonsense about the "most vulnerable" needing help is a load of old tosh. Nobody ever forces people to go into debt,

Well, it happens, but generally not legally - misrepresentation is not uncommon, however, if hard to prove unless done in bulk (see e.g. today's HSBC article). It's possible to overpay for everything by going pre-pay and seek accommodation which doesn't incur a council tax liability, making it impossible to go into debt, I guess. Otherwise even the most frugal person is relying to some extent on continuity of income or savings, in turn dependent on health, intelligence and age.

If you make bad decisions, live beyond your means and fail to pay what you owe, then you don't deserve to be treated the same as us who only spend what we can afford.

OK, but that's not how a free-ish market works. It's not about people getting what Ten98 thinks they "deserve" but businesses offering people whatever products they think will attract their profitable custom. Basic accounts aren't some moral punishment for handling your money badly but simply a reflection of the bank's (often crude) calculation of that profitability.