RBS/Natwest reduce charges to £5.

[alanfromderby]

BBC NEWS | Business | RBS-NatWest slash overdraft fees

[middenmess]

Basically an admission that their charges were unreasonable or unfair!

[BSC]

Yep - think this goes a long way to say the test case appeals will be found in the consumers favour.

[indebtstudent]

I agree this is great news, especially viewed alongside the memo detailing thier plans on how to handle refunds. Of course they were just planning for all eventualites, just like this decision has no connection whatsoever to the test case and likelihood of them losing.

[Stornoway]

I take a lot of comfort from this - why would they chop the charges unless they think the test case is going to go against them.

 

I wonder how much involvement the government has had in this decision - it will be interesting to see if the other state owned banks follow suit (Northern Rock and Lloyds).

 

Whilst the "paid" overdraft fee remains fairly high at £15 what is amazing is the monthly cap on fees - down from £114 a DAY max at the moment for bounced payments to £50 max a MONTH !!!! This must be great news.

 

I also suspect its an indication of the way the settlement for the test case will go - ie. we wont get back all that we are claiming but only some of it because a core amount between £5 and £15 per charge will be deemed to be fair by the OFT.

[BSC]

I disagree that we won't get the full amount back. As of today £5 is a fair charge. Before that £38 was unlawful and that's the whole £38

[Stornoway]

Interesting but ..... I think the courts found that the charges arent a penalty and therefore the issue at stake is whether the OFT can rule on whether a charge is fair or not ? Lets say that the courts decide that OFT can rule but the OFT says £5 or £15 is fair ? On thi basis I dont think we'll see a full refund .....

[masmit]

Interesting but ..... I think the courts found that the charges arent a penalty and therefore the issue at stake is whether the OFT can rule on whether a charge is fair or not ? Lets say that the courts decide that OFT can rule but the OFT says £5 or £15 is fair ? On thi basis I dont think we'll see a full refund .....

 

The bank's will have to show actual cost's to prove these charges are fair,

Until these costs are shown a claim can be made on unfair terms, by not knowing these actual costs, for me the banks are profiteering out of these charges. That is why they are unfair

[indebtstudent]

I quite agree that this is a massive victory, even at this stage. To some extent I am torn by the development since the OFT intervened. On the one hand I was one of the people jumping up and down saying the powers that be should get involved.

 

Thing is by the time they did do something campaigners like CAG and Martin Lewis were doing fine on thier own. I believe they were very close to forcing the banks to disclose the costs in open court, which is what they (the banks) had been trying to avoid.

 

Then when the OFT and FSA did take action I thought it was far too cosy and definately too much in favour of the banks who, lets remember, effectivley brought this backlash on themselves by ramping up the charges.

 

I really don't think some sort of OFT cap on fees would settle the matter, that is the situation with credit cards but you can still get a full refund. On balance I welcome any reduction voluntary or agree with the OFT, but for me the sooner they get out of it the better.

 

Then we can go to work on finding out the TRUE costs which is what this whole thing is about.

[masmit]

I take a lot of comfort from this - why would they chop the charges unless they think the test case is going to go against them.

WELL with their £20 maintenance+ £15 is this not what the other banks charge at the moment,

I wonder how much involvement the government has had in this decision - it will be interesting to see if the other state owned banks follow suit (Northern Rock and Lloyds).

None i would say,

 

Whilst the "paid" overdraft fee remains fairly high at £15 what is amazing is the monthly cap on fees - down from £114 a DAY max at the moment for bounced payments to £50 max a MONTH !!!! This must be great news.

Until they show actual costs how is it good news?

I also suspect its an indication of the way the settlement for the test case will go - ie. we wont get back all that we are claiming but only some of it because a core amount between £5 and £15 per charge will be deemed to be fair by the OFT.

Just because they amend their fees doe's not put them in the position to pay out the difference between the old fees to the new ones.

At the time they were taken they were unfair & until they show actual costs they will still be unfair.

 

Natwest are giving nothing, just making it look like they are, good PR

[Stornoway]

Just because they amend their fees doe's not put them in the position to pay out the difference between the old fees to the new ones.

I never said that it did put them in that position. At the end of the day that is not for us to decide - the OFT will first decide as part of their review of current accounts whether the charges are fair and if they are not fair then my view is that the OFT will ask the banks to justify the levels of fees charged. I'm sure the banks will find a way to over inflate the actual costs.

 

Natwest are giving nothing, just making it look like they are, good PR

I completely disagree - this is a big step forward. Its not a solution but still something for us to be pleased about.

 

Whilst the "paid" overdraft fee remains fairly high at £15 what is amazing is the monthly cap on fees - down from £114 a DAY max at the moment for bounced payments to £50 max a MONTH !!!! This must be great news.

