Latest news with #bankcharges
News.com.au
29-07-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
‘Truly hear the message': ASIC's warning to big four banks
Thousands of Australians wrongly slugged with excessive bank charges will soon receive a refund, as the corporate regulator cracks down on these unfair practices. In a second round of payments announced on Tuesday, The Australian Securities and Investments Commission said a further 770,000 customers will be refunded $60m. These refunds will be paid to low-income customers of 21 financial institutions receiving government concession payments, who were placed in higher-fee bank accounts despite a lower fee option being available to them. This follows $33m in fees already refunded to 150,000 customers which was previously paid out. Three of the major banks featured in ASIC initial report have now committed to providing refunds of bank fees to a broader group of low-income customers who have been in high-fee accounts. ANZ will be paying the most out of the big four banks. According to the report, ANZ will pay out an estimated $47.9m to almost 590,000 account holders for fees dating back until mid-2019 and Westpac $9.9m for fees incurred since 2013. Commonwealth Bank says it won't be paying any more after previously paying $25m to around 90,000 Indigenous concession customer accounts. National Australia Bank was not included in the probe as it stopped carrying dishonour, account-keeping or overdraw fees on transaction accounts in 2014. CBA refuses to pay '$270m bill' Commonwealth Bank says it is not paying any more after previously announcing a $25m payment to around 87,000 Indigenous concession customer accounts, the ASIC report said. According to ASIC, CBA and its subsidiary Bankwest provided data showing it charged $270m in fees to low-income customers between July 2019 and October 2024. Instead CBA plans to move its 1.5 million eligible high-fee accounts held by low-income customers to a yet to be approved 'new nominal fee'. Bankwest removed fees from its high-fee accounts, converting two products to low-fee accounts. According to ASIC 'CBA noted that it provides services to a high volume of remote and regional customers on a much larger scale than any other financial institution. 'CBA considers that low-income customers benefit from informal overdraw facilities attached to its high-fee accounts, on the basis that these facilities provide customers with financial autonomy and flexibility.' A CBA spokesperson told NewsWire the bank acknowledges ASICs concerns and the importance of fair and accessible banking for vulnerable and concession customers. 'The $270 million in fees (incurred between 2019 and 2024) ASIC references were disclosed to customers and were charged in accordance with their terms and conditions,' a CBA spokesperson said. 'The concession customer group is a diverse cohort, including customers with varying levels of income, savings and home ownership.' In addition CBA say they have paid over $25m in 'goodwill' payments to approximately 87,000 Indigenous concession customer accounts, as identified by CBA in response to ASIC's Better Banking for Indigenous Consumers Project. 'These payments were made on a goodwill basis, not as remediation for any contraventions,' the spokesperson said. CBA also says it is removing dishonour and overdraw fees and creating an informal overdraft facility with no overdraw fee, providing flexibility and reducing the need for higher-cost alternatives like payday loans. It will also have a nominal $1 monthly fee to support universal services such as branches and ATMs, telling NewsWire it is the only bank maintaining the scale and reach of full service banking across Australia. 'We plan to migrate eligible concession customers from Smart Access and Complete Access accounts on an opt-out basis to the Essentials Account, CBA spokesperson continued. 'This migration is temporarily paused pending the consideration by the ACCC of the proposed new authorisation for the Banking Code of Practice.' Regulators respond ASIC chair Joe Longo said, despite the improvements banks have made during our surveillance, there is clearly work to be done. 'It should not take an ASIC review to force $93 million in refunds or make banks assess their processes to ensure the trust and expectations placed in them are justified,' he said. 'Banks need to truly hear the messages in this report — read it, review it, and ask themselves some difficult questions about what led to this situation.' As part of the changes, ASIC also encouraged banks to consider introducing or improving First Nations service channels, with six more banks now collecting data to identify First Nations customers to inform appropriate and sensitive service delivery. ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland said what started as an initiative focused on addressing avoidable bank fees for low-income customers in regional and remote locations, particularly First Nations consumers, revealed a much wider problem affecting customers nationwide. 'When you read in the report that refunds of $1,200, $2,600 and $5,200 were paid, it's important to understand what those amounts mean for people struggling to make ends meet,' Mr Kirkland said. 'A $1,200 refund was equivalent to one customer's fortnightly Age Pension. A $2,600 refund equalled around 110 hours of minimum-wage earnings for another customer, and a $5,200 refund matched 13 weeks of another customer's Jobseeker payment.' A spokesperson for ANZ said the bank had taken a 'deliberate decision to expand our remediation payments, leading to a larger cohort of customers being refunded fees and interest'.
