Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
The lack of visibility of insufficient funds charges to consumers has reduced the incentive for the banks to compete on these aspects. As a result some banks appear to see insufficient funds charges in particular as an attractive way to generate additional revenue without affecting demand for their accounts.
Insufficient funds charges have increased by an average of 17 per cent in real terms between 2003 and 2007. The average daily unarranged overdraft balance over the year9 in 2006 was £680 million but involved some £1.5 billion in paid item and maintenance fees.This is a return of over 220 per cent on the balances.
The consumer groups main ones consulted will be Which and CAB etc. All stakeholders, which includes CAG and other consumer type forums and groups, have an opportunity to respond in the consultation document.
£152: The amount the OFT says the banks made from each active bank account in 2006, a figure the British Bankers' Association (BBA) says is "slightly contrived".
64 million: The number of personal bank accounts in the UK, of which about 54 million are estimated to be active.
£152 x 54 million comes to around £8.3 billion and £2.6 billion is from charges, about 32%.
To answer tifo, NO that;s not CAG, PAG, PC,LB, MSE or CCS. No doubt those groups can of course make a contribution/response to the report.(will take a look at the OFT site later).
Its designated consumer groups including Consumer Direct, CAB.
So in light of this report, what now for the defences that bankers have entered for claims under the old "to cover our admin costs" T&Cs?
I have picked out some quotes & figures from the OFT report below. This little collection could almost suggest that some banks may have knowingly lied to the courts in their written defence where they maintained that the charges were purely the cost of administering whatever triggered them.
If that's true, then banks spent 31% of all their income administering unarranged overdrafts?
Originally Posted by OFT Report
A combination of complexity and a lack of transparency means that consumers and competition are focused almost exclusively on more visible fees, and not on the less visible elements such as insufficient funds charges and forgone interest – despite the fact that these make up the vast bulk of banks’ revenues.
Banks earned over 85 per cent of their revenues on PCAs from two sources: net interest income from credit and debit balances (£4.6 billion), and levying charges associated with insufficient funds (£2.6 billion).
During the course of this market study, the OFT has seen banks’ internal documents on the level of charges that include statements such as: ‘in order to maximise fee revenue, whilst maintaining our competitive position, selective increases in [insufficient funds charges] are proposed’, and ‘Increasing insufficient funds] charges will have less impact on our marketing position… due to its lower visibility.’
We found that the banks earn over 30 per cent of all their revenues from insufficient funds charges.
Although banks apply charges in different ways the unit price for charges, where applied, is similar across suppliers. Overall the level of individual charges has gone up considerably in the last seven years whether adjusted for inflation or not. This is particularly the case for paid item fees, which increased from an average of £16 to £28, a nominal increase of 75 per cent over the period.
The 16 banks lent £680 million as unarranged overdrafts in 2006.
If the insufficient funds charges (excluding charges for unpaid items) of £1.5 billion in 2006 were treated as the cost of borrowing on the £0.68 billion average unarranged overdraft balance over the year for the 16 banks, we estimate that the annual interest rate would be more than 220 per cent. While short term loans are distinct in their short duration and can be expensive to administer, this level of charging compares unfavourably with many similar forms of lending such as credit cards and personal loans.
Gez, the wording maximising fee income is one I have seen, and while it sounds like a bank being a bunch of greedy beggars, it was about making sure the correct fee for the correct service is keyed, for example, Safe custody in branches, copy statement fee, stopped cheque fees etc,etc. The context of the wording is such that you could not consider it to be within the confines of bank penalty charges.
Gez, the wording maximising fee income is one I have seen, and while it sounds like a bank being a bunch of greedy beggars, it was about making sure the correct fee for the correct service is keyed, for example, Safe custody in branches, copy statement fee, stopped cheque fees etc,etc. The context of the wording is such that you could not consider it to be within the confines of bank penalty charges.
No problem with that, but it is as clear as a dogs sensitives what context "maximising fees revenue" is used within that paragraph.
That is really only a small part of it. Even without those comments, the banks want us and the courts to believe that they spent over 30% of their total income on administering instances of unarranged overdrafts.
So the costs of running all those thousands of branches, call centres and marketing would be separate from these costs. Its as black & white as that. Either: a) the truth is absent, b) call centres, branches & marketing is free, c) banks have a very small profit margin.
What bothers me more is that this report states pretty much that there was no point in examining banker's costs. WHY NOT? This was the basis of their defence and the very legality of their charges hinges on an examination of their costs. Don't they have a similar system to Cynthesis?
i found this.....you can read the full article at the web address at the bottom of this post..
Customs bank on the Halifax
by Technical Department at 00:00 23/07/01 (Technical Articles)
Article by Stanley Dencher, Senior Technical Editor, Croner.CCH Group
Ltd, published in the July 2001 issue of Tax Adviser.
Customs are apparently involved with several test cases in the
campaign against VAT avoidance. One such case is Halifax plc No.
17,124.
The Halifax's supplies are generally VAT exempt because it is a bank
(VATA 1994 Sch 9 Grp 5). During the relevant periods, its VAT recovery
rate was under five per cent. For the purpose of its banking business
it needed to construct call centres. If it had directly constructed
the call centres, most of the VAT on the construction costs would have
stuck. However, it used a scheme which involved three other companies
and which used the standard method of calculating a partically exempt
person's recoverable VAT. If the scheme had worked, the Halifax and
the three companies would together have recovered all of such VAT
which amounted to over £5m. Each of the three companies was separately
VAT-registered and was a subsidiary of the Halifax.
iIT'S OUT...........
The Consumer Forums
Reply With Quote
Re: iIT'S OUT...........
Originally Posted by tifo
