Right, another “non-news” story. The imposition of charges for withdrawing money on all ATMs is a possibility but it may not happen. It’s because, from what I’ve read, banks can’t charge punitive unauthorised overdraft rates due to an FSA ruling so they will have to recoup the money using other means.
Even though it’s based on fact, it’s not front page news and the headline could be changed to something more balanced
Well you don’t use the cash machine that charges you 22.50, I’ve never come across one that charges more than £2.50 and I still won’t use that one, anyhow I live and work in town that has several free ones and that allows me to use my own banks one.
As for the ripper in a fight to claim “dole” payments, how could he, surely the welfare state didn’t exist in 1888. Unless of course it’s the Yorkshire Ripper which wouldn’t make the word dole totally inaccurate unless he is claiming today which it would.
JCP is not a dole office, it’s not really a job centre mind anymore
Anyhow I would doubt this would happen, and if it does i bet some banks wouldn’t follow some would. If it was possible I bet it would have happened before.
Those fee charging machines tend to be in little corner shops and we all know who runs those don’t we………….am I close to today’s ’subtext’ and will the readers of this wretched rag pick up on it ?
According to the story this is because the Supreme Court is expected to rule penalty charges illegal and the banks will need to find some other way of getting an income.
Just wondering. Did the Express at any point encourage it’s more feckless readers to sue their banks because they’d not been able to keep their accounts within their overdraft limits?
The banks can try and charge whatever they like, I’ll just move my account if I have to to one that either doesn’t charge at all or only charges people without an account with them.
Whatever happens there’ll be ways around this, the banks will just be counting on the well-known inertia customers have to change accounts if they clobber them with charges.
But at £2.50 a go (assuming the DE is correct on this charge being typical) I think they may well just give people the required get up and go to avoid this wholly undeserved charge.
What the hell would it be claimed to be for anyways?
The network was put in place decades ago, there is almost no human admin thanks to machine accounting and even filling the things up is a periodic task.
Exactly what do the banks think they are there for nowadays?
It’s not like we already haven’t been paying their ridiculously excessive charges.
I suspect spite is the honest answer as to why they may be planning this.
They have been publicly humiliated by their outrageous practices being exposed and because it will cost them money they, despite having made billions for many many years on the back of these excessive charges, feel entitled to replace those outrageous ‘earnings’.
It’s disgusting – particularly as the taxpayer has directly or indirectly kept the British banking system from going under by making available grants and guarantees of hundreds of billions of £.
Person with paranoia issues gets wound up by non-story.
Quotes:
even filling the things up is a periodic task.
(what on earth does this mean? What isn’t a periodic task?)
I suspect spite is the honest answer as to why they may be planning this.
(Banks running on spite? I thought they borrowed and lent money in the most profitable way possible?)
It’s disgusting
(Woohoo, I’ve been wound up so much, I’m treading in doggy-doo)
£2.50 on every H-i-t-W transaction? How much money would that make? And who would get a LOT of new customers by only charging 50p? And what happened last time that banks talked about charging for using H-i-t-W?
If you are going to get wound up, why not about stuff that really matters? Like the whole star trader system which led us into this mess in the first place? Like where your pension is?
Thanks for your concern but I’m not in the least bit “wound up” or suffering “paranoia issues”, thanks.
The “periodic task” I referred to here is one where they don’t even have to be filling the machines daily, not nationwide they don’t.
In otherwords compared to the costs the banks used to incur with actual real staff dealing with customers and payiong out and taking cash.
I’d have thought that much was obvious.
As for ’spite’, well how do you explain it?
They say that if they were to lose a case on a completely unrelated matter that
(a) they are entitled to and must make up that element of ‘loss’
(on which their profitability was hardly based not forgetting that if it turned out it was unjust & illegal was never theirs to make or lose in the 1st place)
and
(b) they will do it in as public & broad a basis as possible.
I think “disgusting” is a mild description of how they behave (and given their usual behaviour it seems to me to be perfectly fair to include this in an assessment of what they are up to here)
Sorry but I simply made a comment on this headline, I gave no value judgement on where this stands in relation to global hunger, war, water shortages and/or cancer etc etc.
Better luck attacking someone for their POV next time tho…..but at least try and make it amusing if that’s going to be your stylee.
Right, another “non-news” story. The imposition of charges for withdrawing money on all ATMs is a possibility but it may not happen. It’s because, from what I’ve read, banks can’t charge punitive unauthorised overdraft rates due to an FSA ruling so they will have to recoup the money using other means.
