"Ending free bank accounts 'fair'"

regularsaver1

CopperPlate wrote:

Don't start me off. I can't remember the last time I had a holiday :mad:, oh, wait, yes about 7 years ago! Both me and OH work, getting paid good money, decent house, one young child, not new cars, no debt, paid off credit cards every month, small emergency fund for EXACTLY the situation (God forbid it never happens) described above...yet, calamity!

Why is it that some people have an odd sense of priority? We have no money to eat, damn!, we're going to have to use up the money for the holiday this year! Sorry, I'm prounouncing on a situation that I only have a few facts of, so if I've offended anyone by that, I am sorry. It's the small minority that bang on about bank charges, greedy banks, etc, yet still manage their Sky TV subs each month, a takeaway frequently, a holiday abroad each year and most of it paid for by the Government.

I do agree with most of your points. here here!. Some people really need to prioritise, before luxuries such as sky ect

I saw someone this week with a load of charges and debt, yet they are going to Monte Carlo on a cruise and to New york - just one example. I know its not everyone. But at one point they said they couldn't afford to eat

Justamum

Queenie wrote:

In those circumstances, surely you used your holiday savings to make up the deficit in wage/avoid charges? [\QUOTE]

Not everyone can afford a holiday savings fund or rainy day fund.

regularsaver1

the reason that comment was made justamum as the poster (katecheshire) had put "we didn't even have a holiday that year"

allan2006

About 10 years ago, when i first opened a bank account......they was free but you could only use your banks atm...if u used a different banks atm you had to pay a fee... you didnt get no interest on your balance...if you went into the red you was punished.

To attract customers banks have gradually started to offer customers a better deal - interest paying accounts, incentives to open accounts, internet/phone banking etc.

So to now suddenly say they need to introduce a mandatory monthly fee to cover their costs i think is disgusting. It was only the other year that the goverment made pensioners get there pensions paid into a bank account. Yet now it looks like banks want to sting more money out of people. If your on jobseekers or a pension getting less that a 100quid a week why should you be subsiding people on good wages who cannot manage theire finances.

I dont see a one fee fits all account as fair, if you missuse your account and borrow the banks money without permission you should pay a reasonable charge for that!


"Mr Beale said only if the industry changes its approach to fees would the Nationwide follow."
Well that says alot for mr beale, and nationwide`s slogan of "proud to be different........."

Well next time i get a voting form from nationwide i definately wont be re-electing him!

Queenie

Justamum wrote:

Queenie wrote:

In those circumstances, surely you used your holiday savings to make up the deficit in wage/avoid charges? [\QUOTE]

Not everyone can afford a holiday savings fund or rainy day fund.

Had Katiecheshire not put in her own post that they couldn't even afford a holiday that year, I may not have suggested that she use the holiday savings to make up any shortfall - I wouldn't have been so presumptuous

However, as KC was the one who mentioned it, I am now wondering if she didn't have holiday savings to make up any shortfall when the proverbial hit the fan, how on earth would a holiday have been paid for at all??? (Credit up front and pay off in arrears, perhaps? )

On a more positive note, as far as a "rainy day fund" goes .. the *real* question is ... how can anyone afford *NOT* to have one???? It's not a modern idea to have a rainy day fund - even my Grandmother (born 18?? ) had a rainy day fund!!!

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat as sounding holier than thou ... let me put a few things straight - irrespective of my current circumstances - at one point in my life I was a single parent on benefits (not through choice) and yet I was still able to squirrel away a few pounds each week to accumilate a "rainy day" fund. As soon as I was employed - still with 3 dependent children and borderline 'benefits' ... I would still ensure I put away a token amount into a "rainy day" fund. Ok, we didn't have holidays, we had day trips out; we didn't have 'luxury' items, but by crikey we knew what the difference was between luxury and necessity

It's all a question of priorities, you see!

I don't think I have EVER had the audacity to say - I was charged bank charges and didn't even have a holiday this year!! (Shock horror!)

I can truthfully say ... I don't get charged bank charges Smug? Not a bit of it! I work at keeping my finances in control and not charged for (yes, I am a member of First Direct who has implimented the charges on current accounts - will I be paying? Nopey! <---- unashamedly smug grin!)

However, nor can I boast an annual holiday year on year - in fact, I have yet to inform a very special family that I am not able to attend a planned get together next month. Why? Because I can't afford it up front and I refuse to put myself into debt to do so either!!! Priorities, priorities, priorities!

We will have to agree to disagree on your statement Justamum - everyone *can* (and *should*) "afford" a rainy day fund - no matter how large or small. No one will convince me that in Britain today that a rainy day fund is impossible!!! That is complete and utter nonsense! I've been homeless; been on benefits with dependants - I *know* what I'm saying!!!!

regularsaver1

You sounds like you do know what you are on about too Queenie. Your post was valuable

Eck

The banking industry should issue all of their employees with masks and pistols.....:mad:

CopperPlate_2

*yawn*. And while they're at it the Government could issue them to solicitors, estate agents, energy companies, supermarkets, garages, petrol retailers, HM Revenue and Customs, train companies, water companies, car manufacturers...have I forgot any other industry which, at the moment, seems to be the target of the great "Rip Off Britain" campaign. Or perhaps it would be better if the Government just nationalised the whole lot - had just one of each and forced us all to use that one provider, whether it was competitive or not. Almost guaranteed that it would be NOT, but hey! who's complaining. At least we'd all be in the same, sinking boat with no choice but to moan...and get on with it. Price hikes all round to satisfy the unelected, unaccountable Board of Directors and ensure that their pensions are quite safe, but of course they'd all be civil servants being employed by the Government of the day, so who cares there eh? Yeah, sounds like a great idea :dance:

Oh, sorry, forgot, "Life on Mars" doesn't start until 9pm does it...thought for a minute I was back in 1973 when the above was probably just about right.

Wonder where I'd rather be right now. Wow! not a difficult choice to make is it.

ManAtHome

Kilty wrote:

I can't see EVERY bank putting an end to "free" current accounts, the ones that don't would increase their customer base very fast.

Yes, but would the free ones want to take on customers they couldn't make much money out of?

Stuart_W

Just for the record, free banking for those in credit was available throughout the 80's, well since 1974 for that matter:

Since 1974 the Co-operative Bank has consistently offered free banking for personal customers who remain in credit.

http://www.co-operativebankpressoffice.co.uk/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=CFS%2FPage%2FcfsView&cid=1057302486678

So this may be one place you'll still be able to find it if the others all jump to fee paying.