The end of free banking... It'll never happen!

[PhiltheBear]

Hmm, according to this bank employee, one of the major banks has done the number crunching to see what difference there would have been if his employers had not charged any penalties, but instead charged for accounts on their existing "pay accounts" tarriffs.

The post right after asks some interesting questions..

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Why a bank charges win doesn’t mean the end of ‘free banking’ blog discussion

 

To be honest the guy who posted that seems like a very 'low-level' employee or he wouldn't have made such silly claims. And his standard of English is well below that of a normal bank employee

[Gez]

Oh its definitely a troll post, no question of that. Every now & again, some employee jumps on to MSE, usually the evening after they have had the part of their training that covers bank charges, and posts the 'company yarn'. Its just the claim he made that this kind of study has been done that caught my eye.

It could very well be 'cow manure' but I still think it was worth asking, stranger things & all that..

[dave]

I think he should get used to spelling 'lose' properly (instead of loose) - he's going to be typing it a lot over the coming months!

[Resoli]

Can anyone convince me why we should NOT pay for banking? Isn't it a service like any other? Why are we addicted to free banking?

 

What is wrong with paying £5pcm for banking, provided that we get what we pay for? Good interest when in credit. Reasonable interest when in debit. End of waiting 3 days for BACS. End of waiting 7 days for cheques.

 

What is wrong with paying for banking? Why do people believe that banking services should be free, except for it's the status quo and it's what people are used to?

 

Someone convince me please!

[dave]

Well, for one thing, we lend them our money that they 'lend on' at a very small interest rate. In A&L's 'cheque clearing account' (despite such things not actually existing ;-)) there is 2 billion quid at any one point. Even the libor rate overnight would give hansom returns on our money.

 

We are already paying for our banking. If we lend to them at 3% below the (publicised) inflation rate then we have our money tied up and thus we cannot invest it elsewhere at a better return. We pay by giving up the 'right' to invest our money at better return.

 

Personally, I have no problem with paying for banking services - I simply wouldn't use them if they continued to offer the same standard of services that they offer now. I.e. Awful customer services, mistakes - often, and generally treating their customers with contempt. If Tesco did the same, I would no longer shop there.

 

Waiting 7 days for cheques to clear is substandard - so is waiting 3 days to transfer money between accounts in THE SAME BANK! 25 quid to move 30 quid into a French bank account?

 

Indeed!

 

The main problem I foresee with charging for these 'services' - which I think they can hardly be called seeing as there really is no 'service' from these companies - is that under ECHR laws, no member state's citizens can be forced by local legislation to pay for a service and/or goods. Under the Wages Act in this country, employees have no choice where their earnings are paid. This is no their choice, which means that effectively to have to pay for the services that banks provide would breach our human rights - and quite rightly so.

 

I have no problem paying any company for services used. If I buy a dishwasher, then I expect to pay for it - if I don't want to pay for it, I don't use that company.

 

However, I have systematically been attempting to eradicate banks from my life - yet, I am trapped at nearly every turn.

 

Why should I not also have the choice of NOT paying for these services?

 

Once I have the choice, then they can charge whatever they like; I'll take my chances with the 'honest' thieves and keep my earnings under my mattress.

[indebtstudent]

Exactly my thoughts Dave. We ARE forced to use banks and the banks have made a rod for thier own back in squeezing the branch budget until the pips squeek. If they carried out thier threat to bring in charges I predict complaints will soar for the simple reason that, even if a service is dreadful, the fact people see it as free helps to keep them in check.. If I'm paying £5 or £10 a month and there's a queue in my lunc hour which isn't moving I'm likely to kick up a fuss.

[djtripled]

At the end of the day if the banks want our business, would they rather continue with free banking or let us bank with their rivals?

It will come to a point where all banks will start charging a monthly fee to run your account if the OFT wins the test case.

However as people with credit cards are always looking for the best deal, so will current account customers too if they are forced to pay for their services.

Then the banks will enter a price war so they can attract customers looking for a better deal and eventually it will come to a point where they will have to introduce free banking again to recoup their lost customers.

Make sense?

Is going to be one big vicious circle lol.

[Resoli]

But Dave, you miss my point, which is mainly:

 

"What is wrong with paying £5pcm for banking, provided that we get what we pay for? Good interest when in credit. Reasonable interest when in debit. End of waiting 3 days for BACS. End of waiting 7 days for cheques."

