RBS lower charges-a hidden agenda,but does not fool anyone.

[Bookworm]

As per announcement above.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | RBS-NatWest slash overdraft fees

 

Maybe now is the time to send a signal to all the banks. There is no doubt in my mind that this is RBS testing the water, and now is when we should all write to our banks pointing out the RBS change of charging regime and asking them what they intend to do about it. Also advising them that unless you, as a customer, see your bank following suit, you will have no choice but to defect to RBS. If enough of us do that, the banks will pay attention.

 

However, one thing is certain: although it is a good start, it is nowhere sufficient. £15 is still ridiculously high and if RBS are hoping to take the wind from under our sails as well as poaching customers from the other banks, they must be made to realise that this move is a start, not an end and that consumers won't be fobbed off with a level of charges which is still incredibly high and can still generate a huge amount of misery on the most vulnerable.

 

So, I say: To your pens, your keyboards and write to your bank. Let them know you have had enough. You can't go very far in suing at the moment, but you sure as hell can still be heard by telling them you'll go elsewhere if they don't start falling in line. ;-)

[MARTIN3030]

My thoughts were the same.

£5 for bouncing a cheque is considerably less than £38,but how many peeps use cheques these days in the course of their everyday lives ?...and how many places still take them ?

Lots were expecting the figure to be pegged at £12.00-so £15 is a bit way off as a starting point.

If we look back to 2006,the CC issuers were slow to follow eachother,but eventually did after being told they had to.

Why would RBS choose to set these figures at this point,in the uncertainty of having to move further ?

Could it be that these talks between all sides are a little more advanced than we assumed ?

Changes in terms and conditions have,in any event shifted the goalposts-an example is Halifax whose charges increase as the U/A remains unpaid.

Ther RBS announcement is as much a smokescreen as it is a diversion-CAGGERS wont be fooled.

[Bookworm]

Ah, but some (ok, ME) have argued all along that whatever gets decided in the end would be higher than £12, Martin. Banks have higher overheads than c/c companies and I've always felt that there was no way the level would get lowered to the same as the c/c.

 

It certainly smells somewhat ratty that RBS should change their structure NOW. The rat becomes smellier... Are we to assume that like Barclays, these new charges won't be covered by the waiver? By rights, it shouldn't, but what judges are going to listen to that argument between this bank charge and that bank charge?

 

On the surface, it looks good. Below, ol' cynic here feels very very uneasy.

 

(and you're quite right about the bouncing cheques, talk of a nigh-empty gesture! )

[MARTIN3030]

Yes I agree they do have higher overheads-but there is an arguement now to look at how the mergers have brought about much restructuring and systems management sharing-surely the overheads in 2009 are well below those of 2006.

Cutting costs is about saving money,but what spurs on cost cutting ? its a desire to become leaner more competitive and achieve greater profit.

We have seen Barclays profits ....

We have also seen losses announced for the others,but lets not forget these are taking account of other factors.

Any business that says it needs to make £38 for pressing a button is telling porkies-unless of course its manufacturing.

Making £15 by pressing a button is still a nice little earnerfor the banks.

Anyone who cant see that...needs to do much more than go to specsavers.

[jclancy]

I have just written a blog on the Birmingham Post website in response to the RBS/Natwest decision and a provocative new definition of 'Free Banking'.

 

Fellow CAG-ers piled in with great comments on a blog on bank charges I did there earlier this year and promoted here.

 

Comments would be great! You don't need to register to comment.

 

You'll find it here:

 

http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2009/09/new-bank-charges-yes-please-ho.html

 

Hope you agree with me. By the way, I'm happy still to call them penalty charges - if it walks like a duck .....etc.

 

John Clancy

Edited September 8, 2009 by jclancy
typo

[masmit]

I have just written a blog on the Birmingham Post website in response to the RBS/Natwest decision and a provocative new definition of 'Free Banking'.

 

Fellow CAG-ers piled in with great comments on a blog on bank charges I did there earlier this year and promoted here.

 

Comments would be great! You don't need to register to comment.

 

You'll find it here:

 

New Bank Charges? Yes, please. How much do you want pay me, Mr. Banker? - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

 

Hope you agree with me. By the way, I'm happy still to call them penalty charges - if it walks like a duck .....etc.

 

John Clancy

Well said john

totally agree

[jclancy]

Well said john

totally agree

 

Thanks, masmit!

[MARTIN3030]

Well done John.

I have replied there but dont know if it landed.

[jclancy]

Don't think it did, Martin3030. It would be great if you tried again!

 

John

[MARTIN3030]

I filled everything in and pressed submit...there then followed 15 minutes wait......must be gremlins.Will try again.

[MARTIN3030]

Tried 4 times and keep getting this;

 

 

 

 

Comment Submission Error

 

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Text entered was wrong. Try again.

[jclancy]

Sorry about that; it is annoying.

 

Assuming you've filled in the antispam letter box, you have, in my experience when things don't go right first time to copy the text you want to comment, come out of the site, go back in again. Paste it in afresh and type in a new anti spam code. Really sorry about that. CAG is much better!

[MARTIN3030]

"CAG is much better!"

 

Yes I think I would have to agree....I dont have much problems posting here;)

[Bookworm]

*bookie bites tongue very hard and says nothing of vodka-fuelled problems*

[MARTIN3030]

Vodka fuelled problems ????????????

 

[MARTIN3030]

Bookie-have you lost any post count ?

[Bookworm]

Would that be a threat?

[MARTIN3030]

No...reason I was asking is that 700 of mine have disappeared....wondered if you saw them on your travels.

[Bookworm]

Can't say I have, luv, at my numbers, you stop counting, lol.

 

Maybe RBS took them to make up the numbers? We all know they don't add up anyway! (RBS, not you!)

[MARTIN3030]

Ah yes.....never thought of that.

Although it could be RLP.....137.50 x 4 ??????

[noomill060]

post count may have been reduced in the site maintenance last night.

 

CAG was off line twix'd 0145hrs -0215hrs this morn 9/09/09

[MARTIN3030]

I have had an explanation now.