How to get free euro bank transfers

Europeans remitting funds back home or Brits with properties in the EU may be interested in Citibank’s fee-free euro transfer service to third party accounts across Europe.

Called SEPA (Single European Payment Area) transfers, the payments take three working days and can be made to any bank account in 31 European countries.

If you make the transfer from a Citibank euro current or savings account, it will be completely free of charge, but if from another Citibank currency account, there will be a conversion charge of up to 2 per cent.

UK banks  typically £9-£21 for cross border transfers, and those from sterling accounts will normally incur conversion charges as well. Cross border payments from UK banks can also be slow and often involve an intermediary, or ‘correspondent’ bank, with both banks deducting costs.

But the European-wide SEPA agreement, which came into force earlier this year, was designed to make cross border payments and transfers easier and quicker.

If you don’t want to pay any charges for such transactions, you will need a euro account with Citibank with a balance of at least €2,000.

The account also allows direct debits and comes with a debit card for overseas transactions. If the account has a balance of less than €2,000, you have to pay a £10 a month fee.   However, there is no charge on Citibank’s basic Euro Savings Account.

Fund transfers and payments made from a non-euro account with Citibank will incur currency conversion charges of up to 2 per cent and the receiving bank may also deduct costs.

For very large or regular foreign currency transfers or one-off payments, there are currency specialists such as Caxton and HIFX which allow you to hedge future currency transactions on payment of a deposit.

For withdrawing small amounts of foreign currency from cash machines while abroad, Nationwide’s debit card linked to its Flex Acccount, offers one of the best deals. There is no fee and no currency conversion charge. For purchases made while abroad, Nationwide’s Gold Credit card is similarly recommended.

For Polish nationals here are special UK bank accounts for Poles living in the UK. See our guide:

http://www.defaqto.com/consumer/current-accounts/polish-bank-accounts.aspx

Or visit:
www.citibank.co
www.nationwide.co.uk
www.caxtonfx.co.uk
www.nationwide.co.uk

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Competition Commission slates overcharging on loan insurance

An investigation by the Competition Commission into the payment protection insurance market has found that customers are being overcharged by £1.4bn a year.

PPI is insurance against not being able to pay off loans and credit cards, if you fall ill or get made redundant.

As expected, the Commission found that there was a lack of competition in the market and that customers are being overcharged and often mis-sold to.

It suggests that companies might be banned from selling PPI policies to customers when they take out  loans and that it might cap prices until greater competition drives down the cost of the insurance.

Commission deputy chairman, Peter Davis, said that lack of competition had arisen because policies are sold alongside loans, credit cards and mortgages, at the point of sale, without the customer having the chance to shop around and that this had led to high prices.

Many customers also do not realise that the insurance is often bundled into the cost of the loan and many are unaware of policy exclusions regarding employment status and medical history which might preclude them from making a successful claim.

Competition Commission deputy chairman, Peter Davis,  said that PPI providers were not competing either on price or quality of the product. “Neither do they appear to do much direct advertising of PPI to win customers from each other,” he said.

Mr Davis said the Commission would have to do further work to decide on remedies to the lack of competition.  But given that the PPI market has been under investigation for over two years, consumer groups expressed dismay that the Commission required further time.

But the report does suggest that advertising and marketing material should be in a standard format so that policies are more transparent and easier to compare. Policies should also be renewed annually, with customers being given an annual statement showing the policy’s cost, allowing them to can shop around and cancel the policy, if necessary.

The Financial Ombudsman Service has seen an upsurge in PPI complaints over the last year,  80 per cent of which have been upheld in favour of the consumer.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Financial Ombudsman sees upsurge in complaints

There has been a 30 per cent rise in the number of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), with a total of 123,089 formal complaints being made in the 2007-08 financial year.

The increase was attributed to a surge in complaints about bank charges (31,618) and payment protection insurance (PPI) generating 10,652 requests for compensation.

This  followed widespread publicity about banks being sued in the county courts over excessive overdraft charges and an OFT investigation into PPI mis-selling.  Other major sources of discontent were credit cards (41,123) and mortgage endowments (13,778).

But the FOS stopped dealing with overdraft charge complaints in July 2007, following an agreement between the banks and the Office of Fair Trading that all new cases should be stayed until legal issues surrounding the fairness of overdraft charges case were resolved in the High and Appeal Courts.

As a result, 14,000 bank charge complaints are pending at the FOS and are unlikely to be heard until late 2009.

As for PPI claims, Which? magazine says that as many as two million people may have been mis-sold PPI policies in the past five years, so if you think you have been mis-sold a policy you should contact your lender for a possible refund.

