Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

natweststaffmember

PhiltheBear wrote: »

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I've seen a number of posts that suggest that financial difficulty is the fault of the individual (when patently it's not), that those on benefits ought to get back to work (totally ignoring the lack of jobs), that excessive bank charges should be kept so that those with money can still keep their 'free' banking, etc.
On the reclaims board I see that very rarely but generally if I see it I will respond in kind to the poster.
I have a banking background. On and off I spent about 25 years working in various banks as a consultant. So I have a pretty good idea of what goes on at high levels and in a lot of different banking areas. But, not for one second, could I defend what the banks do in terms of charging. By and large the banking industry isn't in favour of personal accounts. This is hangover from the days when personal accounts required a lot of time and effort to look after. But computerisation removed a lot of that surveillance. It also gave the banks a weapon for levying charges.

The banks then discovered that they could raise those charges - by stealth - and customers were stuck with them. Move bank? What for? The charges were pretty uniform.

Whereas once an individual would check your account daily to see if you were overdrawn, and maybe phone you about it, now all that happens is a computer program checks your balance against a figure which shows how much in the red you can be. If you are over it generates a notice to you. I've seen the printout area of several banks. They are almost totally automated. They take the statements, credit card bills, etc. away daily in lorries. Not vans. Lorries. They are huge operations. Because of the scale their actual costs per item are tiny. So, when they send you an 'overdrawn' letter it has cost them pence. But they've been charging £35 a time.
Very rarely do the worst customers, for want of any other word, receive notices of charges apart from statement inserts. I certainly agree with you with regards to the this though.
That's not just. It's not equitable. It's not good business. It's plain greed.

Unfortunately, there are people who are too stupid to understand that. And, regrettably, some of them vent on this forum.

OTOH - alot of what Orc posted was, in fact, true.

I think the basic points Orc was saying is that the support network on MSE is poor with regards to advising.(that's not true)
That on financial hardship that CAG is better(that's just not true)
That one or two posters help people(some of us just don't have a life to do other things ).
You will get judgemental people on all forums and it is the job of those who help to bring back to the debate a balanced approach(not always succeeding but still worth trying).

laalaa41

I cant help equating the argument that free banking is somehow at risk because of scallys who "steal" overdrafts - utter nonsense - with the meat is murder brigade. People in comfortable positions making judgements from the pedestal they put themselves on. My argument is that these guys would eat their own arm if they didnt have a wealth of veggie goodies so much at hand. Like the guys with so much money, being in debt is failure or a crime to be treated with disdain when I'm quite sure if they found themselves in some of our situations, they'd begin to think a little differently - perhaps at least a little less judgemental eh?
Oh and Ive said here that banks are now operating on a very poor "business model" - they'll shut down small businesses citing this phrase. Well my dears you guys are on a "hiding to nothing" as we say in Scotland because a large percentage of your customers hate you with a passion. There is a clear market opportunity for fair banking organisations to steal ALL your market shares and drive you into the ground.
I see RBS are losing loads of staff - personally I hope my ex branch is closed down and the bank manager who spoke to me like I was a piece of doo doo finds himself out of a job!

natweststaffmember

The managers are safe in their jobs and it is the cashiers that are losing their jobs ie administrative jobs.

laalaa41

So with fewer branches for managers to manage, why would they not be losing their jobs too then?
Im "support staff" myself - a secretary - deemed to be a lower organism and utterly replaceable - ten a penny we are (apparently). Only the enlightened few managers actually appreciate a good secretary/administrator when they come across one. Is this a self-fulfilling prophesy situation? There are very few decent, well trained admin/secretarial people these days BECAUSE it is viewed this way. Ive come across ladies who really don't give a darn because the pay is poor, the kudos is zilch... Happy to say though that Im utterly appreciated in my current situation and on a decent salary, with lots of perks, nice people to work with/for and the company I work for is doing very well - the shares are going up and up AND I have a share option AND my manager appreciates me too!

natweststaffmember

laalaa41 wrote: »

So with fewer branches for managers to manage, why would they not be losing their jobs too then?
Im "support staff" myself - a secretary - deemed to be a lower organism and utterly replaceable - ten a penny we are (apparently). Only the enlightened few managers actually appreciate a good secretary/administrator when they come across one. Is this a self-fulfilling prophesy situation? There are very few decent, well trained admin/secretarial people these days BECAUSE it is viewed this way. Ive come across ladies who really don't give a darn because the pay is poor, the kudos is zilch... Happy to say though that Im utterly appreciated in my current situation and on a decent salary, with lots of perks, nice people to work with/for and the company I work for is doing very well - the shares are going up and up AND I have a share option AND my manager appreciates me too!

They are getting rid of cashiers and increasing staff who will sell products to you. Some branches will decrease in staff numbers while other branches will be sold to the newer players in the market.
The bank see that other banks use less money to administer their branches and are following suit. I have to say I would disagree with their policy but I guess customer service is not what they want. In fact, people are being invited to apply for voluntary redundancy at the moment within their branches

orc_2

I have noted all comments since I posted and given them much thought.

Firstly, I am in no way critising Nattie and the other regular genuine folk who give much valued advice and support on this site. Every one of you deserves nothing but applause and many people are deeply grateful for the advice and support offered. Not only is much valuable individual time given but some have given even more than that, which is commendable and won't be forgotten.

There are of course, people behind the scenes of all forums, who work on startegy and when possible, collaborate.

