FT: Banks on the back foot over overdrafts

Banks on the back foot over overdrafts

Financial Times

Published: April 24 2008 19:43

UK high-street banks were in the dock on Thursday over the charges they impose on customers. The ruling by the High Court was the latest skirmish in a lengthy battle about regulators¹ powers to examine whether unauthorised overdraft fees are unfair. The judgment comes in a test case brought by the Office of Fair Trading against eight of the largest current account providers. It concluded that unarranged overdraft fees ­ some of which have been set at almost £40 ­ could be assessed by the watchdog.

The ruling brings some welcome order into a complex legal area that has spawned thousands of court cases brought by individual consumers. The decision will also come as a relief to a beleaguered OFT: the watchdog spent Wednesday defending its crackdown on cartels after settling a libel action and paying damages to a supermarket chain.

There are many reasons why bank overdraft charges arouse public anger. Even though the High Court found that they were largely set out in plain language, they are still quite difficult for consumers to focus on and understand. It seems unfair that a bank¹s charges for exceeding an authorised overdraft limit make managing money more difficult for those already struggling to get their finances under control. And by the time consumers are facing such charges, their financial difficulties mean they are likely to find it harder to switch accounts.

Financial institutions are estimated to take in £3.5bn a year for unauthorised overdraft fees and the like. No wonder the banks value this source of revenue.

Instead, the starting point for setting unauthorised overdraft charges should be the underlying cost of running such accounts. They should not be used to cross-subsidise the vast mass of customers who do not pay them. Of course, banks can set their charges at levels that underline that feckless borrowing is not a costless activity. But if they really want to deter customers from going beyond their limits then the obvious remedy is not to allow them unauthorised overdrafts at all.

If unauthorised overdraft charges are not to be the revenue raiser they have been to date, then the banks are bound to look elsewhere. One idea is current account charges. But competitive pressures would militate against this.

The broader concern is that competition in personal banking does not work well. Customers themselves have a duty to use their powers to switch between banks and reward those with better deals. For their part, banks must improve how they serve departing customers. We still have a long way to go.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

formatting link

Reply to
Zolpitald
Loading thread data ...

This is the part I don't get. I'd have thought that taking money from a bank without permission would be straight-out bank robbery. The banks ought to take a harsh line and say "Pay up or we prosecute and sling your sorry ass in jail."

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

unauthorised

You're trolling, right?

Most unauthorised overdrafts are due to a mistake made by the customer. Nobody with any sense would deliberately exceed their overdraft limit, unless they were desperate and had no other line of credit (even borrowing on a credit card would be cheaper).

What do you think should happen to banks who make a mistake? Should the managing director go to jail if they lose a cheque?

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Moi? I never troll.

I'm sure quite a few folks who hold up banks are desperate. being desperate doesn't make it OK to take other people's money.

Losing someone's money is not the same as taking someone's money without permission. In any other circumstance, we'd make no bones about calling it theft.

FoFP

Reply to
M Holmes

I'm afraid some customers are financially delinquent, i.e. they prefer the 'convenience'. In the same way it is more convenient not to purchase a pay and display parking ticket, but it can be considerably cheaper.

Perhaps they should pay compensation to the customer of an amount to make it a credible deterrent?

Reply to
whitely525

I'd love to know where this "back foot" expression comes from, I don't have a back foot, they're side by side.

Reply to
tinnews

You obviously don't play enough cricket - when you stand to receive a ball you have one foot nearer the bowler and one 'back foot'. You're on the back foot when defending frantically .. when you're on the =frontfoot you're hitting him into the stands (usually).

Reply to
GSV Three Minds in a Can

At 19:07:43 on 25/04/2008, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Even when you're moving?

Reply to
Alex

Cricket?

Reply to
Andy Pandy

robbery.

prosecute

You mean your predictions of financial armageddon aren't just to scare us :-)

No, you misunderstand. I make the point about "desperate" people *not* to justify their actions, but to point out that the vast majority of those who exceed their overdraft limit are *not* in that category - ie they just made a mistake.

A customer who exceeds their overdraft limit by mistake is no different to bank who loses a cheque by mistake, or credits the wrong account by mistake etc.

Should

The legal definition of theft includes the "intention to permanently deprive". So if it's proved that the customer intended to permanently deprive the bank of the money, then yes, it's theft.

But if a customer takes the bank's money by mistake, why should the bank be entitled to any more compensation than if the bank takes the customer's money by mistake?

Reply to
Andy Pandy

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Andy Pandy said

Indeed. But fencing/swordplay or boxing, would be much the same way.

Reply to
GSV Three Minds in a Can

This is a rather extreme point of view (assuming it's not a troll). The banks can easily prevent unauthorised overdrafts - just by refusing the transaction that exceeds the customer's limit. Therefore they are, to some extent, willing participants to the situation and seem to be happy with the money they make by exploiting it. That's what the regulators are trying to curb.

Reply to
Peter Lynch

Not if that transaction was guaranteed with a cheque card they can't! The judgment actually made this point.

tim

Reply to
tims next home

A lot of organisations no longer accept cheques at all.

Reply to
Mark

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.