Banking Industry

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

Or is it a case of those who deposit more than £500.00 a month will be better treated,who know's??? unless you know for a fact that those with over a £500.00 a month generate more activity, personally i cant see £1 making that much of a difference :rolleyes:

You know nothing about the Halifax customers account activity but, on the other hand the Halifax know everything about it's customers account activity so I'd conclude that the Halifax is in a better position to know, wouldn't you?

The fraud side is secondary but, obviously sending unnecessary statements to account holders with low account activity via surface mail limits the chances of the unnecessary statements going a stray to the wrong person with important account details that can easily be used for fraud.

Customers with a higher account activity maybe keep their details (address) up-to-date more than customers with low account activity ...

I have high account activity but, choose to have online statements only ...

In all honesty you'd be better directing your concerns to Halifax customer services and maybe post back here the reply you get

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

Very true, and it's me the tax payer who gave them their life boats to stay afloat,without the tax payer they would have been another titanic, regardless of the money being payed back over so many years.;)

Can't argue with that but, chances are NR going under would have set a trend and would have had a domino effect due to panicing people so in my opinion the government have made a wise choice for a change - they could have wasted the billions on needless things that don't change anything for anybody but, themselves - hey! they most likely still will when it's getting repaid

setmefree

Fedz wrote: »

The fraud side is secondary but, obviously sending unnecessary statements to account holders with low account activity via surface mail limits the chances of the unnecessary statements going a stray to the wrong person with important account details that can easily be used for fraud.
( So now your saying that a person who deposits £499.00 has lower activity than a person who deposits £501.00 and so in turn Halifax are correct in reducing their statements.Ok thank you for your view, I have in fact wrote to halifax and asked them to explain to me the difference between £501.00 and £499.00 regarding statements,when i get a reply i will scan it for all to see)

Well time to go now

Primrose

I voted No. Whilst I don't think the banking industry will suffer another Northern Rock debacle, I don't trust the banks generally to regulate themselves sufficiently and operate disciplined policies. If they had, they wouldn't now be involved in the Sub Prime situation and have loaned money to unreliable customers. And virtually all of them put their customers last when it comes to the Customer Service ethos which doesn't give me much confidence in them from an ethical point of view. Many businesses can make a profit whilst behaving ethically towards the customers. As a general rule, I don't think banks do.

Fedz

setmefree wrote: »

So now your saying that a person who deposits £499.00 has lower activity than a person who deposits £501.00 and so in turn Halifax are correct in reducing their statements.Ok thank you for your view, I have in fact wrote to halifax and asked them to explain to me the difference between £501.00 and £499.00 regarding statements,when i get a reply i will scan it for all to see

Maybe ... I know as much as you about Halifax's customers account activity hence why I said as Halifax has made this decision then they'd do it for a reason based on their own customers account activity.

I don't see any other Halifax customers complaining on MSE except you so maybe if it was such a controversial change then we'll see a rush of Halifax customers soon ...

masonic

setmefree wrote: »

So if a person deposits £499.00 a month and uses debit transactions to the amount of £498.00 a month,they would make more money for the bank than the person who deposits £501.00 a month with no transactions ???

Sure. The person who deposits £501 per month and doesn't spend anything will never incur overdraft charges, penalty fees, waive interest on transfers that are in progress, and will not earn the bank electronic purchasing fees from retailers. In fact, the bank will have to shell out lots of interest to them, which in some cases actually loses the bank money.

masonic

setmefree wrote: »

And what about the fraud issue???, are they going the other way and saying to reduce fraud we will send out statements every three months to those who deposit less than £500.00 a month to protect them, but those who deposit £500.00 or more will retain their monthly statements coz they aren't as much at risk???. fraud is fraud no matter how much you deposit...it ain't as if the fraudsters will say err hang on don't bother with that statement they deposit less than £500.00 per month.:rolleyes:..and they can't use the theory of less statements less fraud, i could get a statement once a year and still be subject to I.D.fraud.

IMHO, anyone who waits for their printed bank statements to monitor activity on their current account is not checking frequently enough, even with monthly statements.

setmefree

masonic wrote: »

Sure. The person who deposits £501 per month and doesn't spend anything will never incur overdraft charges, penalty fees, waive interest on transfers that are in progress, and will not earn the bank electronic purchasing fees from retailers. In fact, the bank will have to shell out lots of interest to them, which in some cases actually loses the bank money.

Thank you very much,so the person in this example who makes the money for the bank is the one below the £500.00 threshold,and yet it is this same person who has had their statements restricted to once every 3 months;)

masonic

setmefree wrote: »

Thank you very much,so the person in this example who makes the money for the bank is the one below the £500.00 threshold,and yet it is this same person who has had their statements restricted to once every 3 months;)

So there are people who would not be caught by this system that probably should be. The trouble is, it's much easier to apply a blanket rule like this than try to judge it on a case by case basis, which would be near impossible.

setmefree

masonic wrote: »

So there are people who would not be caught by this system that probably should be. The trouble is, it's much easier to apply a blanket rule like this than try to judge it on a case by case basis, which would be near impossible.

Yes much the same principle with the Bank charges test case, stop all claims,seems fair to some and not to others, here's the latest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7229085.stm

But Mr Iain Milligan QC, for Barclays bank, told the test case hearing that thousands of cases were scheduled to automatically resume this week

And that's without the final decision being made, strange that????