Tweet
http://business.scotsman.com/banking...eek.3715156.jp
THE row over unfair bank charges has taken a new twist with the disclosure that a Scottish building society has been charging customers £25, not for withdrawing without authorisation, but when they themselves have been a victim of a bounced cheque.
Millions of bank customers believe they have been treated unfairly after being stung by what they consider disproportionate overdraft fees.
The banks are currently locked in battle with consumer watchdogs at the Office of Fair Trading over these charges.
But now it appears that a building society is hammering responsible customers who never overdraw with hefty charges, when through no fault of their own they become the innocent victim of a returned cheque.
Retired policeman Graham Dick was furious when he received a letter from the Dunfermline informing him that £25 was being deducted from his account after he paid in a £100 cheque given to him by his son which bounced.
Graham, 54, who now has a part-time job, said: "My son made a genuine mistake and mistimed some debits and credits. I don't blame him. But to charge me £25, when I was completely innocent, seems outrageous."
The Edinburgh father feels particularly aggrieved not only because he has very substantial savings elsewhere with the building society but has had the 30-day notice account for more than 20 years.
He said: "My mother opened it for me, because at the time I didn't have a savings account with any Scottish institutions and she was of the school that thought Scottish was always and absolutely best.
"I've kept it largely out of sentimental reasons, and use it for share dividends or odd little payments, like that from my son. I'm a higher-rate taxpayer, so once the balance gets up to £1,000 or £2,000 I move it somewhere more tax-efficient.
"My son is living at home and the £100 per month is what I call his laundry money. It's his contribution to his keep. But he'd miscalculated his outgoings, didn't warn me and the cheque bounced. I feel punished for a situation I had absolutely no control over."
Graham is particularly annoyed that while he got stung for a £25 penalty, Royal Bank of Scotland only charged his son £10.
The Dunfermline says this charge has been part of its terms and conditions for a decade, and a spokeswoman implied that it was merely following standard industry practice. She said: "In common with other building societies and banks, we have a standard account charge that is applied in respect of unpaid cheques. This charge is set out within the investment tariff leaflet given
to the customer."
However, when Scotland on Sunday asked other big savings institutions such as the Halifax, Nationwide, Lloyds TSB Scotland and Yorkshire and Skipton building societies whether they would levy such a penalty, we were assured in every case that savings customers would not be hit by a charge.
Graham argued: "I thought this court case was all about making sure charges were fair and proportionate. How could such a charge ever be described as fair?"
He has complained direct to Dunfermline chief executive Graham Dalziel, and has so far only received an interim reply.
However, the spokeswoman added: "We appreciate that there may be a number of reasons for a returned cheque and we are happy to look into the individual circumstance of each case and reinstate this charge where appropriate and should the reason for the unpaid cheque be outwith the customer's control."
THE row over unfair bank charges has taken a new twist with the disclosure that a Scottish building society has been charging customers £25, not for withdrawing without authorisation, but when they themselves have been a victim of a bounced cheque.
Millions of bank customers believe they have been treated unfairly after being stung by what they consider disproportionate overdraft fees.
The banks are currently locked in battle with consumer watchdogs at the Office of Fair Trading over these charges.
But now it appears that a building society is hammering responsible customers who never overdraw with hefty charges, when through no fault of their own they become the innocent victim of a returned cheque.
Retired policeman Graham Dick was furious when he received a letter from the Dunfermline informing him that £25 was being deducted from his account after he paid in a £100 cheque given to him by his son which bounced.
Graham, 54, who now has a part-time job, said: "My son made a genuine mistake and mistimed some debits and credits. I don't blame him. But to charge me £25, when I was completely innocent, seems outrageous."
The Edinburgh father feels particularly aggrieved not only because he has very substantial savings elsewhere with the building society but has had the 30-day notice account for more than 20 years.
He said: "My mother opened it for me, because at the time I didn't have a savings account with any Scottish institutions and she was of the school that thought Scottish was always and absolutely best.
"I've kept it largely out of sentimental reasons, and use it for share dividends or odd little payments, like that from my son. I'm a higher-rate taxpayer, so once the balance gets up to £1,000 or £2,000 I move it somewhere more tax-efficient.
"My son is living at home and the £100 per month is what I call his laundry money. It's his contribution to his keep. But he'd miscalculated his outgoings, didn't warn me and the cheque bounced. I feel punished for a situation I had absolutely no control over."
Graham is particularly annoyed that while he got stung for a £25 penalty, Royal Bank of Scotland only charged his son £10.
The Dunfermline says this charge has been part of its terms and conditions for a decade, and a spokeswoman implied that it was merely following standard industry practice. She said: "In common with other building societies and banks, we have a standard account charge that is applied in respect of unpaid cheques. This charge is set out within the investment tariff leaflet given
to the customer."
However, when Scotland on Sunday asked other big savings institutions such as the Halifax, Nationwide, Lloyds TSB Scotland and Yorkshire and Skipton building societies whether they would levy such a penalty, we were assured in every case that savings customers would not be hit by a charge.
Graham argued: "I thought this court case was all about making sure charges were fair and proportionate. How could such a charge ever be described as fair?"
He has complained direct to Dunfermline chief executive Graham Dalziel, and has so far only received an interim reply.
However, the spokeswoman added: "We appreciate that there may be a number of reasons for a returned cheque and we are happy to look into the individual circumstance of each case and reinstate this charge where appropriate and should the reason for the unpaid cheque be outwith the customer's control."