19 per cent of all complaints to the FOS came from claims handling businesses which handle complaints on behalf of consumers in return for a hefty chunk of any compensation achieved. The FOS said that, in some cases, complainants were not being represented properly.

The FOS report says: “In the specific context of pension related complaints involving Serps [the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme], we have seen a significant number of cases this year where some claims-management companies have given consumers unrealistic expectations of large sums of compensation in cash, without appearing first to have properly assessed the actual merits of the individual cases.”

David Cresswell, a spokesman for the FOS says that 80 per cent of PPI complaints to the FOS were upheld in favour of the consumer, compared to only 32 per cent for mortgage endowments. 

For current account and credit card complaints, 84 per cent and 79 per cent respectively were upheld in favour of the complainant, but in other areas, financial services firms’ and providers’ decisions were supported by the Ombudsman.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Banks in the dock over PPI cover

The Competition Commission is expected to issue a damning rebuke next month to the UK’s largest banks over their sales of payment protection insurance (PPI).

The Commission, which is due to publish its report in early June, is expected to accuse the banks of making excessive profits from PPI sales and that they have used these to subsidise cheap personal loans.

PPI is insurance to help individuals pay off personal loans, credit cards and mortgages if they are unable to work due to sickness or unemployemnt.

But it is often mis-sold to people such as as the unemployed, self employed and casual workers who are not normally eligible to claim. The cover is also expensive and only lasts for 12-24 months. There have been complaints about PPI being automatically included in personal loan quotations, without customers’ permission.

The Competition Commission is expected to announce sanctions early next month against the banks for the £1.5bn of allegedly excess profits they have made from the sale of PPI.

It is also expected to say that the sale of PPI is uncompetitive because it is sold to a captive market whereby customers havelittle choice but to buy it from the bank offering them a loan.

If the banks are forced to sell PPI separately or banned from selling it altogether, they are expected to recoup the lost revenue elsewhere, including increasing the interest rates they charge on personal loans.

The market is worth £5.5bn a year and in a provisional announcement earlier this year, the Competition Commission accused the banks of making profits of £1.5bn in excess of a reasonable rate of return for selling this product.

The Financial Services Authority has already fined a number of companies for PPI mis-selling, including HFC bank, an HSBC subsidiary and Land of Leather.

The Competition could impose various sanctions on the banks next month, including setting a price cap, banning banks from selling PPI or introducing more transparent sales practices.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Banks to appeal against overdraft judgement

Most of the UK’s largest retail banks are set to appeal against a recent court ruling on overdraft charges in a move that could result in years of litigation before the issue is resolved.

The Office of Fair Trading brought the case against eight major retail banks following claims for compensation from hundreds of thousands of bank customers about overdraft charges for bounced cheques and unauthorised overdrafts which could be as much as £30 per item.

Many complainants succeeded in winning compensation in the county courts but the deluge of cases brought chaos to the legal system and because county court judgements  do not set a legal precedent, each case had to be heard on its own merits.

Eight high street banks, including HSBC, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, will seek permission tomorrow to appeal against the recent High Court judgement that overdraft charges are subject to unfair consumer contract regulations.

If the High Court judgement is upheld, the OFT would have the right to impose a limit on banks’ overdraft fees. To date, the OFT has not said what it would regard as a fair level of charges, but in 2006, it capped late credit card payment charges at £12.

Industry experts believe that a similar cap on overdraft charges would result in the loss of £10bn a year in revenue and that banks might seek to recoup this by charging customers for in-credit banking and other services.

Consumer groups, such as Which? magazine have argued that the overdraft charges levied by the banks are excessive, given that the cost of dealing with bounced cheques and unauthorised overdrafts is around £4 per item.

Anyone who has an existing compensation claim on hold will have to await the outcome of the litigation.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

One in two at risk of bank fraud

The risk of credit card and bank account fraud has reached epidemic proportions, as one in two people fail to take basic security precautions when using their plastic and banking online, according to a Which? magazine survey.

Around 50 per cent of those questioned admitted to using the same PIN for more than one card, failing to check that a website is secure before shopping online, or using their mother’s maiden name as a password. One in seven respondents admitted to writing down their PINs and passwords.

But in other respects, there were signs that most people are now aware of other common fraud risks, with the majority shielding their PIN from ‘shoulder surfers’ at cash points, checking statements for rogue activity and shredding statements and other paperwork carrying personal data.

If you fall victim to bank fraud, the maximum you are liable for is £50, providing you have not behaved negligently or recklessly, such as by divulging your PIN to a third party. If this is the case, you might find yourself liable for the bulk of the loss.

On the store card front, Which? magazine has found that some store cards are still charging penalty fees of more than £12, despite an Office of Fair Trade ruling in 2006 that if a cardholder makes a late payment or exceeds their  credit limit, the penalty fee should not  exceed £12.

