Help preventing Bank Rip-off When Sending money Overseas ?

StopBankRipOff

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

If I get money from abroad my bank will deduct between £5 and £12 from it (unless all charges have been paid by the sender) including the US - is this not the same?

Really good point - let me explain.

My bank has a tariff which is clear - if I receive a payment from overseas, I will be charged £6 to receive that payment.
This is clear, and made known to me by my bank.
I cannot complain about this charge, as it is preset, clear and clearly advertised to me. If I don't like it, I don't have to bank with my bank.

So this charge is clearly part of my bank's fee structure, and agreed by me.
It is not hidden. It is not misleading. It is not unfair - even though it is expensive and resented.

The fee that my bank takes, through its sub-contractor, for making an overseas payment is not clearly advertise, and its amount is not set or mentioned anywhere.
It is unclear, it is hidden, it is misleading, and it is unfair.

jonesMUFCforever

StopBankRipOff wrote: »

Really good point - let me explain.

My bank has a tariff which is clear - if I receive a payment from overseas, I will be charged £6 to receive that payment.
This is clear, and made known to me by my bank.
I cannot complain about this charge, as it is preset, clear and clearly advertised to me. If I don't like it, I don't have to bank with my bank.

So this charge is clearly part of my bank's fee structure, and agreed by me.
It is not hidden. It is not misleading. It is not unfair - even though it is expensive and resented.

The fee that my bank takes, through its sub-contractor, for making an overseas payment is not clearly advertise, and its amount is not set or mentioned anywhere.
It is unclear, it is hidden, it is misleading, and it is unfair.

.........but they give you the choice - they state that you can pay all charges - the agent bank charges unknown at time of sending will be debited to you at a later date, or you share charges.

gt94sss2

StopBankRipOff wrote: »

My bank has only ONE USA sub-contracting bank to deal with, and it knows full well the charges of that bank - it sets and agrees them as part of the relationship.

1.'Your' bank could have routed the money via other banks in the US.
2. It would not know what charges/relationships the banks they use in the USA have with other American banks.
3. Its possible that if the person you were sending the money too had an account with the agency bank or an associated partner it may have charged you a different fee (or nothing).
4. You chose to let the beneficiary pay any charges - if you didn't want this you should have selected a different option when sending the money.
5. If you don't like this, why not move bank (though they all operate in the same way)?

Regards
Sunil

JuicyJesus

Something tells me that the OP will never be happy with the actual truth of the matter so it's best just to not try and explain it to them.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I'm out. ...

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Something tells me that the OP will never be happy with the actual truth of the matter so it's best just to not try and explain it to them.

............

StopBankRipOff

gt94sss2 wrote: »

1.'Your' bank could have routed the money via other banks in the US.
2. It would not know what charges/relationships the banks they use in the USA have with other American banks.
3. Its possible that if the person you were sending the money too had an account with the agency bank or an associated partner it may have charged you a different fee (or nothing).
4. You chose to let the beneficiary pay any charges - if you didn't want this you should have selected a different option when sending the money.
5. If you don't like this, why not move bank (though they all operate in the same way)?

Regards
Sunil

Sunil,

Using your numbering system:
1. My bank could send red roses and champagne with my payment too, if it wanted to. Your comment has no relevance.
My bank has one sub-contractor bank in the USA, through which it routes all its USD payments.
2. It knows exactly what the fees and charges of that sub-contractor bank are, because it pre-agrees and sets them with that sub-contractor bank before it commissions it.
3. Yes, my bank might have less fees for any one payment, but never more fees. It would probably not charge me any less if it was in that fortunate position, as it will stick to its standard tariff (although it might, if it wanted to).
4. The beneficiary's charges from his bank (and from the agents of his bank) are the beneficiary's responsibility that he pre-negotiaties with his bank - and nothing to do with me.
I am only concerned with the charges of my bank and my bank's sub-contractor (who operates on behalf of my bank).
I pay for my bank and its sub-contractor(s) - the beneficiary pays for his bank and its sub-contractor(s).
Simple, fair, and clear.
But what actually happened was unfair and misleading.
5. In the USA and in the Eurozone, this practice has been made illegal, because it is recognised as being unfair and misleading. It is still legal in the UK, so all banks are generally being misleading and unfair. Look at the history of UK banks - they will continue to do so, until legislators here catch up with legislation elsewhere to prevent them.

Why are UK banks still allowed to be misleading and unfair ?

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

............

I believe I was just reiterating what I said!