Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Monkey

Rbs Bans Basic Account Holders From Using "rival" Banks Atm's

Recommended Posts

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h5pVfo9EyXkfEu2LbpJut_vyhUpQ?docId=N0443801313595746468A

Thousands of Royal Bank of Scotland customers have been barred from using cash machines operated by the firm's high street rivals.

Changes brought in by RBS last month to its "basic" account have resulted in customers only being allowed to withdraw money from ATMs operated by the company.

Those signing up to the "basic" account pay no fees and are already unable to hold a chequebook or have an overdraft.

RBS would not confirm how many people are affected by the move, but it could be as many as 8,000.

A spokesman for RBS said: "We are fully committed to offering a free basic account for people who may otherwise struggle to access banking services.

"These account holders will continue to have free access to one of the largest cash machine networks in the UK.

"Our basic account holders will still enjoy free access to one of the largest ATM networks - over 8,000 - in the UK, through RBS, Natwest and Tesco.

"They also can make withdrawals at any Post Office counter."

Marie Burton, financial inclusion expert at Consumer Focus, said: "This is a kick in the teeth for many of RBS's most vulnerable customers.

"We would call on RBS to reconsider this move which will exclude its basic bank account holders from using the majority of the UK's free cash machine network."

Lloyds used to do this on their bottom of the bottom current account,

what does the "basic" account give you? i assume its not a debit card.

i know many people who just wants a current account with no frills, or charges/fees and are able to to have DD/SO and take money out of the wall, regardless of who owns the ATM. if you cant find a RBS ATM then your stuffed.

howl ong before other banks follow suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it was all part of the governments effort a few years ago to make sure everyone had a bank account. No one should be allowed to operate outside the system. Obviously there's no money in it for the banks so one or two might try to escape.

I've got a basic account with Nationwide, they don't make much money on it but I guess it helps their capital reserves up a bit. I've also got a 'proper' current account with Natwest but only use it for internet shopping!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs down, bonuses up, kerching!

Customers? What's it got to do with them.

really very very few people have 'basic' accounts - basically if you have an income it gets upgraded to current account status (ie you get the ability to go into the red, a cheque book and a debit card instead of a cash card)

the problem a few years ago was that there were too few basic bank accounts available, so the argument went that banks should provide no frills accounts just to be inclusive to society, no frills, minimum costs, no big deal

now people are claiming that the no frills accounts are don't have enough frills (!)

at a guess this may force Lloyds etc to allow people to use other banks' ATMs with basic accounts, and then wholesale such accounts will stop being offered, due to cost

and interventionist do-gooders will say it is so very unfair that banks don't do basic no frills accounts anymore and wonder why...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h5pVfo9EyXkfEu2LbpJut_vyhUpQ?docId=N0443801313595746468A

i know many people who just wants a current account with no frills, or charges/fees and are able to to have DD/SO and take money out of the wall, regardless of who owns the ATM. if you cant find a RBS ATM then your stuffed.

So who should pay for this then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it was all part of the governments effort a few years ago to make sure everyone had a bank account. No one should be allowed to operate outside the system. Obviously there's no money in it for the banks so one or two might try to escape.

I've got a basic account with Nationwide, they don't make much money on it but I guess it helps their capital reserves up a bit. I've also got a 'proper' current account with Natwest but only use it for internet shopping!

I can remember a banker being quoted in the 70s as saying that the next big money spinner for the banks would be the unbanked. Think of all that cash in peoples wallets, purses and under their mattresses rather than working for the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So coming to a current account soon then?

Got to improve the capital base somehow and everyone paying £12+ a month should do it.

A contract can't be changed without both parties agreement. Now if the bank send you a notice saying "we are changing our contract" and you dont write back straight away ang tell them "no your not", they will have achieved tacit agreement to the change in contract as you were notified and did nothing.

Anyone who tells you a contract can be changed by one of the parties without consent is an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really very very few people have 'basic' accounts - basically if you have an income it gets upgraded to current account status (ie you get the ability to go into the red, a cheque book and a debit card instead of a cash card)

the problem a few years ago was that there were too few basic bank accounts available, so the argument went that banks should provide no frills accounts just to be inclusive to society, no frills, minimum costs, no big deal

now people are claiming that the no frills accounts are don't have enough frills (!)

at a guess this may force Lloyds etc to allow people to use other banks' ATMs with basic accounts, and then wholesale such accounts will stop being offered, due to cost

and interventionist do-gooders will say it is so very unfair that banks don't do basic no frills accounts anymore and wonder why...

I bet if I ask Nationwide for an upgrade they'll say no. I've had this same account for 6 years now with 3 DD's on it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h5pVfo9EyXkfEu2LbpJut_vyhUpQ?docId=N0443801313595746468A

Lloyds used to do this on their bottom of the bottom current account,

what does the "basic" account give you? i assume its not a debit card.

i know many people who just wants a current account with no frills, or charges/fees and are able to to have DD/SO and take money out of the wall, regardless of who owns the ATM. if you cant find a RBS ATM then your stuffed.

howl ong before other banks follow suit?

Basic accounts are what they give bankrupts, essentially.

Other banks already limit basic accounts in a similar manner:

BBC

Lloyds already restricts the ability of its basic bank account holders to use "away" cash terminals.

Last year the Nationwide building society told its customers with cash card accounts that they would have to take out a minimum of £100 if they used the counter service in its branches.