 

If we got the above, there is no arguement against paying for banking except that there is 1) competition and 2) it's the status quo. Competition is a riddiculous argument - what happens if they all introduced fee based banking. The status quo argument is just as riddiculous when you consider how much banking has changed in the last five years, let alone ten. The service is evolutionary.

 

Look at the HSBC account offering 8D/8C with a fixed fee. That is the future of banking. People do get a good service from the banks. It's no argument to say 'we are forced to use them so they must be cheap to use'. We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service.

 

On the issue of whether or not they are services. To use your French account transfer example - the service provided is the bank crediting your account and ensuring that it is credited safely and securely, unless you want to go to France and put the money in yourself -what option have you got?

 

On the Wages Act, I understand the aim of your point except that you miss that employees do have a choice over what they do with the money. The days of putting your money under a mattress are rightly over. Today's equivelent is in which electronic account are you going to hold the money. You have control over which account and bank you have that money paid into. Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go.

 

Finance is a regulated industry - Dave would you rather go back to the 17th and 18th centuries of mickey mouse banks appearing on the scene, taking your money and then disappearing? If you accept that you can complain about the service of a bank you must accept that it should provide a level of service. Why should you not pay for that service? Bank regulation is good. Regulation will restrict the number of banks. Banking is not a free to enter industry. Quite rightly banks have to prove themselves prior to becoming authorised. Banks are in a position of strength because of this.

 

Look at it from this angle.

 

 

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 1% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £30. Pay to bank for service £0.

 

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 5% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £1,500. Pay to bank for service £60.

 

Who wouldn't go for the second option?

[Guest louis wu]

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 1% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £30. Pay to bank for service £0.

 

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 5% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £1,500. Pay to bank for service £60.

 

Who wouldn't go for the second option?

 

 

Who would go for the second option......none of the banks that's for sure.

[dave]

But Dave, you miss my point, which is mainly:

 

"What is wrong with paying £5pcm for banking, provided that we get what we pay for? Good interest when in credit. Reasonable interest when in debit. End of waiting 3 days for BACS. End of waiting 7 days for cheques."

 

If we got the above, there is no arguement against paying for banking except that there is 1) competition and 2) it's the status quo. Competition is a riddiculous argument - what happens if they all introduced fee based banking. The status quo argument is just as riddiculous when you consider how much banking has changed in the last five years, let alone ten. The service is evolutionary.

 

Look at the HSBC account offering 8D/8C with a fixed fee. That is the future of banking. People do get a good service from the banks. It's no argument to say 'we are forced to use them so they must be cheap to use'. We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service.

 

We are not forced to use accountants or solicitors - we can do that stuff our self if we choose too.

 

On the issue of whether or not they are services. To use your French account transfer example - the service provided is the bank crediting your account and ensuring that it is credited safely and securely, unless you want to go to France and put the money in yourself -what option have you got?

That's a fair point - in fact, I have taken the cash their in person before - although I now believe that this is not strictly legal.

 

On the Wages Act, I understand the aim of your point except that you miss that employees do have a choice over what they do with the money. The days of putting your money under a mattress are rightly over. Today's equivelent is in which electronic account are you going to hold the money. You have control over which account and bank you have that money paid into. Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go.

 

Yes, but employers are not EU citizens. The employer HAS dictated where it goes - into the banking system - a virtual cartel. I think this is open to interpretation.

 

Finance is a SELF regulated industry - Dave would you rather go back to the 17th and 18th centuries of mickey mouse banks appearing on the scene, taking your money and then disappearing? If you accept that you can complain about the service of a bank you must accept that it should provide a level of service. Why should you not pay for that service? Bank regulation is good. Not in my opinion it isn't - if it were good, how come we all have a potential tax liabilty to the tune of over 100 billion quid to Northern Rock? Regulation will restrict the number of banks. Banking is not a free to enter industry. Quite rightly banks have to prove themselves prior to becoming authorised. Banks are in a position of strength because of this.

 

...and yes, I would rather go back to 17th/18th century banking - the answer would be not to use a bank, would it not?

 

As explained above, we DO pay for banking already - we lend them our money at a rate far lower than that of inflation - they lend it on at a rate far in excess of inflation.

