There are obviously some institutions that have handled our claims better than others. Barclays, for instance, tend to put up an arguement but don't tend to use underhand tactics to intimidate people into not claiming. Abbey, on the other hand, have used every technique possible to avoid paying money out, from DPA non-compliance, to letting the claimant win by default then calling for a set-aside hearing at which they field a barrister and all the other sly and devious means to put a claimant off.

All the banks are involved in the penalty charges game so it may not be obvious which one to recommend but if, when we set lists of banks to set up parachute accounts with, we recommend banks who behave better towards us, we would be effectively boycotting the others.

Maybe a name and shame system would work.

What do others think about this?

All for it

I think its a good idea. To add to this, I tihnk banks ought to be told that we are leaving them for their poor conduct, and equally, new banks ought to be told that they are being used because of the reported way of them dealing reasonably well with complaints and claims.

I disagree that Barlcays are not using underhand tactics.

They regularly use the microfiche argument to try and frustrate disclosure requests. They put in defences and prolong the litigation process when they have no intention of going to court. They attempt partial settlements. I believe that they had made some spurious Part 18 enquiries, they try to apply conditions of confidence.

I consider that all of this is unnecessary and intimidatory and wasteful of everyone's time and resource.

In fact for along time they had managed to foster a culture among barclays claimants that they were a very fiddicult bank to reclaime from. I don't know how they managed this but I think that the perception has now changed.

I can't think of a single bank which is better than the rest. - maybe the Co-Op but they have so few customers and so few claims that it is not a true comparison.

I also have to say that I think that the banks will be very pleased to have "troublesome" customers leaving them.

I think that boycots are a good idea but it would need such a substantial number of people to leave to have an effect that i don't think that we could make a difference.

I can't say I've found Barclays to be helpful - in fact MBNA were the best, and thats a poor admission coming from me - I usually hate that bank!!

I agree with BF in that none of the banks or money lenders smell of roses but I do think that to some extent it depends which unknown employee happens to deal with your request as proven by my dealings with Abbey (see below). I also agree that it would take many customers leaving to upset the banks & as BF says wouldn't they just be pleased to see the back of us.

AS BF has suggested in his advice on stays. Although not yet affected I am preparing letters for my MP the OFT the FSA & his dog which I will dispatch after posting here for comment

I think Smile (co-ophve been good if a little swamped) , then again they cannot justify their charges as they only ever send an automated message and not a letter.

I'm with Abbey and I don't think they would be upset if I left especially when I put in my claim.

Surely press attention would be better, maybe you organise a protest outside Abbey's head office they would really hate that, I would be up for it, although would have to check with the police etc as you have to get permission to protest nowdays hehe

I view a boycott as not only to have an effect on a boycotted company. I have been on a Nestle boycott for the last 9 years beacuse of their unethical provision of powdered baby milk in developing countries. Given the amount of profit they make from their unethical actions it would take a huge amount of people boycotting their products to make them change. My point of the boycott is not, therefore, to get them to change as such but for me to know that my money isn't involved with it.

If there was a bank that practised completely ethically then I would sign up for an account like a shot.

The bank would

1. not charge unlawful bank charges

2. Not engage in irresponsible lending, causing the borrower to be tied to them with costs to the borrower escalating.

3. Actually follow the Direct Debit Guarantee.

If this involves an account with an annual fee then I am happy with that as I can see that a bank is there to make a profit, as long as that fee is reasonable and advertised so the customer can make an informed decision before signing up.

Blueskies Now I know why you have that handle.

Nevertheless it would be great if there was such a bank. You never know some lender might just catch on there's a big market out there

oohh, a flying pig just shot past my window

there goes another one!

Ethical consumerism is, finally, beginning to take off in this country. If you need proof then you only have to look at the growing market for fairtrade products.

I think the time has come for financial institutions to follow suit and the natural leader for this should be the cooperative group, due to the way it is run and it's commitments in other areas.

The coop bank already has an ethical stance on investments and this should be extended to the way their customer banking is conducted.

I am a coop member and was very active a few years ago in the CWS and managed to convince the local panel not to include Nestle products when running in store promotions. I will contact my local chair and see if I can get the committee to raise a motion at conference next year.

Oh dear! I won't go into details but believe me when I say the Coop ain't what you think or would have us believe

Read un1boy's posts

Please allow me to make a firm & definate entry for Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank on this list.

JMio i hear ya,lol.

I definitely agree that if a bank were to take an ethical stance then I would join them for sure.

Would be good if a major bank decided to play fair of their own accord..wishing thinking maybe!

Regards

There are obviously some institutions that have handled our claims better than others. Barclays, for instance, tend to put up an arguement but don't tend to use underhand tactics to intimidate people into not claiming. Abbey, on the other hand, have used every technique possible to avoid paying money out, from Data Protection Act non-compliance, to letting the claimant win by default then calling for a set-aside hearing at which they field a barrister and all the other sly and devious means to put a claimant off.

 

All the banks are involved in the penalty charges game so it may not be obvious which one to recommend but if, when we set lists of banks to set up parachute accounts with, we recommend banks who behave better towards us, we would be effectively boycotting the others.

 

Maybe a name and shame system would work.

 

What do others think about this?

Well ive been boycotting McDonalds for years i dont think they are too bothered about it.

My point of the boycott is not, therefore, to get them to change as such but for me to know that my money isn't involved with it.

tricky issue because yes its true you might not have a direct financial link with their immoral practices but somewhere down the line you might. (2nd order, 3rd order etc. If you imagine 1st order connection being something like someone vocally and financially supporting something; A 2nd order connection would be supporting something behind the scenes through another, perhaps more ethical, company)

Also sure it might give you peace of mind to know that you arent willingly supporting the banks but that doesnt stop them screwing over everyone else.

If you see someone commiting a crime do you do what you can to assist? ; prevent them? or walk on by taking no part at all?

The vast majority of society chooses to not engage at all (ie neutral stance: walk on by leaving to other authorities to sort out i.e. they abdicate their personal & ethical responsibility into the hands of state ethical authority. That is, the state authority acts on their behalf) but prefers to continue with their normal day to day lives.

But im not judging you or anyone its hard enough trying to survive day to day without things like this.

CJ

I AND my kids have been boycotting McDonalds ever since the took those demonstrators to court in what is the longest libel action in English History. What a PR triumph that was!

I've been boycotting McDonalds for years, simply because their food is cr*p!

I also have to say that I think that the banks will be very pleased to have "troublesome" customers leaving them.

 

I think that boycots are a good idea but it would need such a substantial number of people to leave to have an effect that i don't think that we could make a difference.

With regard to troublesome customers, it's troublesome customers who make billions for the industry when they slam on their excessive and unlawful charges.

Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

If overnight every customer who clocked up charges was no longer allowed a bank account, the entire indusctry would suffer an enormous lull in profit. I disagree with Bankfodder that the bank want rid of troublesome customers. From an individual point of view yes it would make things easier for them but if we (troublesome customers) were to leave in mass they would sharp realise the error of their ways.

No disrespect to you bankfodder don't worry your'e still my guru.

Coming back to Blueskies' boycott of Nestles - we too have boycotted them for years for the same reason. One problem is you hardly ever hear of the campaign yet the suffering of the victims far outweighs anything suffered by victims of bank charges (wit all due respect). Given CAG is for consumer action, is it a suitable forum to raise the profile of a campaign that seeks justice for consumers who may not be able to seek it for themselves?

With regard to troublesome customers, it's troublesome customers who make billions for the industry when they slam on their excessive and unlawful charges.

 

Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

Because that goose has taken back all their eggs & will not lay any more anyway now..