Balance Transfer Fees - Illegal?

John1993_2

SnowTiger wrote: »

Me too.

So it's not misleading and probably isn't illegal.

People seem to be demanding ever more extreme "hand holding" on financial adverts, to an extent that they'd never, ever expect aywhere else. Should the adverts for beer that show someone having a great time be forced to also show a sad lonely man who's wet himself after having a whole crate at home in Hull? Should holiday adverts be forced to give equal prominence to a grey overcast picture of the pool on the day that someone's been sick in it?

Should a Jaguar advert show you the tyre costs and MPG as prominently as the slick pictures of the smiling man with the nice hair and the good tan driving it past a beach?

Should we not remember that these are adverts, designed to sell you a product? Can people not accept that in adverts, unless forced to do otherwise, the advertisers will show you the best features, the desirable ones first, front and centre, and leave out the more mundane or negative facts completely?

What next, insurance adverts pointing out "Remember, if your ouse doesn't buurn down, you've wasted every last penny of premium"?

Idiophreak

John1993 wrote: »

Should we not remember that these are adverts, designed to sell you a product? Can people not accept that in adverts, unless forced to do otherwise, the advertisers will show you the best features, the desirable ones first, front and centre, and leave out the more mundane or negative facts completely?

It's hardly the same.

It's more akin to them advertising "1000mpg" and then putting in the small print "980mpg will be lost when car is in motion".

MSE has done a lot of work over the years promoting transparency in the banking sector and trying to enable consumers to make informed choices...this is more than just "marketing spiel" - it's plain tricksy.

chattychappy

John1993 wrote: »

People seem to be demanding ever more extreme "hand holding" on financial adverts, to an extent that they'd never, ever expect aywhere else.

I think the point is consistency of regulation/consumer protection. If the authorities embark on regulating a sector then there is little point leaving gaps.

This sums it up:

opinions4u wrote: »

They introduced APRs to give consumers a fair comparison tool.

Excluding BT fees from this undermines the reasons for displaying APRs.

I'm gobsmacked a regulator or voluntary code of conduct has failed to get to grips with the status quo.

And this would be a solution:

sfax wrote: »

The fairest comparison IMHO would be to show the APR of a sequence of balance transfers where you pay only the minimum monthly repayment and then transfer the remaining balance onto the same deal again when the term ends.

...

Another solution would be to remove the requirement to show APRs at all. Unfortunately with consumer protection, there is a tendency for it to creep - the more you do, the more people expect. Personally I'd regulate CCs less - but given we are where we are, I'd plug this gap.