Time to end free banking? Poll help needed

exel1966

No change, purely for selfish reasons. I don't incur any fees, nor do I ever want to.
Why should I cover the cost for those who abuse/mis-manage their accounts, conversly those who pay charges will say spread them more evenly.
It's a fine balance of profitability and keeping the consumer (reasonably) content.
Play the system correctly and the bank works for me, but I'm in a very small minority.
The first sign of any charge for DD/SO/bills etc and I'll be off to one that doesn't.

innovate

The option I like to see added to the poll is: I fail to see the logic in the argument for charges.

I would really like to have a detailed explanation (from those who argue for the charges) as to why banks need to mis-sell if they cannot charge for bank accounts. And what gives them the right to mis-sell unless they are allowed to charge.

If Tescos started telling people to buy more butter because butter doesn't make people fat, that would be mis-selling. Tescos couldn't then say they'd only stop mis-selling butter if they could charge customers for using the car park and the shop. They'd be fined for mis-selling. Tescos wouldn't even dream of suggesting they should be allowed to charge for people using the car park and the shop, otherwise Tescos would have to resort to mis-selling. Not only Tescos, but also other businesses in the UK wouldn't dream of the m-a- f-i-a-tactics(*) that seem to be acceptable for banks.

Why should banks not be fined for mis-selling? Why should they be allowed to make money from bizarre claims and practices?

We don't need bank charges, we need legislation that puts an end once and for all to the banks behaving like gangsters.

(*) MSE won't let me write m-a-f-i-a without the dashes

Elliesmum

No charge thank you...

EM x

Zekko

Chris55 wrote: »

I think there should be a question related to what should be provided if charging for current accounts was mandatory (which seems to be what is being suggested). How could wages or benefits be paid without incurring charges. I don't mind paying BT for a service (actually I do, which is why I just moved to someone else) but it's not a requirement for me to have a fixed telephone line. But if I can't receive money without having a bank account then charging for one just seems like a tax that is going to small group of businesses.

I'd pay for a bank account if they kept my money in a little box in the branch - but that's not what they do - they give it to people who have overdrafts and charge them a large amount for the privilege of using my money, or put it on overnight deposit with the government. So now they want me to pay for giving them the assets to make money?

Agreed, which is why banking should continue to be subsidised the way it is right now.

expatasia

(Sorry, I've not yet read the whole thread). On an aforementioned radio programme they mentioned one possibility for keeping 'free' banking was to have a minimum balance maintained at all times thus forfeiting any interest of course. Any idea what that amount would/should be? Or would be acceptable to you? An absurdly small amount like 100 quid was referred to, don't know why. I know we're talking about different clientele but I believe LTSB Offshore require min bal of 2.5k to keep accounts fee free.

DrSyn

What do you mean "make it cheap for tax payers"? Why would it cost the taxpayer anything?

antrobus

Girobank was originally formed by the goverment as a bank just for the post office workers, then it was offered to the general public as a bank.

If the goverment were to reinvent GIROBANK, the money to set it up and run it to begin with, can only come from the tax payers. It of course would offer a source of money to the goverment, as does NS&I. The same way so called "free banking" does to the Big Banks.

rmg1

I agree with Chris5.
My money is used by the banks (without my express permission) to make themselves money. It's given to people with overdrafts (don't have one), loans (have 2 of those :eek:) and is also used to invest in the stock market.

From this, they make a huge amount of profit (both sides of the banking industry are included in this statement).

If they started charging me for the privilege of them using my my money to make themselves even more profit, I'd be off.

Assuming these charges are goingn to come in and all the banks play fair (:rotfl:) and charge the same, if I don't use the branch (couldn't tell you the last time I did), do I get a reduced "bill"?

If I don't use telephone banking (see above) do I get further reductions on the charges?

As things stand, the system isn't perfect but it works (a bit like the justice system, but that's a different rant).
I'm quite happy to get no interest on my current account, a pittance on my savings (don't have that much, it's only rainy day money) and not pay a bean for the bank's services.

And I've just moved banks as I got a "reward" for doing so (plus the last lot were useless!)

dzug1

DrSyn wrote: »

My option suggestion is simple.

The goverment should bring back from the dead the best "free banking" option I ever had.

Bring Back GIROBANK !

But when Girobank started it wasn't free - ISTR a charge per cheque. Can't remember whether you bought a book of them or paid as you went along. Didn't last that long though

DrSyn

But when Girobank started it wasn't free - ISTR a charge per cheque. Can't remember whether you bought a book of them or paid as you went along. Didn't last that long though


Dzug1:
I am in full support of "Free Banking" & so am very sorry if you where charged by GIROBANK. But in all my years of using them they did not charge me for:
1. Cheque Books
2. Using cheques
3. Their pre-paid envelopes
4. The free £10 buffer zone
5. Use of the Post Office or ATM
6. Standing Orders or Direct Debits

The only thing I paid for was the odd telephone call to them.
These calls where answered quickly by helpful staff at their English call centres.

I only left after Mrs. T sold it off to B&B,when things started to change.

opinions4u

I only left after Mrs. T sold it off to B&B,when things started to change.

It was A&L.