Co Op to stop basic accounts for BR

PippaGirl_2

That argument doesn't make sense though capeverde. BR only lasts for one year (usually) and after that they can. I'm not sure of the statistics but I would think it likely that someone previously BR is more likely to use their overdraft if they are allowed one after that so they could well make more out of a post-BR then someone else so as BR is only a year then why not if profit/charges is all they are after.

capeverde

Not knocking bankrupts pippa, I was one myself. Just pointing out the way I see it re banks. For the vast majority of people they cant access credit for a period of 5 years after bankruptcy, so how is a bank going to make money from them, that is unless they are playing a very long game.

alastairq

The argument capeverde puts forward only goes to support my view regarding the ethics of banks in general, and supports the very reasons why many are compelled
to petition BR in the first place.

I strongly believe that any bank who purports to provide a High St. service [ie, bank accounts for all].... should be compelled by legislation to provide basic banking services for anybody, regardless.


Either that, or there should be legal compulsion for all services, products, salaries and wages to be equally payable ...in cash....without detriment or penalty.

But, of course, the latter will never happen...and there has been positive encouragement by the State, no less, to come away from cash transactions as much as possible..[possibly because the maintenance of coin/notes in circulation is an expensive game?]


BR's are a minority...that is a fact..and they are a minority who generally [through ignorance if for no other reason] are vilified by those who set themselves up on the moral pedestal.

{oh how I wish I could aim equal venom at those who are divorced....but hey, divorce is socially acceptable, is it not? And doesn't directly involve credit!]

Thus BR's will have little or no leverage on the banks themselves.

Co-op are making a statement..not against BR, but against the general policies of other banks operating within the High St.

It should not matter whether High St. banking services make a profit or not.

It is an essential public service......with the banks able to make their profits from other sectors.

I thought we were headed in that direction when the banking bust came about, and the taxpayer bailed out several major banks.

But it seems our political masters are more than keen to let sleeping dogs lie.

As I said many times, use the rules...get your accounts before the petition....

But, remember who helped you through the BR, when you later come to want insurance, mortgages, loans, etc?

And avoid those who shunned you in your hour of need?

Bravehearted_2

Why shouldn't it matter whether high street banks make a profit?

How exactly do you expect them to cover the cost of providing that service?

Not knocking bankrupts, but I have to think your emotional argument is clearly not well thought out.

You said provision of a bank account is a public service - really? Even public services are paid for by someone.

It is ridiculous to say "it is ok to offer a service at a loss because you are making a profit from another service".

Mouse1812

It's not about making a profit, otherwise the banks would simply charge for a basic account - there must be a business model there.

alastairq

Bravehearted wrote: »

Why shouldn't it matter whether high street banks make a profit?

How exactly do you expect them to cover the cost of providing that service?

Not knocking bankrupts, but I have to think your emotional argument is clearly not well thought out.

You said provision of a bank account is a public service - really? Even public services are paid for by someone.

It is ridiculous to say "it is ok to offer a service at a loss because you are making a profit from another service".

It appears perfectly reasonable to expect all the above.

Any service which is essential for day-to-day life should be mandatory [and free at point-of-use].

And, as I have noted, we live now in the sort of economy where pure cash transactions are actively discouraged, from State level downwards....for obvious cost reasons.

I guess Co-op has serious concerns about becoming the only High street banking presence to provide such a service...and the Government, amongst others, seem happy for that situation to remain...since the operating cost is borne voluntarily.

The Co-op's concerns are extremely valid.

As I said, the Government should further their stated aims, and make basic High St. banking services a mandatory condition of banks being allowed to trade to the Public.

This is unlikely to happen, given the colour of our present Government.

As of profits?
Well, supermarket chains don't make a sou out of a tin of baked beans......the public banking service can be viewed in exactly the same vein.

capeverde

Alastair, I don't think its can possibly be in a banks remit to be forced to provide a service that doesn't benefit them. They are a business ultimately and have to make business decisions. What I do think is that the retail and investment arms need to be run as totally seperate entities. How this is done is a different matter as banks may feel they need to move their operations to circumvent this.

What I would have suggested is the government should have gone the extra mile and nationalised one of the banks it bailed out. RBS would have been the prime candidate. it could have then used this to provide the service you are talking about as well as getting the alleged funds meant for small businesses and home loans out to the people that actually need them. Problem with this is that we all know we have been lied to, this 100 odd billion wasn't meant to kick start the economy, it was purely and simply for the banks liquidity as there are still major underlying issues on the bonds markets that will only get worse.

The govt indemnifies 75% of business loans banks make to sme's and Yet I challenge you to find a company that has benefitted unless they have secured the remainder at least two fold on not just assets, but land/property assets.

seven-day-weekend

PippaGirl wrote: »

You can only withdraw cash from it at the post office, there is no debit card and no card to use a hole in the wall, can't set up direct debits or standing orders. So your income goes in and you withdraw cash, that's it. And most importantly it's subject to status. Which says it all really so doubt they accept BR.

But it is at least a home for your salary/wages/benefits and you can pay many of the bills over the counter. OK as a last resort, surely?

PippaGirl_2

Post office charge for most bills paid there. One creditor I had accepted the offer of £1 per month when I was on a DMP but the Post office charged £2.88 each month for the privilage and it could only be paid there. Plus as pointed out above the account is only available for those on benefits not the waged so not available to all.

seven-day-weekend

PippaGirl wrote: »

Post office charge for most bills paid there. One creditor I had accepted the offer of £1 per month when I was on a DMP but the Post office charged £2.88 each month for the privilage and it could only be paid there. Plus as pointed out above the account is only available for those on benefits not the waged so not available to all.

Oh I didn't realise they charged to pay the bills. I'm sure last time I did it (many years ago admittedly), it was free.