And HSBC basic account holders cannot make cash withdrawals at the counter, though they can make other transactions.

If they try any of that malarky with normal accounts, my current account will be closed pronto along with the savings accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember a banker being quoted in the 70s as saying that the next big money spinner for the banks would be the unbanked. Think of all that cash in peoples wallets, purses and under their mattresses rather than working for the banks.

Maybe it's not working as well as they thought it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not working as well as they thought it would.

I can't see how they'd make much money from people who wouldn't be running a high account balance, using any services other than deposit/withdraw and have bad or no credit histories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not working as well as they thought it would.

Not that surprised. Occasionally I have to stand in a queue to put cheques into my account during a weekday. I once overheard one (very loud) chap querying their bank balance (something like £3.22) and then withdrawing 75p. I suspect the cashier's time on that transaction was worth more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gives you the privellege of lending to the banks !!!

For that they treat you like scum.

I'd take my account elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can now use the post office for free....that is a good thing, because the post office is in many towns and villages where another bank would not be. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gives you the privellege of lending to the banks !!!

For that they treat you like scum.

I'd take my account elsewhere.

You have little option but to use a bank account if you are a working person - nearly all employers will only pay into an account, not issue cash (except dodgy black market ones of course).

I'd imagine that the DSS will try to do away with the giro eventually too, forcing the unemployed to have a bank account to receive their benefits.

Ultimately the goal will be to eliminate physical cash, forcing regular people to hold all their 'money' as bank credit. Even more chance for the banksters to embezzle and defraud and of course lots of control for the government who will no doubt enact laws to enable them to block account access for people that give them trouble (which will be disguised as taking action against pedos/ terrorists/ rioters/ drug dealers or whatever the current media cause celebre is at the time that they introduce the law).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks moved into basic accounts in order to steal people's benefits. Of course if you signed up to one of these accounts on the basis that you could use a whole network of ATM's, I'd say that was breach of contract. However as we all know contract law is for the little guys, and RBS ARE effectively the government now.

I have a separate Coop basic account attached to my Paypal account, and that has a VIsa debit card with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks moved into basic accounts in order to steal people's benefits. Of course if you signed up to one of these accounts on the basis that you could use a whole network of ATM's, I'd say that was breach of contract. However as we all know contract law is for the little guys, and RBS ARE effectively the government now.

I have a separate Coop basic account attached to my Paypal account, and that has a VIsa debit card with it.

My understanding is that the banks were leaned on heavily by the Gov't which wanted to do away with cash benefit payments, but unable to do so as most of its "clients" weren't exactly attractive to the banks. So the compromise was a VERY basic - and free- banking service to be used mainly for paying benefits in and taking money out, with the odd DD probably to social housing for rent.

So why should the the banks be interested? They didn't want the customers in the first place and make no money out of them. No-one loves a banker, but they were never set up to be a social service!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have little option but to use a bank account if you are a working person - nearly all employers will only pay into an account, not issue cash (except dodgy black market ones of course).

I'd imagine that the DSS will try to do away with the giro eventually too, forcing the unemployed to have a bank account to receive their benefits.

Ultimately the goal will be to eliminate physical cash, forcing regular people to hold all their 'money' as bank credit. Even more chance for the banksters to embezzle and defraud and of course lots of control for the government who will no doubt enact laws to enable them to block account access for people that give them trouble (which will be disguised as taking action against pedos/ terrorists/ rioters/ drug dealers or whatever the current media cause celebre is at the time that they introduce the law).

There is a Post Office card account operated by Citibank which can only be used to receive benefits. That's what will ultimately replace the Giro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic accounts are what they give bankrupts, essentially.

A friend of mine used to have one. He called it a "leper" account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one should be allowed to operate outside the system.

On the contrary, I'd have thought that this would increase the likelihood that people will operate outside the system, i.e. withdraw their entire salary/benefits cheque etc. in one ATM transaction each month and then pay for everything else with cash, for fear of not being able to find an ATM and/or debit card transactions being refused or charged a hefty fee.

The banks' justification for this is that every time their customer uses another bank's ATM, they get charged 50-75p for the transaction. For customers with 'normal' accounts, through which relatively large volumes of money are processed, it makes business sense for them to eat these charges, but for basic accounts it doesn't. This all sounds reasonable to me, not least because anyone whose finances are so bad that they need a basic account is unlikely ever to travel much beyond their home town, and thus a significant distance from their bank's ATM, anyway.

You have little option but to use a bank account if you are a working person - nearly all employers will only pay into an account, not issue cash (except dodgy black market ones of course).

I dimly remember some law requiring an employer to pay cash wages if an employee demands it (though they can levy a hefty 'administration fee' for so doing). This was certainly the case in 1996 or '97, when the cinema chain I worked for changed from cash wages to BACS. A lot of the students working for them complained like hell, because of course if their wages went into their bank account they'd instantly be swallowed paying off their overdrafts. One of the cleverer ones cited a law to the boss stating that they couldn't make BACS mandatory. The end result was that it was optional for existing employees with the company charging £5 a packet for cash wages, but mandatory for new ones. They were still handing out some wage packets when I left in 1999, though by then it had dwindled to two or three per site out of a total workforce of 20-30.

Edited by The Ayatollah Buggeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dimly remember some law requiring an employer to pay cash wages if an employee demands it

That is correct! That right was removed some years ago! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 337 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.