The Banking Code (2005) and BCSB

[Spiceskull]

Reading through the Banking Code (2005) that all banks adhere to, it is worth noting the following points (it is also worth noting that the code is voluntary, and not legally enforcable...):

 

5.4: We will tell you the charge for any other service or product before we provide that service or product, and at any time you ask.

 

As the banks claim that charges are for a 'service' they should be telling us BEFORE they provide the 'service' (and the charge), although they do stick to the rules (in the main) about telling us 14 days in advance of the charge actually being deducted from accounts.

 

7.5: Under normal circumstances, we will not close your account without giving you at least 30 days’ notice. Examples of circumstances which are not ‘normal’ include threatening or abusive behaviour towards staff.

 

For those banks closing accounts where people have claimed a refund (successfully or otherwise) can they honestly say that disagreeing with the bank is considered 'not normal circumstances?' If this is the case, then they are effectively seeking to negate free speech and the right of reply...

 

Also good reading is the Banking Code Rules. Whilst adherence to the code proper is voluntary, it would seem that acceptance of the code opens the bank to regulation from the Banking Code Standards Board:

 

Points to consider:

 

Compliance (Breaches):

 

2.4 Recognising that each case has its own particular features, the factors which the BCSB will take into account in assessing the seriousness of a Breach will include:

(a) the extent of actual or potential customer harm;

(b) whether the problem was isolated or systemic;

© whether the Breach was inadvertent, or represented a knowing act of commission or omission;

d) the length of time over which the Breach continued undetected or without effective remedial action being taken;

(e) whether there were any warning signals, such as concerns expressed in the media, customer complaints, or guidance from the BCSB, and what heed was paid to such signals;

(f) the extent of damage to confidence in, or the reputation of, the banking industry at large; and (g) the extent to which the Subscriber sought to profit, or to avoid or mitigate a loss, by its actions or omissions.

 

It is worth noting that point (e)(warnings) is something the banks should consider seriously. The heed paid seems to be obstruction or even blind indifference...

 

If anyone has difficulty finding these documents, I can ask the moderators to post them to the library.

[martinwhite]

For those banks closing accounts where people have claimed a refund (successfully or otherwise) can they honestly say that disagreeing with the bank is considered 'not normal circumstances?' If this is the case, then they are effectively seeking to negate free speech and the right of reply...

 

What they mean is that normally they will give 30 days notice to close an account. Be abusive to staff (for example) and you don't get 30 days.

 

As for breaches, it depends what breaches they are talking about. If they are talking only about breaches of the code, this doesn't really help us much but is interesting nonetheless.

[Spiceskull]

It refers to breaches of the code (as by accepting the code they are deemed to display a level of compliance)

 

I feel that the point about warnings (e) would apply in every instance, as the bank has been 'made aware' of a breach by the customer.

 

As it has yet to be proved that the charges are legal (or illegal) then I would have thought that the bank is under a duty to investigate the complaint. We are not talking about investigating their own internal processes, but the legality of the charges...

 

As they do not appear to be doing this, then they are acting contrary to the voluntary code they signed up to, and as such, they are in breach of the compliance rules. Therefore BCSB should be running their own investigation (unless they are unaware of any complaint by a member of the public, or of any media coverage...)

[Spiceskull]

Some do not...

 

I think that ALL do not would be more accurate...however, all banks that are party to the code have to provide the code if asked for it (not sure about FD as they are not a High Street business) and the point in the code does state that they will 'notify before the service...'

 

Clearly, as the code is voluntary they are not obliged to stick to what it says. However, in being party to the code they ARE covered by the BCSB, and that this is my initial argument.

 

I would argue that if they are party to the code, and promote this to their customers, and then don't play by the rules...surely they are guilty of misleading those customers...

[martinwhite]

Nationwide NEVER EVER write to me to tell me that charges will be applied. My first written notice of this is when I get my statements, after the money has been stolen, i mean, taken.

 

In truth, I do get notified because the people trying to take the DD usually notify that it hasn't gone through Not all though. O2 policy is that they cut off your phone and wait for you to call in and find out why. The person I spoke to admitted that this is to save costs.

[Spiceskull]

Save costs...? Make money more like. I bet it's an 0845 number that you have to call....

[Spiceskull]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group