 

Personally, I would have no problem paying for services from banks providing that:

 

a) it were a fair and reasonable price - and I can't see that happening with the current banking system/cartel we have in the UK at the moment.

b) the levels of service were at least adequate - which they currently are not (this isn't restricted to the banking industry btw, it seems commonplace with all large companies these days)

c) I had the choice of NOT using the services should I choose not to.

 

You say that rightly, the days of keeping money under you pillow are gone. I'm not sure that it's right. I would prefer to keep my money under my pillow. That way I would know how much is there (I once had three different balances given to me by a bank in one day, with no withdrawals on the account in any way shape or form - the cashpoint said a different balance to the cashier and their Internet banking said a different balance altogether), where my money was going and who had access to it.

 

Look at it from this angle.

 

 

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 1% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £30. Pay to bank for service £0.

 

Pay £30,000 pa wages into a bank, recieving 5% p.a. credit interest. Interest recieved (crudely put) £1,500. Pay to bank for service £60.

 

Who wouldn't go for the second option?

 

 

 

...but then with inflation being put at nearly 10% (by economists, not the government) then the bank stand to at least gain £2970. Nice work if you can find it.

[Resoli]

"We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service. We are not forced to use accountants or solicitors - we can do that stuff our self if we choose too."

 

We have regulated persons and functions in a multitude of industries - IFAs, Solicitors etc. You can not handle the conveyance of your house yourself. You can not handle the transfer of a company pension scheme yourself. You do not have the choice you think you have. You have a choice within a regulated atmosphere.

 

"Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go. Yes, but employers are not EU citizens. The employer HAS dictated where it goes - into the banking system - a virtual cartel. I think this is open to interpretation."

 

Is it not that society today dictates that the money goes into the banking system? A combination of government, employers and yes employees. You could insist that your wages are paid in cash or cheque, or if you really want to hark back to times bygone, in kind with butter, milk and cheese.

 

" As explained above, we DO pay for banking already - we lend them our money at a rate far lower than that of inflation - they lend it on at a rate far in excess of inflation."

 

But the example I have brought specifically took this into account. If we got credit interest - real interest - say BBR plus/ minus a half we would be getting paid for our accounts properly.

 

I have a problem with you calling banking a cartel. A closed system - yes. A cartel though? Explain why you call it this. I accept the fundamentals that it could be a cartel if there was no regulation of the industry - however light - but you do have options to change bank and to choose differing services and accounts. Take my usage of Whiteaway Laidlaw compared to my account with the Halifax. Whiteaway Laidlaw GREAT service. Naff systems. Halifax. Great systems - online, branch network etc. Naff service. I have a choice as to whom I bank with. It's a closed system but there are enough competitors in the system to pick from to ensure a level(er) playing field.

 

Finally, I don't follow your maths on the £2970 for the bank, please explain. Probably my lack of mathematical skill!

[dave]

You could insist that your wages are paid in cash or cheque, or if you really want to hark back to times bygone, in kind with butter, milk and cheese.

 

I'm afraid I can't. I don't legally have that right. No UK resident does.

 

You can not handle the conveyance of your house yourself.

 

Yes, you can. Easily. I have done it twice. Three times if you count France - although it's considerably different there.

 

 

Cartel: (EOD)

 

a.) "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members."

b)." A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause"

I would say that the differing services that banks offer are broadly similar - I don't see much difference in Barclays to Lloyds, or from NatWest to Barclays.

As to price fixing, IF bank charges are for a service, as they claim, then how come they are all so similar in price? There is very little difference - they may charge them in a different way, but the actual cost to the consumer is extremely close - price fixing is a trait of a cartel.

 

"If you don't like a bank's charges, change your bank" is something I have heard a lot of over recent years. That's all well and good, but you'd only change your bank to another bank that charges the same. A fixed, cartel like system in anyone's eyes surely?

 

As to the maths - it's crude, but if inflation is 10% and interest is paid at 1%, then the bank, simply by sitting on your money, is set to make 3k. Minus your 30 quid (it should be 300), makes £2970.

 

 

[indebtstudent]

Dave is correct the legislation giving employees a right to be paid in cash was repealed years ago.

 

Furthermore I would like to ask where are these banks that offer good service? If banks offered 'good' service don't you think we would've seen less of a backlash relating to charges?

