MSE News: Free ATMs 'could start charging withdrawal fees' because of row over costs

MSE_Luke

Cash machine users face the threat of new fees to withdraw money at thousands of ATMs amid an industry row over service...

Read the full story:
'Free ATMs 'could start charging withdrawal fees' because of row over costs'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

JuicyJesus

To copy and paste my comment on this this morning: It makes sense. Cash is dropping like a stone in turns of usage, while it is inordinately expensive for banks to handle as it's a physical item that needs to be transported securely, handled securely, have multiple people checking and verifying it etc etc etc. This especially applies to cash machines that aren't in branches (where people are located to service them anyway) or are in the middle of nowhere.

I can understand why if the LINK fee is static and they're receiving less of it but the bank's costs are increasing (as they do) they'd be upset and inclined to either pull out of the market or start charging. With the LINK fee actually dropping for non-branch ATMs then that is going to render a great number of them uneconomical in one fell swoop, and again I don't especially blame the operators. At some point people have to realise that someone has to pay for peoples' banking services and it doesn't always have to be the banks.

One-Eye

So the "card issuers" are complaining about the amount they have to pay the "ATM providers".

A customer who withdraws £20 on ten occasions costs ten times as much as one who withdraws £200 once.

Card issuers could consider limiting the number of free withdrawals from ATMs each month eg. First 8/month are free and subsequent withdrawals cost £1 each.

veryintrigued

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589218

Merge these threads please

JuicyJesus

One-Eye wrote: »

So the "card issuers" are complaining about the amount they have to pay the "ATM providers".

A customer who withdraws £20 on ten occasions costs ten times as much as one who withdraws £200 once.

Card issuers could consider limiting the number of free withdrawals from ATMs each month eg. First 8/month are free and subsequent withdrawals cost £1 each.

It's not the card issuers who are being screwed here though. It's the ATM operators.

molerat

JuicyJesus wrote: »

To copy and paste my comment on this this morning: It makes sense. Cash is dropping like a stone in turns of usage, while it is inordinately expensive for banks to handle as it's a physical item that needs to be transported securely, handled securely, have multiple people checking and verifying it etc etc etc. This especially applies to cash machines that aren't in branches (where people are located to service them anyway) or are in the middle of nowhere.

I can understand why if the LINK fee is static and they're receiving less of it but the bank's costs are increasing (as they do) they'd be upset and inclined to either pull out of the market or start charging. With the LINK fee actually dropping for non-branch ATMs then that is going to render a great number of them uneconomical in one fell swoop, and again I don't especially blame the operators. At some point people have to realise that someone has to pay for peoples' banking services and it doesn't always have to be the banks.

http://www.link.co.uk/about-link/statistics/
Considering the rise in card transactions cash volume has not actually decreased that much.

These machines were offered as a more convenient and cheaper alternative to bank branches allowing the banks to reduce their estate and running costs and they now want to renege on the deal.

dekaspace

One-Eye wrote: »

So the "card issuers" are complaining about the amount they have to pay the "ATM providers".

A customer who withdraws £20 on ten occasions costs ten times as much as one who withdraws £200 once.

Card issuers could consider limiting the number of free withdrawals from ATMs each month eg. First 8/month are free and subsequent withdrawals cost £1 each.

So penalise people who don't have much money to begin with? Which will lead to people carrying about as much money as they can which they are likely to lose or get stolen.

What happens if someone has a unexpected bill that they need to put money back into their account again? What happens if they further find they need to take that money out again?

These days however the best thing to do is get cashback on a card, my friend does this when our nearest cash machine charges £2 to use but the same shop its in does not charge to use card to buy so he buys like a drink for 50p and gets cashback.

I remember a dispute with my bank years ago that also brings up another thing, the cash machines I used abroad refused to give me anything but the lowest amount despite having £300 in the account, so I made 20 transactions over 4 days getting charged £2 per transaction as a fee, when I got back the staffs response was "well you made 20 transactions therefore the amount is correct" and said it wasn't a problem with my card even though it happened in multiple countries and cities in countries.

What happens if something like you want to take out £50 but only £20s are available and your balance is £55,, means you will have to use a 2nd machine or walk around to find another.

So much can happen.

jamesd

A twice a week restriction only applying to the independent ones doesn't seem like much hardship.

realaledrinker

This has been an "issue' for the big banks for well over 10 years. When I was at the Co-op Bank in 2005 or so, they were creaming it as they were massively overrepresented in the ATM space compared to their share of the current account market.

Jo_Blogs

Just another way of making even more money out of people for gaining access to their money. The whole point of ATM's is so that people don't bother the bank staff inside banks during banking hours and so that they can have access to their money 24 hours a day. The banks can't have their cake and eat it, although I have a feeling they will at some point......:o

PeacefulWaters

Jo_Blogs wrote: »

Just another way of making even more money out of people for gaining access to their money. The whole point of ATM's is so that people don't bother the bank staff inside banks during banking hours and so that they can have access to their money 24 hours a day. The banks can't have their cake and eat it, although I have a feeling they will at some point......:o

There's still a cost to installing an ATM, adding cash to an ATM, mauntaining an ATM, investigating disputes and crimes at an ATM.

Not many businesses invest in a piece of equipment without expecting a return from it.