CURRENT account providers are using a myriad of baffling charging structures that make it almost impossible to calculate and compare the cost of slipping into an unauthorised overdraft, Which?
has found.
The consumer group made its findings after asking 18 volunteers, including a principal inspector of taxes and a retired headteacher to calculate from a mock statement what this cost would be by looking at banks' and building societies' charging structures on their websites.
The volunteers got just 10 out of 72 calculations correct between them, with the tax inspector getting just one of his four calculations right and the former headteacher getting them all wrong.
It also took people 10 minutes on average even to find the charges on websites - and in some cases it took longer than half an hour.
The research found that variations in language used to describe unauthorised overdraft charges caused further confusion. The terms were found to include "informal", "unplanned", "unarranged" and "unapproved".
Some banks have started to simplify their charges, but Which? argued this does not necessarily make it easier for people to find the best account for their needs.
Which? wants the Government to force banks to release the data they have about how customers use their accounts, which could be used to allow consumers to rank providers by cost.
Figures released by the Payments Council showed there had been a recent upswing in people swapping bank accounts following the launch of a new industry guarantee to help shake up competition.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article