 

The choice you speak of is an illusion, I can choose between providers in an industry which (IMO) is less than honest and care little about customer service.

 

Also believe your logic should be turned around. You say the banks will introduce charges but the point which people have made over and over again is IF the charges were NEVER allowed then who's to blame? It MUST be the banks.

 

They have put themselves in this situation by increasing the charges time and time again, if the current banking model is not sustainable they ought to know about it.

[Guest grizzleguts]

I'm afraid I can't. I don't legally have that right. No UK resident does.

Which law quotes this Dave?

A legal form of payment, would be, what ever is a ligitimate form of payment, according to your Bank, so if they except a cheque, Baccs, Cash etc, then that is a ligitimate payment, The above quote is not in any Statute law I have read, not even the Employment laws.

The only reason a company get away with it, is because it's in the Employment contract, and if it is not negotiable, then is it not a unfair term, of a standard form contract?

FWIW, free banking, How can it be free if the vast majority (those living on the bread or survival line)are paying for banking services across the board?

[dave]

The only reason a company get away with it, is because it's in the Employment contract, and if it is not negotiable, then is it not a unfair term, of a standard form contract?

Sadly not true. The law backs them up - it doesn't even need to be in the contract.

 

It's the Wages Act. It was changed in 1984, passing the right of method of payment to be chosen by the employer, not the employee (as it was before this amendment).

 

It was an amendments of the 1970 Equal Pay act. Sadly, I cannot find a link to it on-line - only one you have to pay for and order a copy on paper.

[JonCris]

Correct Dave twas Maggie who changed it.

 

Ostensibly to stop lots of cash being transported about & thereby stolen by the blaggers.

 

Ironic init Taken from one bunch of c rooks to be given to another lot:rolleyes:

[indebtstudent]

Soon cash will disappear and we'll all be living in a wonderful 'efficient' world where we rely on the banks even more.

 

Sorry just woke up, was having a nightmare

[Guest grizzleguts]

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Made7th September 2004

Laid before Parliament9th September 2004

Coming into force1st October 2004

The Secretary of State, being a Minister designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in relation to measures relating to discrimination, in exercise of the powers conferred by that section, hereby makes the following Regulations:

 

Annotations:

F1

See the European Communities (Designation)(No. 3) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1819).

F2

1972 c. 68.

 

Citation, commencement and application

1. — (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 and shall come into force on 1st October 2004.

(2) These Regulations apply to proceedings instituted on or after 1st October 2004.

(3) Paragraphs (2), (3) and (6) of regulation 2 also apply to proceedings instituted before 1st October 2004 if before that date an employment tribunal in proceedings before it has not required a member of the panel of independent experts (within the meaning of subsection (4) of section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970 F3 ) to prepare a report under subsection (1)(b) of that section. Annotations:

F3

1970 c. 41. Section 2A was inserted into the Act by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (S.I. 1983/1794), regulation 3(1). It has been amended by the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/438), regulation 3 and the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 (c. 8), section 1(2)(a).

 

 

 

Amendments to section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970

2. — (1) Section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)– (a)

in paragraph (b), omit the words from the beginning to “so mentioned,”; and

 

(b)

omit the words from “and, if it requires” to the end.

 

 

(3) After subsection (1) insert –

"(1A) Subsections (1B) and (1C) below apply in a case where the tribunal has required a member of the panel of independent experts to prepare a report under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above.

(1B) The tribunal may – (a)

withdraw the requirement, and

 

(b)

request the member of the panel of independent experts to provide it with any documentation specified by it or make any other request to him connected with the withdrawal of the requirement.

 

 

(1C) If the requirement has not been withdrawn under paragraph (a) of subsection (1B) above, the tribunal shall not make any determination under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above unless it has received the report.".

 

(4) For subsection (2) substitute –

"(2) Subsection (2A) below applies in a case where – (a)

a tribunal is required to determine whether any work is of equal value as mentioned in section 1(2)© above, and

 

(b)

the work of the woman and that of the man in question have been given different values on a study such as is mentioned in section 1(5) above.".

 

 

 

(5) After subsection (2) insert –

"(2A) The tribunal shall determine that the work of the woman and that of the man are not of equal value unless the tribunal has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the evaluation contained in the study – (a)

was (within the meaning of subsection (3) below) made on a system which discriminates on grounds of sex, or

 

(b)

is otherwise unsuitable to be relied upon.".

