MSE News: Which? wants jargon-free banking small print

Former_MSE_Helen

"Banks are being urged to slash the length of their small print after Which? found some T&Cs take over an hour to read..."

Read the full story:

Which? wants jargon-free banking small print

le_loup

Banks T&Cs get worse by the day.
Well done Which? for tackling this problem.

Wywth

Which? says some examples of long-winded conditions it found include one from NatWest, whose slogan is "helpful banking". It reads: "We may transfer, assign, or pass our rights or obligations under this agreement or arrange for any other person or organisation (a transferee) to carry out our rights or obligations under this agreement."

The consumer group translated this to mean: "Your account could be transferred to another bank."

But that is a much more specific and restrictive term than the one NatWest currently has.

If Which? were to include all the other possible scenarios the NatWest term currently covers (and make similar ammendments to other affected terms), then I could foresee their 30,000 word terms could easily become 300,000 words :eek:

JuicyJesus

Yet another bunch of people who think that legal language in legal documents is somehow obscene.

Shorter language won't make people care and read them.

Consumerist

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Yet another bunch of people who think that legal language in legal documents is somehow obscene.

I think they are saying it's obscure - it is you who is saying it is somehow obscene.

It's banking practices which most of us think are obscene. That wouldn't include bankers, of course.

le_loup

Wywth wrote: »

If Which? were to include all the other possible scenarios the NatWest term currently covers (and make similar ammendments to other affected terms), then I could foresee their 30,000 word terms could easily become 300,000 words :eek:

You imply that bank T&Cs have always been this long and this obscure because they needed to be.
They haven't. They weren't.
Tell me, what has changed in the past few years?

opinions4u

As the FOS makes more rulings, the banks see a greater need to "cover their backsides".

As the nation becomes more likely to head to the courtroom, the banks see a greater need to "cover their backsides".

The recent thread about the Lloyds TSB Term Deposit clearly stating "No withdrawals allowed", yet the poster stating "ah, but it never said that closure wasn't allowed" highlights the intent of a certain group of customers to unwind any interpretation of so called small print in their favour.

I support any call for clearer T&Cs. I support a suggestion that they should be more concise.

But sometimes you can't have it both ways.

(Don't forget Which? is a commercial organisation with magazines to sell - soundbite headlines attract attention to their product)

As an aside, here's a link to Which? and their own T&Cs for subscription. Along with multiple other links to be considered in connection with this.

http://www.which.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/

Probably briefer than a typical bank's T&Cs. And just as likely to be read.

Consumerist

In reality, of course, most banking Ts&Cs can be simplified as follows :-

We (the bank) can do whatever we like, subject only to legislation and/or regulation, and you (the customer) must agree to it.

I think that would, more or less, be clear and honest.