Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 21st Nov 12, 8:04 AM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Which? wants jargon-free banking small print
    • #1
    • 21st Nov 12, 8:04 AM
    MSE News: Which? wants jargon-free banking small print 21st Nov 12 at 8:04 AM
    "Banks are being urged to slash the length of their small print after Which? found some T&Cs take over an hour to read..."

Page 1
    • le loup
    • By le loup 21st Nov 12, 8:13 AM
    • 3,907 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    le loup
    • #2
    • 21st Nov 12, 8:13 AM
    • #2
    • 21st Nov 12, 8:13 AM
    Banks T&Cs get worse by the day.
    Well done Which? for tackling this problem.
  • Wywth
    • #3
    • 21st Nov 12, 8:45 AM
    • #3
    • 21st Nov 12, 8:45 AM
    Which? says some examples of long-winded conditions it found include one from NatWest, whose slogan is "helpful banking". It reads: "We may transfer, assign, or pass our rights or obligations under this agreement or arrange for any other person or organisation (a transferee) to carry out our rights or obligations under this agreement."

    The consumer group translated this to mean: "Your account could be transferred to another bank."
    But that is a much more specific and restrictive term than the one NatWest currently has.

    If Which? were to include all the other possible scenarios the NatWest term currently covers (and make similar ammendments to other affected terms), then I could foresee their 30,000 word terms could easily become 300,000 words
    • JuicyJesus
    • By JuicyJesus 21st Nov 12, 11:24 AM
    • 3,479 Posts
    • 3,938 Thanks
    JuicyJesus
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 12, 11:24 AM
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 12, 11:24 AM
    Yet another bunch of people who think that legal language in legal documents is somehow obscene.

    Shorter language won't make people care and read them.
    urs sinserly,
    ~~joosy jeezus~~
    • Consumerist
    • By Consumerist 21st Nov 12, 12:07 PM
    • 5,194 Posts
    • 2,601 Thanks
    Consumerist
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 12, 12:07 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 12, 12:07 PM
    Yet another bunch of people who think that legal language in legal documents is somehow obscene.
    Originally posted by JuicyJesus
    I think they are saying it's obscure - it is you who is saying it is somehow obscene.

    It's banking practices which most of us think are obscene. That wouldn't include bankers, of course.
    Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    • le loup
    • By le loup 21st Nov 12, 12:25 PM
    • 3,907 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    le loup
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 12, 12:25 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 12, 12:25 PM
    If Which? were to include all the other possible scenarios the NatWest term currently covers (and make similar ammendments to other affected terms), then I could foresee their 30,000 word terms could easily become 300,000 words
    Originally posted by Wywth
    You imply that bank T&Cs have always been this long and this obscure because they needed to be.
    They haven't. They weren't.
    Tell me, what has changed in the past few years?
  • opinions4u
    • #7
    • 21st Nov 12, 1:10 PM
    • #7
    • 21st Nov 12, 1:10 PM
    As the FOS makes more rulings, the banks see a greater need to "cover their backsides".

    As the nation becomes more likely to head to the courtroom, the banks see a greater need to "cover their backsides".

    The recent thread about the Lloyds TSB Term Deposit clearly stating "No withdrawals allowed", yet the poster stating "ah, but it never said that closure wasn't allowed" highlights the intent of a certain group of customers to unwind any interpretation of so called small print in their favour.

    I support any call for clearer T&Cs. I support a suggestion that they should be more concise.

    But sometimes you can't have it both ways.

    (Don't forget Which? is a commercial organisation with magazines to sell - soundbite headlines attract attention to their product)

    As an aside, here's a link to Which? and their own T&Cs for subscription. Along with multiple other links to be considered in connection with this.

    http://www.which.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/

    Probably briefer than a typical bank's T&Cs. And just as likely to be read.
    Last edited by opinions4u; 21-11-2012 at 1:20 PM.
    • Consumerist
    • By Consumerist 21st Nov 12, 1:52 PM
    • 5,194 Posts
    • 2,601 Thanks
    Consumerist
    • #8
    • 21st Nov 12, 1:52 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Nov 12, 1:52 PM
    In reality, of course, most banking Ts&Cs can be simplified as follows :-

    We (the bank) can do whatever we like, subject only to legislation and/or regulation, and you (the customer) must agree to it.
    I think that would, more or less, be clear and honest.
    Last edited by Consumerist; 21-11-2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason: spelling
    Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

185Posts Today

1,252Users online

Martin's Twitter