 

 

 

(6) In subsection (4) for the words “In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above the” substitute "In this section a".

Jacqui Smith,

Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, Department of Trade and Industry

7th September 2004

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations, which amend the Equal Pay Act 1970, come into force on 1st October 2004.

Section 2A of the Act requires the employment tribunal to follow a particular procedure when determining proceedings where there is a question as to whether the claimant and the comparator are doing work of equal value. Section 2A partly implements Council Directive 75/117/EEC F4 , which provides among other matters for claims to equal pay for work of equal value.

Regulation 2 alters the procedure for such claims. It allows the employment tribunal to choose to determine the question of equal value itself or to appoint an independent expert to prepare a report on that question. In a case where there has already been a job evaluation study which has given different values to the work of the claimant and the comparator, the employment tribunal must determine that the work is not of equal value unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the study discriminated on the grounds of sex, or there are other reasons why it is not suitable to be relied upon.

A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that these Regulations will have on the costs of business has been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and can be obtained from the Women and Equality Unit, Department of Trade and Industry, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.

 

cannot find it here

[Guest grizzleguts]

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Made7th September 2004

Laid before Parliament9th September 2004

Coming into force1st October 2004

The Secretary of State, being a Minister designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in relation to measures relating to discrimination, in exercise of the powers conferred by that section, hereby makes the following Regulations:

 

Annotations:

F1

See the European Communities (Designation)(No. 3) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1819).

F2

1972 c. 68.

 

Citation, commencement and application

1. — (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 and shall come into force on 1st October 2004.

(2) These Regulations apply to proceedings instituted on or after 1st October 2004.

(3) Paragraphs (2), (3) and (6) of regulation 2 also apply to proceedings instituted before 1st October 2004 if before that date an employment tribunal in proceedings before it has not required a member of the panel of independent experts (within the meaning of subsection (4) of section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970 F3 ) to prepare a report under subsection (1)(b) of that section. Annotations:

F3

1970 c. 41. Section 2A was inserted into the Act by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (S.I. 1983/1794), regulation 3(1). It has been amended by the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/43, regulation 3 and the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 (c. , section 1(2)(a).

 

 

 

[/url]

Amendments to section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970

2. — (1) Section 2A of the Equal Pay Act 1970 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)– (a)

in paragraph (b), omit the words from the beginning to “so mentioned,”; and

 

(b)

omit the words from “and, if it requires” to the end.

 

 

(3) After subsection (1) insert –

"(1A) Subsections (1B) and (1C) below apply in a case where the tribunal has required a member of the panel of independent experts to prepare a report under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above.

(1B) The tribunal may – (a)

withdraw the requirement, and

 

(b)

request the member of the panel of independent experts to provide it with any documentation specified by it or make any other request to him connected with the withdrawal of the requirement.

 

 

(1C) If the requirement has not been withdrawn under paragraph (a) of subsection (1B) above, the tribunal shall not make any determination under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above unless it has received the report.".

 

(4) For subsection (2) substitute –

"(2) Subsection (2A) below applies in a case where – (a)

a tribunal is required to determine whether any work is of equal value as mentioned in section 1(2)© above, and

 

(b)

the work of the woman and that of the man in question have been given different values on a study such as is mentioned in section 1(5) above.".

 

 

 

(5) After subsection (2) insert –

"(2A) The tribunal shall determine that the work of the woman and that of the man are not of equal value unless the tribunal has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the evaluation contained in the study – (a)

was (within the meaning of subsection (3) below) made on a system which discriminates on grounds of sex, or

 

(b)

is otherwise unsuitable to be relied upon.".

 

 

 

(6) In subsection (4) for the words “In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above the” substitute "In this section a".

Jacqui Smith,

Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, Department of Trade and Industry

7th September 2004

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations, which amend the Equal Pay Act 1970, come into force on 1st October 2004.

Section 2A of the Act requires the employment tribunal to follow a particular procedure when determining proceedings where there is a question as to whether the claimant and the comparator are doing work of equal value. Section 2A partly implements Council Directive 75/117/EEC F4 , which provides among other matters for claims to equal pay for work of equal value.

