acwalters wrote: »
:money:I must disagree - the "well-managed" account holders do not pay any interest, fees, etc, and thus do not make any money for the banks - why should the banks want them the most? What the banks want are the ones who use their overdraft regularly, incur fees etc. Obviously, they are not looking for completly irresponsible borrowers who won't pay back, but the "perfect customer" is not "well-managed"
acwalters wrote: »
However, there is a law here that all banks have to follow, that if a customer bounces 10 cheques/DDs in a 6 month period, their account is shut down and they are not allowed to open another one for a year.
jrawle wrote: »
If your campaign to scrap charges for people who are careless with their money results in me receiving no interest and having to pay a monthly fee, you will have been responsible for losing me money each month - far from being a "money saving expert". There is a huge problem in this country with people not knowing how to budget properly, as you begin to accept in the final part of your article.
You have to admire the profiteering genius of this system. Instead of not paying, the banks created a system where they would pay out, but would charge £35 a pop for every transaction - no matter how small - beyond that limit. It’s no wonder they now make from £1.6bn to £3bn a year from this. In the past once you couldn’t pay out you’d know as the payment wouldn’t go through.
jrawle wrote: »
Going back to the first part of your post. I don't think direct debits are ever paid early because of a bank holiday or weekend. They are paid the next working day.
I switched to a current account that pays a better rate on balances up to £2500 than most savings accounts. Before I had the high interest current account, I used a system like the one you used to. But I'd never play with fire and keep such a small amount in my current account that one direct debit would make me overdrawn. If you gamble, you're sometimes going to lose.
dchurch24 wrote: »
There is also a HUGE point that has been missed so far.
The Wages Act was changed in the 80's to allow Maggie's mates to more or less have a captive audience when it came to bank accounts.
There was a time, when only the wealthy were 'allowed' bank accounts (how I long for those times!).
Anyway, the wages act was amended in the 80's giving the rights of the employee to the employer with regards to how wages are received. This of course was welcomed by big employers. They no longer needed to keep huge sums of cash on site, and the whole thing could be automated and savings could be made. There were also other incentives from the bank that are of course now long gone in favour of making more money, now that everyone is signed up and they have a monopoly.
All fine and dandy you might think - well, I don't, I have nearly managed to do completely without a bank account for about 6 months now. I just have one last cheque I need to pay into an account with my name on it and I'm nearly there.
...but I digress.
The ECHR Act has a clause that stops any (local - i.e. member state government) gov. from passing legislation that forces EU citizens into buying third party goods or services.
Now, if we have to 'buy' these services from banks, remembering that we cannot actually choose to not do so unless you have a very sympathetic employer, then we are in exactly that position.
By way of monopolisation and legislation we have been forced into buying a third party service.
I think the banks have opened themselves up to a whole lot more than just a bank charges issue.
Corruption, EU laws, monopolies, price fixing...the list goes on.
Even if they have friends with funny handshakes here, I can't see defending these sorts of claims being very cheap to do.
Of course, for some reason, the QCs in the current case keep bleating on about how they will have to start charging every customer if they lose etc...
!!!!!!??? What has that got to do with the legalities of their current charging regime? Nothing. So why bring it up in a case about it. Why? Simply to garner public support from the people that don't have these charges.
So, if they lose this case, they will have to make a commercial decision as to what they do with their 'banking model' - so what? What has that got to do with whether or not the UTCCR is relevant?
Their other argument was that a law passed in 1999 supersedes existing CASE law. Nothing can do that - another mis-direction.
Their whole argument seems based on half-truths and mis-direction.
If the Wages act reverts to it's pre-mid 80's state, then the whole issue of bank charges becomes moot. People who are being ripped off will simply not use a bank any more.
If I don't like the price I pay in Dixons for a DVD player - I simply don't buy it. We need that choice back when it comes to THESE services. Only that way can we have true competition back in the banking sector.
At the moment, all a bank can do is to poach customers from other banks. There are very few new bank accounts that they can make money from, and they all operate in much the same way - (substandard service - it's cheaper that way, and usually mistakes will end up with them having more money from you as it's so much hassle to fight to get that 20 or 30 quid back due to the aforementioned substandard service.
With that in mind, they really don't have to compete as the same old customers are being passed around from bank to bank slowly realising that they are all as bad as each other - and yet, when all banking options are exhausted - there is nowhere else to go. You HAVE to have a bank account as your employer has said so - despite the fact that legally the money is yours - you earned it, yet you do not have the choice of how you receive it, and thus are pushed into buying a substandard service that you may not want.
This situation is exactly the reason that particular clause was put in the ECHR Act; and as usual it's ignored by our government (when it suits them), and like most other laws, ignored by British banks.
jrawle wrote: »
Martin, I really hope you are right and that account fees won't be introduced. But let's remember, banks are out to maximise their profits, so if one method of making money it outlawed, they'll do it some other way.
Can you help this Forumite track some down?
For benefits recipients
Via MSE Blagged code