Until they show actual costs how is it good news?

They can and do charge up to £114 a day - i.e. that works out at £3,420 a month and you think a cap of £50 a month is not good news..... are you mad ?

Edited September 8, 2009 by Stornoway
TYPOS

[bs0lth]

Im shocked at this news... to be honest its all come too late for me, Nat west closed down my accounts a couple of months ago and Im now fighting to get my fees back through hardship.

 

However, Im fuming... Ive put up with so much rubbish from the natwest.. oh their charges are fair etc.. no we cant pay any of them back etc.. like everyone else...

 

Whats got me wound up is the fact in one swoop they have knocked off £34 ... and put a cap on the amount of charges per month... My god if only that was the case with my accounts... one months charges was over £400 and thats just one month. I did claim some back.. then the second lots been stayed forever....

 

Anway... good news if you have an account with nat west.. its about time they reduced the charges. Good news as well as it shows they are scared now... but its about time.

 

My only hope... is that they get taken to the cleaners.. by everyone thats been financially raped by them..

 

ah well..

 

Lynne

[alanfromderby]

If the reason your account was closed was down to issues arising from charging then complain to the FOS. Some members have been awarded compensation - generally not very much, but if they have been unreasonable then make them pay. If you decide to do that however, please can you start another thread.

[masmit]

I never said that it did put them in that position. At the end of the day that is not for us to decide - the OFT will first decide as part of their review of current accounts whether the charges are fair and if they are not fair then my view is that the OFT will ask the banks to justify the levels of fees charged. I'm sure the banks will find a way to over inflate the actual costs.

 

I also suspect its an indication of the way the settlement for the test case will go - ie. we wont get back all that we are claiming but only some of it because a core amount between £5 and £15 per charge will be deemed to be fair by the OFT.

 

 

I answered your posts with my opinion from personal hardship & frustration caused by Natwest & by not calling you mad or anything else.

my point is the banks have given nothing up until this change & clearly they have profiteered out of peoples hardship.

These changes are definitely in the right direction but Natwest had the highest tariff for charges compared to other banks & until they show actual costs they are still profiteering out of hardship & i hope i'm not being offensive to anyone with my opinion.

Mad is believing the banks are doing some thing for us?:-|

[bs0lth]

Hi Alan,

 

Ive already have a thread going for my closed accounts. Im in the process of getting it all back, and to be honest, Ive gone to another bank now and what a difference... Im hoping to be on top of everything soon, but it would be nice to see the nat west suffer, but then again they have so many customers that this might cause havoc to Im not so sure.

 

To be honest Ive been stuggling over the last couple of years, and the amount of money they have taken would have made my life a lot easier.

 

Lynne

[yourbank]

I think many of you are missing the point, RBS Group has played a great poker man's hand which encompasses the whole of the bank charges perspectives.

1) The OFT wins the test case and other associated issues. The bank would payout less potentially if unpaid items are £5.00.

2) Financial Hardship cases: someone I know has had £400+ charges for the last month and under the new regime it would be less than £100.00 so it will potentially reduce Financial Hardship cases.

3) If the Banks' win, it is not the end of the game since the OFT can still look at the unfairness issue which was given by Crow, QC, in the HoL appeal. The issue of price rather than fairness could arise. So the lowering of the fees are in themselves a very shrewd move.

4) The PR generated from this. Do you think the headline rate of £5.00 is something others might think about switching to an RBS Group account ie NatWest, RBS Bank, Ulster Bank? Even the Barclays reserve at £22.00 for every 5 days would appear to be very expensive with return items being £8 a pop and no maximum per month on the latter fees.

 

HOWEVER, where there is a good hand is a weakness. In The Times this week, the president of the Federation of Small Businesses said: "This is a positive step towards helping small firms access affordable finance.”

 

Unfortunately, no one mentioned to him that for Small Businesses struggling in these times, they have not been included in this generosity so they will be £300.00 worse off under the same scenario of having a maximum of 10 items bounced than a personal customer(the maximum fees for unpaid items on the new charging structure is £50.00 or 10 items). That is £300.00 that potentially could see the different between staying afloat and going under.

That's very Helpful Banking for Businesses courtesy of RBS Group.

[indebtstudent]

But we've seen with credit card that OFT guidance on a figure does not stop people claiming.

 

I'm not sure about the PR point either, some people are very angry about a bank which has taxpayers as the majortiy shareholder paying to advertise these changes in national newspapers. They knew years ago the charges were open to challenge and this just makes them appear very slightly less stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

I can see where you are coming from, and entirely understand what they are trying to do, but changing the amount of the charge does change one fundamental fact - they still haven't given any clue as to thier costs.