Regulation 2 alters the procedure for such claims. It allows the employment tribunal to choose to determine the question of equal value itself or to appoint an independent expert to prepare a report on that question. In a case where there has already been a job evaluation study which has given different values to the work of the claimant and the comparator, the employment tribunal must determine that the work is not of equal value unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the study discriminated on the grounds of sex, or there are other reasons why it is not suitable to be relied upon.

A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that these Regulations will have on the costs of business has been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and can be obtained from the Women and Equality Unit, Department of Trade and Industry, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.

 

cannot find it here

[dave]

It looks like those amendments were made in 2004. The amendment about the way wages are delivered was, I think, in either 1984 or 1986.

[Gez]

Cartel: (EOD)

 

a.) "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members."

b)." A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause"

I would say that the differing services that banks offer are broadly similar - I don't see much difference in Barclays to Lloyds, or from NatWest to Barclays.

As to price fixing, IF bank charges are for a service, as they claim, then how come they are all so similar in price? There is very little difference - they may charge them in a different way, but the actual cost to the consumer is extremely close - price fixing is a trait of a cartel.

 

Something that makes their cartel like behavior yet more obvious is, exactly when & how almost every high street bank altered their T&Cs. All of them introducing these new "services" that operate in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time. Either that is a cartel at work or an example of phenomenal freak coincidence..

 

Yes, of course it is the latter. It is not at all an attempt to get around the law either, the OFT & the courts would see right through that in an instant right?

 

It looks like a dog & it doesn't stop barking like a dog, but who would even question them about it, the OFT? FOS? FSA?

[Guest grizzleguts]

So what would happen, if your bank closed your account for reclaiming penalty charges (court case pending), and all the other banks refused to open an account for you, on the grounds of a bad credit score, and your company insisted you was paid via BACCS/cheque?

Would you have a counter claim for unfair dismissal?

Would you be able to sue the bank for making you unemployed/unemployable?

This is not a hijack, its a hypathetical situation.:grin:

[dave]

You'd have to have your wages paid into a savings account, basic account with no scoring, or a friends account (as I am currently forced to).

[JonCris]

"We have to use accountants, solicitors, advisors etc and they are not cheap. Regulation does not nessessarily mean controlled price but ensuring a set standard of service. We are not forced to use accountants or solicitors - we can do that stuff our self if we choose too."

 

We have regulated persons and functions in a multitude of industries - IFAs, Solicitors etc. You can not handle the conveyance of your house yourself. You can not handle the transfer of a company pension scheme yourself. You do not have the choice you think you have. You have a choice within a regulated atmosphere.

 

"Your employer has not dictated where the funds are to go. Yes, but employers are not EU citizens. The employer HAS dictated where it goes - into the banking system - a virtual cartel. I think this is open to interpretation."

 

Is it not that society today dictates that the money goes into the banking system? A combination of government, employers and yes employees. You could insist that your wages are paid in cash or cheque, or if you really want to hark back to times bygone, in kind with butter, milk and cheese.

 

" As explained above, we DO pay for banking already - we lend them our money at a rate far lower than that of inflation - they lend it on at a rate far in excess of inflation."

 

But the example I have brought specifically took this into account. If we got credit interest - real interest - say BBR plus/ minus a half we would be getting paid for our accounts properly.

 

I have a problem with you calling banking a cartel. A closed system - yes. A cartel though? Explain why you call it this. I accept the fundamentals that it could be a cartel if there was no regulation of the industry - however light - but you do have options to change bank and to choose differing services and accounts. Take my usage of Whiteaway Laidlaw compared to my account with the Halifax. Whiteaway Laidlaw GREAT service. Naff systems. Halifax. Great systems - online, branch network etc. Naff service. I have a choice as to whom I bank with. It's a closed system but there are enough competitors in the system to pick from to ensure a level(er) playing field.

 

Finally, I don't follow your maths on the £2970 for the bank, please explain. Probably my lack of mathematical skill!

 

Solicitors Fees are regulated. Whilst there is variation, based on experience & qualification, to be recoverable, they must fall within the cost regime as set by the local Court

[breeze1996]

Talking about free banking, has anyone else noticed that over the last year cheques have been quietly fazed out? Since we all have a debit card and cash point cards the banks now only let us have money that is our own and if they simply refuse d/d and s/o that we have no money to cover we couldn't get into debt with the banks but would be chased by the company we tried to pay instead.