Even though it’s based on fact, it’s not front page news and the headline could be changed to something more balanced
Well you don’t use the cash machine that charges you 22.50, I’ve never come across one that charges more than £2.50 and I still won’t use that one, anyhow I live and work in town that has several free ones and that allows me to use my own banks one.
As for the ripper in a fight to claim “dole” payments, how could he, surely the welfare state didn’t exist in 1888. Unless of course it’s the Yorkshire Ripper which wouldn’t make the word dole totally inaccurate unless he is claiming today which it would.
JCP is not a dole office, it’s not really a job centre mind anymore
Ooops misread the headline totally….
Anyhow I would doubt this would happen, and if it does i bet some banks wouldn’t follow some would. If it was possible I bet it would have happened before.
The bank’s giving me £2.50 each time I use a cash machine? Great!
That’s probably about one machine out of 50. And they have notices on the front saying as much.
I’m not speaking up for the banks here. Just the Expresses habit of writing misleading headlines
Those fee charging machines tend to be in little corner shops and we all know who runs those don’t we………….am I close to today’s ’subtext’ and will the readers of this wretched rag pick up on it ?
You also get them in pubs alot
According to the story this is because the Supreme Court is expected to rule penalty charges illegal and the banks will need to find some other way of getting an income.
Just wondering. Did the Express at any point encourage it’s more feckless readers to sue their banks because they’d not been able to keep their accounts within their overdraft limits?
The banks can try and charge whatever they like, I’ll just move my account if I have to to one that either doesn’t charge at all or only charges people without an account with them.
Whatever happens there’ll be ways around this, the banks will just be counting on the well-known inertia customers have to change accounts if they clobber them with charges.
But at £2.50 a go (assuming the DE is correct on this charge being typical) I think they may well just give people the required get up and go to avoid this wholly undeserved charge.
What the hell would it be claimed to be for anyways?
The network was put in place decades ago, there is almost no human admin thanks to machine accounting and even filling the things up is a periodic task.
Exactly what do the banks think they are there for nowadays?
It’s not like we already haven’t been paying their ridiculously excessive charges.
I suspect spite is the honest answer as to why they may be planning this.
They have been publicly humiliated by their outrageous practices being exposed and because it will cost them money they, despite having made billions for many many years on the back of these excessive charges, feel entitled to replace those outrageous ‘earnings’.
It’s disgusting – particularly as the taxpayer has directly or indirectly kept the British banking system from going under by making available grants and guarantees of hundreds of billions of £.
The bare-faced cheek of the b@stards.
Person with paranoia issues gets wound up by non-story.
Quotes:
even filling the things up is a periodic task.
(what on earth does this mean? What isn’t a periodic task?)
I suspect spite is the honest answer as to why they may be planning this.
(Banks running on spite? I thought they borrowed and lent money in the most profitable way possible?)
It’s disgusting
(Woohoo, I’ve been wound up so much, I’m treading in doggy-doo)
£2.50 on every H-i-t-W transaction? How much money would that make? And who would get a LOT of new customers by only charging 50p? And what happened last time that banks talked about charging for using H-i-t-W?
If you are going to get wound up, why not about stuff that really matters? Like the whole star trader system which led us into this mess in the first place? Like where your pension is?
Beckham’s rocking the Boris look.
James Russell
Thanks for your concern but I’m not in the least bit “wound up” or suffering “paranoia issues”, thanks.
The “periodic task” I referred to here is one where they don’t even have to be filling the machines daily, not nationwide they don’t.
In otherwords compared to the costs the banks used to incur with actual real staff dealing with customers and payiong out and taking cash.
I’d have thought that much was obvious.
As for ’spite’, well how do you explain it?
They say that if they were to lose a case on a completely unrelated matter that
(a) they are entitled to and must make up that element of ‘loss’
(on which their profitability was hardly based not forgetting that if it turned out it was unjust & illegal was never theirs to make or lose in the 1st place)
and
(b) they will do it in as public & broad a basis as possible.
I think “disgusting” is a mild description of how they behave (and given their usual behaviour it seems to me to be perfectly fair to include this in an assessment of what they are up to here)
Sorry but I simply made a comment on this headline, I gave no value judgement on where this stands in relation to global hunger, war, water shortages and/or cancer etc etc.
Better luck attacking someone for their POV next time tho…..but at least try and make it amusing if that’s going to be your stylee.
Pity the b@stards won…… this round.