ABBEY PAY RISES
Abbey, which lost £686million in 2003,
caused anger by giving bosses massive pay rises.
While other banks have caused uproar by clocking
up record profits, Abbey lost more than
£1.5billion in the past two years.
The disaster saw former boss Ian Harley axed with
a £1.7million pay-off but two boardroom
colleagues had bumper pay rises. IT boss Yasmin
Jetha's package soared 72% in 2003 to £545,000
and sales director Mark Pain's 60% to £695,000.
The bank, previously Abbey National, gave its new
chief executive pay of £1.7million, 90% more
than Mr Harley, and £236,250 on his pension yet
staff got only a 3% pay rise and 6% bonus.
Eddy Weatherill, of the Independent Banking
Advisory Service, slammed the fat cat rises and
added, "It's even worse when they have their
snouts in the trough when the bank is making
massive losses." Abbey insisted bosses had
to be "incentivised". |
EXCESS
PROFITS
The Royal Bank of Scotland made over
£8billion profit in 2004 - that's £257 a second
or £925,200 an hour. The figure is the highest
ever made by a British bank. Banking unions and
consumer groups branded the profits `obscene'.
Lloyds TSB and HSBC are also set to reveal big
profits. Between them, the major British banks
are expected to announce £30billion in profits
in 2005. |
A
GIFT
The Abbey National bank wrote to
two-year-old Trinity Dart offering her a £20,000
loan. They said she could splash out on
"something special". |
HUMAN
ERROR
Can anybody please tell me why it is
that when a bank worker enters the wrong
information into an account it is called
"human error" but, when a customer
makes a "human error" on their account
they are charged £35? Isn't it time that the
banks paid for their mistakes, too? Maria
Mawson |
PROFITS
Halifax/Bank of Scotland said it was on course to
deliver annual profits for 2006 of £5.2bn.
(Source: Mail on Sunday, Jun/06) |
|
|
ILLEGAL PROFITEERING IN BANKING
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
The Banking Code of
Standards Board, which operates a voluntary code of
practice, received 3,500 complaints from customers in
2005, arise of 50% on the 2004 figures. More people
complained about unfair penalty charges and interest
rates than anything else. The BCSB added that it had also
received a number of complaints about the difficulty of
opening a basic bank account. (Source: Daily Telegraph, May/06)
Banks face
multimillion-pound fines after undercover shoppers
working for the Financial Services Authority found
extensive mis-selling of controversial and expensive loan
insurance. Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) is a huge
money-spinnner for banks. A recent report from Credit
Suisse First Boston estimated that 10% of banks' gross
profits may come from PPI alone, while a Guardian exposé
in 2004 revealed profit margins of about 70% on PPI sales
at Barclays.
The FSA sent undercover researchers to buy unsecured
loans and mortgages from 45 unnamed financial
institutions. It said half of the 30 firms selling PPI
with unsecured credit failed to ensure that policies were
not sold to people who would be unable to claim on them.
Where advice was given, it was often poor and policies
were rarely explained properly.
Three financial services bodies said millions of
customers benefited from PPI, with more than 15 million
policies in force, paying out nearly 500,000 claims in
2004. Ian Mullen, chief executive of the British Bankers'
Association, said, "Treating customers fairly is
something upon which banks place great importance.
Naturally, where these checks are not working, they need
to be addressed." (Source: The Guardian)
Customers at Britain's
high street banks are paying the most exorbitant charges
in Europe. Those who accidentally go overdrawn face
"punitive" charges often 10 times greater than
those on the Continent, an investigation has revealed.
Even an authorised overdraft often costs twice as much as
elsewhere in Europe. A customer with a Lloyds TSB Classic
account from the TSB range, who went overdrawn without
permission by just £15 for 10 days, would face charges
of more than £50. A customer at Deutsche Bank in
Germany, Crédit Suisse in Switzerland or IMI-San Paolo
in Italy would be charged less than 50p.
Banks such as Lloyds TSB and National Westminster not
only charge higher interest rates for going into the red
without permission, but also levy extra charges of up to
£5 a day. Even customers who always stay in credit are
often forced to pay for services, such as a banker's
draft and stopping a cheque, which are frequently free in
other countries. "It's outrageous that any bank can
charge £5 a day for an overdraft," said Eddie
Wetherill, of the Independent Banking Advisory
Service."
He added, "These charges are the worst in Europe and
they should be outlawed because they drive people deeper
into debt. The high street banks make billions in
profits, but seem to be inventing new fees all the time.
For most, free banking is fast becoming a myth."
A current account customer at National Westminster pays
an effective annual interest of 33.8% for an unauthorised
overdraft plus a £3.50 daily charge. IMI-San Paolo,
Italy's biggest bank, charges only 12.5% annual interest
plus a fixed fee of 0.75% of the maximum amount borrowed.
A customer with an authorised overdraft at National
Westminster pays annual interest of 17.8%, far higher
than his Italian counterpart at IMI-San Paolo, who pays
7.5%.
UK banks charged their customers £3bn for unauthorised
overdrafts during 2003. Which magazine accused High
Street banks of levying "exorbitant" rates of
interest, as high as 33% APR, on unauthorised overdrafts.
However, banks say that there are generous free
authorised overdraft facilities in place. One in four
people told the magazine they had used an unauthorised
overdraft in the past year.
The magazine said the high proportion of people using
unauthorised overdrafts suggested that consumers were
being penalised for genuine mistakes rather than poor
handling of their money. "Unauthorised overdrafts
are a gold mine for banks, the charges they levy are way
out of proportion," said Martin Coles, editor of
Which.
"It is especially unfair on customers who only
occasionally run up a small unauthorised overdraft for a
short time. We're calling on banks to stop punishing
these customers by giving them a few days grace to pay
back an unauthorised overdraft before charges are
levied."
The magazine added that high interest rates and
additional charges mean that unauthorised overdrafts are
a "real money spinner" for banks. Typical fees
highlighted by the magazine include a £30 fee for
bounced cheques and standing orders. Some banks charge
unauthorised overdraft rates for the full amount
overdrawn, even if part of the balance is within an
agreed overdraft limit.
The magazine singled out NatWest, criticising the bank
for charging customers a "contrived"
unauthorised overdraft fee of 33.78% APR. "Put
simply, there is no need for customers to get into this
situation. Arranging an overdraft is simple,
straightforward and free," Ronan Kelleher, NatWest
spokesman said. "Any charges we do levy reflect the
extra cost of administering an account which is in
overdraft."
Overdraft charges do not,
as NatWest claim, reflect the cost of administering the
account. Letters, for instance, are automatically
generated as are charges. Per account this can only be a
few pence at most, and postage is first class: a one
pound charge would be appropriate. It is only when
accounts get way out of line that a member of the bank
staff has to be involved.
Further, the banks mark against your credit rating for
any minor infringement and keep a record of "how
many days" were involved. If it is overnight they
still treat it as negative and there is no period of
grace. Finally, they take four days to clear a cheque. In
New Zealand, since the 1960s, clearance of cheques has
been overnight. If one country more than forty years ago
can sort out this problem, there is no excuse for British
banks to behave as they do now.
There ought to be usury laws forbidding banks to charge
fees for overdraft excesses under twenty pounds, that
gives three days of grace before excess charges are
levied, and that require overnight clearance of cheques.
The banks can not be relied on to be self-regulating in
this matter as they have no interest in improving their
conduct. Legislation is necessary. Mark
|
|
|