You have to think about how people arrive at this site, most often at a very vulnerable time in their lives when they are hurting. I know, I've been there. I was lucky, after leaving this site, under a different user name, I found a site that suited me. That was over 3 years ago. I did not, as some one said earlier, just appear from no-where.

Folk come here because its well known due to the publicity with Martin, but they often don't know where to get the best advice and end up in different parts of the site. It's there that the problems start. Remember, the site is unmoderated and the site staff here have plenty of other things to do. Very often, those claimants get abuse, as there is a bit of a bully culture here, no-one can dispute that. People get belittled.

Remember too that bank charges are generally only one part of the financial problems and there will be debt elsewhere. Thats why folk go to the mortgage, credit card, utilities, etc forums.

Frustration on the part of claimants is evident everywhere (on all sites, even LB), borne out of fear on the part of claimants and the harm that is done regularly on a daily basis to individuals and their families. We all know the reasons for that.

The folk that have posted recently on this thread can take care of themselves, its those that can't that I am concerned with, I think everyone is concerned, I mean you. I am perfectly aware of the role of a site team and that at the end of the day, its up to the claimant to skill themselves.

Perhaps one option might be for Martin to review this part of the forum and revamp it, taking some of the good bits from other sites and avoiding some of the problem issues on other sites.

At the end of the day, I think it can be done differently and better. I stand by my view that there are friendlier environments elsewhere for claimants with more support.

I am trying to be constructive. View me as a critical friend!

Alpine_Star

I am genuinely at a loss to understand the purpose of your post.

natweststaffmember

orc wrote: »

I have noted all comments since I posted and given them much thought.

Firstly, I am in no way critising Nattie and the other regular genuine folk who give much valued advice and support on this site. Every one of you deserves nothing but applause and many people are deeply grateful for the advice and support offered. Not only is much valuable individual time given but some have given even more than that, which is commendable and won't be forgotten.

There are of course, people behind the scenes of all forums, who work on startegy and when possible, collaborate.

You have to think about how people arrive at this site, most often at a very vulnerable time in their lives when they are hurting. I know, I've been there. I was lucky, after leaving this site, under a different user name, I found a site that suited me. That was over 3 years ago. I did not, as some one said earlier, just appear from no-where.

Folk come here because its well known due to the publicity with Martin, but they often don't know where to get the best advice and end up in different parts of the site. It's there that the problems start. Remember, the site is unmoderated and the site staff here have plenty of other things to do. Very often, those claimants get abuse, as there is a bit of a bully culture here, no-one can dispute that. People get belittled.

Remember too that bank charges are generally only one part of the financial problems and there will be debt elsewhere. Thats why folk go to the mortgage, credit card, utilities, etc forums.

Frustration on the part of claimants is evident everywhere (on all sites, even LB), borne out of fear on the part of claimants and the harm that is done regularly on a daily basis to individuals and their families. We all know the reasons for that.

The folk that have posted recently on this thread can take care of themselves, its those that can't that I am concerned with, I think everyone is concerned, I mean you. I am perfectly aware of the role of a site team and that at the end of the day, its up to the claimant to skill themselves.

Perhaps one option might be for Martin to review this part of the forum and revamp it, taking some of the good bits from other sites and avoiding some of the problem issues on other sites.

At the end of the day, I think it can be done differently and better. I stand by my view that there are friendlier environments elsewhere for claimants with more support.

I am trying to be constructive. View me as a critical friend!

I wish I could say that you are being constructive, I really do. I post mostly on the reclaims board. I look at the financial hardship claims which we see wins almost every single day. The things I look at is the overall debt and whilst some people have in the past been quite vicious in their approach the bottom line is that they are giving advice to the poster. Very rarely on the reclaims board do I see the harsh approach that is not taken down a peg or two. I don't agree with your view and I think you need to contact site team which is quite easy as it is first name excluding the MSE bit at moneysavingexpert.com. No doubt they will deal with your specific issues and can you include threads where this has happened and constructive views.
Let's get back to the Bank Charges Test case because the discussion is quite frankly boring.

PhiltheBear

laalaa41 wrote: »

There is a clear market opportunity for fair banking organisations to steal ALL your market shares and drive you into the ground.

I'd like to see that. But it won't happen. The closest we have to it would be a Building Society but they don't run current accounts. (Those 'building societies' that do are actually banks).

There's a simple problem. Banks are serving two totally disparate sets of people. On the one hand the customer, whom they can treat as they like because they know there's no real opportunity to go elsewhere. On the other hand the shareholder, who wants a return for their investment. The banks try to maximise profits to pay shareholders. It's that simple. A 'fair' bank couldn't make as much money, so the shareholders wouldn't invest.

I see RBS are losing loads of staff - personally I hope my ex branch is closed down and the bank manager who spoke to me like I was a piece of doo doo finds himself out of a job!

Sadly, because I'm sure I ought to have more compassion, I hope a lot of the people who make decisions that have negative effects on others eventually suffer in the same way. In particular I'd like a lot of the people who work in Jobcentres to try and understand that people who are long term unemployed aren't necessarily trying to avoid work and shouldn't, therefore, be treated like dirt.

orc_2

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I am genuinely at a loss to understand the purpose of your post.

I will refrain from stating the obvious, and confine myself to saying that your position is unfortunate and perhaps an opportunity lost. I have noted that on previous occassions EXC you use the same tactic.

Nattie, yes I was being genuine and put myself out on a limb. Anyway, perhaps another time.