 

I don't think hardship is much of an issue as there have been very few people who have benefitted from this, this is why I am uncomfortable with the whole test case waiver situation.

 

Even if your points are entirely valid this still has to be viewed in a positive like, people are getting ripped off less than before. I know its not a huge victory but it is a victory nontheless.

[yourbank]

But we've seen with credit card that OFT guidance on a figure does not stop people claiming.

And because the terms itself have not changed then they do not have to go through the FSA to change them and if the terms itself are proven to be unfair ie OFT wins test case and secondary litigation then the amount they repay back is less potentially.

I'm not sure about the PR point either, some people are very angry about a bank which has taxpayers as the majortiy shareholder paying to advertise these changes in national newspapers. They knew years ago the charges were open to challenge and this just makes them appear very slightly less stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The PR point is not necessarily about NatWest customers but if someone in say 6 months is being charged through the nose by say LLoydsTSB then someone might say, why not switch to NatWest? The unpaid item is more likely to happen than the paid referral so charges would be lower.

I can see where you are coming from, and entirely understand what they are trying to do, but changing the amount of the charge does change one fundamental fact - they still haven't given any clue as to thier costs.

That is not entirely the case, there is evidence from a South African study that they have done. Furthermore, they will have given the costs to the OFT since they are investigating bank charges. It is irrelevent looking at price at the moment since we are looking at fairness and cost is a commercial secret for the time being.

I don't think hardship is much of an issue as there have been very few people who have benefitted from this, this is why I am uncomfortable with the whole test case waiver situation.

Indebt, being on CAG means you don't get a true picture of financial hardship since those in the know do not believe in it so do not really look at getting their knowledge of it up to speed. The basic hardship criteria many have used is £500.00 over 12 months. You have got to be in serious financial hardship to get more or less 100 items returned and even with 50 then you still might only have another £200.00 in maintenance charges which makes £450 or under that £500 mark. It is a true poker hand and one that I think is genius.

With regards to the waiver situation, why should it change since there was only 18 complaints in the last 12 months up to 31st July 2009(I asked the FSA for that info). Not exactly an avalanche of breaches complained about.

Even if your points are entirely valid this still has to be viewed in a positive like, people are getting ripped off less than before. I know its not a huge victory but it is a victory nontheless.

This is the point I am making. It can be seen as a positive step for PERSONAL CUSTOMERS, but as Moneyboxlive referred to my email to them, Business customers are not affected by this which leads to the obvious question, how come for the same offence are business customers disadvantaged 7 times the amount that, had they been a personal customer, they wouldn't have done.

[jaxads]

I think I must have been in hibernation -- I'd missed completely the reduction in the charges - I wonder how long it will be before the other banks follow suit!!

[boingy]

Basically an admission that their charges were unreasonable or unfair!

 

Couldn't agree more, however credit where credit is due (pun intentional - sorry), this is a move in the right direction for the consumer and Natwest should be congratulated for doing this.

 

I've an outstanding unfair claim charge with them, which grows every month, however I'm completely happy with the new charging scheme, and have no intention of contesting those fees (even if it were possible, which I imagine it won't be).

 

I wonder how many banks will now follow suit, as Natwest suddenly becomes an attractive bank for many CAGers, the kind of customers that the banks like.

 

Roll on this test case that keeps getting put off.

[indebtstudent]

"With regards to the waiver situation, why should it change since there was only 18 complaints in the last 12 months up to 31st July 2009(I asked the FSA for that info). Not exactly an avalanche of breaches complained about."

 

The waiver is not easy to understand therefore it is not a surprise that there are few complaints. How can you complain about something when there are no firm rules about it? Anyone with a low level of english would take one look at it and give up, which I believe is what it was designed to do.

 

I would say cost has a very close relationship to fairness, the whole unfair/unlawful argument starts from the premise that charging (much much more than) thier costs is unfair. In this I agree it would be much more difficult to argue that £5 is excessive BUT if someone, ANYONE, had done this at the outset we wouldn't have seen such a huge backlash.

 

I am sick and tired of the banks spouting non-sense... For example on credit cards they say here's you full refund although we disagree with the OFT's interpretation of the law. Similar to bank charges they are trying to avoid doing this because they believe there is a good chance they will lose.

 

What relevance does a south african study have? We already know from Ireland that, at £5, they may still be making a profit, and what about the other charges that are still higher? If the paid item fee is more than the unpaid item fee that's an incentive for them to 'decide' to pay the item wouldn't you say?

 

I've had bank charges before but I'm not about the rush out and open an account with Natwest because they are the first to change, I hope and believe others will make further changes.