BBC News
21-07-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Late pension leading to charges for ex-NHS worker in Birmingham
A delayed pension payment has led to bank charges and being unable to pay bills for a woman who recently retired from the NHS after 31 Cardin left her administrative role at Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust on 31 May and was told her NHS pension would arrive by the end of June. Her forms were filled out in is still waiting and said the delays were adding to her problems with ill health. She also said she was aware of other people, including nurses and a doctor, who were in the same pensions said they were sorry to hear there had been a delay and that they aimed to pay retired members within 30 days of their last day in service. Three direct debits were declined over the weekend, Ms Cardin said."I hadn't wanted to take retirement, but circumstances meant I had to."In comparison, her state pension only took four days to come through, she said."The pensions office at Sandwell has been very helpful and apologetic," she said."They gave me a number for the national office, but I was 22 in line when I rang."They rang me back and I told them my pension was late and that I was incurring bank charges. But the man on the phone told me they were behind and could not do anything about it."She was told she would get an email with a complaints link in it, but that had not arrived either."I've met with quite a few of my friends, and at least half a dozen retired at the same time, and they have not received their pensions."NHS pensions said it was unable to comment on individual cases, but it recommended pension award applications and relevant documentation should be submitted at least three months before their intended last day of service."Whilst we aim to pay retired members within 30 days of their last day in service, there can be exceptions," a spokesperson said. "For example, more complicated cases can take longer if they require manual calculations. "We aim to keep members informed about the status of their application throughout." Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
18-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Santander hits customers with £120-a-year fee on ‘free forever' accounts
Santander customers face paying £120 a year for business accounts despite previously being told they would be 'free forever'. Thousands of small business owners will be charged £9.99 from October to continue banking with Santander even though the accounts were heavily marketed as never to incur fees. The 'free forever' guarantee referred to customers who originally held accounts with Abbey National and Alliance & Leicester. These accounts were transferred over to Santander after the lender took over the banks in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Marketing brochures wrote in large bold letters that the accounts would be 'free forever', with some stipulating the limited circumstances in which that promise would be broken. 'We guarantee that unless there are any changes to the law or banking regulations, or any new taxes relating to bank charges, you will benefit from free day-to-day business banking forever,' one Abbey National brochure read. Another advertisement wrote: 'Other lenders might offer you free business banking for 18 to 24 months and then start to charge. With Abbey, day to day business banking is free forever. And at Abbey forever really does mean forever. That can make a huge difference to your business costs.' Although free accounts were removed from new customers in 2011, an attempt to renege on the 'free forever' promise for all customers a year later led to fierce backlash from customers. Santander was forced into an about-turn in September 2012, less than two months after announcing customers would have to pay either £7.50 or £12.50 for a business bank account. There were also concerns at the time that its 230,000 customers could have taken their grievances to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which could have left the bank with a £115m bill in administrative fees. Financial businesses are liable to pay case fees of up to £650 to the Ombudsman once they have exceeded three complaints in a year. The latest changes again raise the risk that the bank could be dragged into numerous disputes with customers who feel they were mis-sold. A spokesman for the bank said the affected accounts were migrated into its 'Business Every Day' account in 2015, and that the terms and conditions for this contract did not include the 'free forever' clause. However, some customers argued they were not aware of this change, and that it was not adequately communicated at the time. Jennifer Iles, a graphic designer, told the Guardian she signed up to service because of the 'free forever' commitment. She said: 'I objected when Santander tried to impose monthly charges in 2012. 'Now they are not only trying to renege again but are denying the obligation. They will have a fight on their hands.' Another customer, who opened their business account in 2005, told the Guardian: 'Which part of forever do Santander think doesn't apply now, and how can they justify introducing charges given their pledges to the contrary?' A Santander spokesman said: 'The business banking landscape has changed significantly over the last decade. 'As such, we are simplifying our business banking offering as the first step to ensure that we can sustainably and efficiently evolve to better meet the needs of our business customers in the future.'
News24
07-05-2025
- Business
- News24
Financial watchdog to probe SA bank charges
The FSCA has observed several variations in the pricing approaches of SA banks. In some cases, there are significant disparities in fees for the same or similar services. Bank charges have been a contentious issue for decades, with fees often obscured so that comparisons are difficult. For more financial news, go to the News24 Business homepage. The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has initiated a dedicated project to investigate fees charged by SA banks in order to determine whether further action is needed. That's according to Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, who made the revelation in a written reply to a parliamentary question by EFF MP Omphile Maotwe, who had asked whether National Treasury was investigating 'exorbitant' bank charges. Maotwe also wanted to know whether National Treasury had a policy to address expensive bank charges. 'The FSCA has observed several variations in the pricing approaches and structures between different banks. In some cases, there are significant disparities in fees between banks for the same, or relatively similar, products or services,' Godongwana said in a written response dated 14 February this year. 'Additionally, concerns have been identified about the lack of adequate disclosure by some banks, and poor understanding by customers, of these fees.' Godongwana further elaborated that as the relevant authority responsible for supervising the market conduct of banks, the FSCA had published a conduct standard for lenders in 2020, which became effective in July 2021. The Conduct Standard requires banks to conduct business in a manner that prioritises the fair treatment of customers. 'The Conduct Standard stipulates that a bank that provides financial products or financial services must ensure that the terms, conditions, and requirements in a contract between the bank and its retail financial customer, relating to a financial product or financial service, including fees and charges, are not unfair,' Godongwana said. 'While the Conduct Standard does not prescribe or stipulate what would constitute an unfair or 'exorbitant' fee or charge, banks must be able to demonstrate that the basis for their fees and charges are reasonable and that these fees and charges do not result in unfair outcomes to financial customers. ' Bank charges have been a contentious issue in SA, with issues of often hidden and obscure charges making it difficult for consumers to choose between different financial service providers. At the time of publication, the FSCA had not yet responded to questions from News24 seeking more information on the scope of its reported investigation into bank charges.