The guilty parties are Clydesdale Financial Services (now known as Barclays Partner Finance) which issues cards for Jessops and Hobbs and was found to be charging penalty fees of £22.50.

Other culprits include Monsoon (£15) and the Duet store card (£20), operated by Creation Financial Services and which can be used at Carphone Warehouse and JJB Sports.

To reclaim unfair default penalties like these, there are template letters at www.which.co.uk/bank charges.

If you want to report your experience of rogue penalty fees to the OFT, go to www.oft.gov.uk

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

FSA continues crackdown on PPI mis-selling

The Financial Services Authority  has fined furniture retailer, Land of Leather, £210,000, as part of its ongoing investigation into the mis-selling of lucrative payment protection insurance policies to individuals who might be ineligible to make a claim.

The fine, the first to be issued to a high street retailer, was due to Land of Leather allowing sales staff to sell PPI without adequate training which led to cover being sold inappropriately for nine months until February 2007.

The mis-selling was discovered as a result of a random investigation and not due to complaints from customers. The FSA has issued a warning that other retailers should take heed of the fine and that they are subject to the same sales standards as firms whose principal business is financial services.

Land of Leather’s chief executive, Paul Briant, was also fined £14,000 for failing to properly oversee sales practices.

The FSA has visited hundreds of institutions in the last few years in its crackdown on PPI mis-selling which usually occurs because the customer is too old to claim or is unemployed, self employed or a temporary worker.

The typical claim rate for PPI is around 25 per cent. But of single premium PPI complaints made to the FSA, around 80 per cent are upheld in favour of the consumer, more than for any other form of insurance.

Land of Leather is to write to all customers who bought a policy on or after 1 November 2006 to clarify its policy terms and ask customers to reconsider whether their policy is suitable for them.

The FSA said that the 8,200 people who bought a PPI policy from Land of Leather and did not pay off the amount owing within 12 months would have paid an average of £380 for their policy and might have been mis-sold.

If you do not hear from Land of Leather, contact the Financial Ombudsman Service. Details of how to complain are on the webiste: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

HFC case raises prospect of class actions in the UK

It looks as though class action litigation could become a reality in the UK in the foreseeable future.

Tens of thousands of consumers are to be encouraged to join a £350m lawsuit against an HSBC subsidiary over the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

Law firm, Clyde & Co, is to bring a group claim against HFC bank after it was fined £1.1m by the Financial Services Authority for selling PPI policies without checking whether they were appropriate for the individuals concerned.

Before the case against HFC can move forward, lawyers will have to sign up a group of consumers who bought the insurance policies and who believe they were mis-sold to. The firm plans to use advertisements in The Sun, the Daily Mail and other newspapers to draw attention to the complaint over the next few weeks, a tactic commonly used in US class action lawsuits.

The PPI market has been the subject of intense regulatory scrutiny in the last few years, following accusations that it is expensive and frequently mis-sold to individuals who will never be eligible to make a claim because they are unemployed, self employed or temporary workers.

They are designed to protect an individual’s income in the event of loss of income due to accident, sickness or unemployment and are sold alongside credit cards, personal loans and mortgages.

But PPI is hugely lucrative to the providers who sell it, earning as much as £1,200 from a policy that costs only £20 to sell. The profits are believed to have been used to cross subsidise cheap personal loans, according to the Competition Commission, meaning that borrowers who did not take out PPI have benefited at the expense of those who did.

 HFC sold more than 163,000 PPI policies between January 2005 and May 2007, mostly to consumers with poor credit histories and limited access to financing. At an average cost of £2,000 per policy, Clyde & Co estimates that its claim could be worth as much as £350m.
 

The FSA fined HFC £1.1m in January for failing to maintain adequate systems and controls when selling PPI.  But while legislation outlawing price-fixing and anti-competitive practices specifically authorises consumer bodies to launch group claims in some circumstances, there is no equivalent statutory provision for FSA rulings.

Clyde & Co will have to establish that HFC is liable to consumers for breaching the FSA’s codes of  business conduct, which the firm concedes may be fresh legal territory. Whether the £1.1m penalty, the 12th largest meted out by the regulator, will be sufficient to shame HFC into compensating claimants in  a lawsuit remains to be seen.

But if successful, it will be interesting to see whether a flood of class actions from other groups of aggrieved consumers follows suit.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Abbey offers tempting deal for holidaymakers

Abbey’s latest credit card launch, the appropriately named ‘Zero card’ would appear to be every endebted household’s dream piece of plastic.

It charges 0 per cent on purchases and balance transfer for the first six months, with no balance transfer fee - an unusual feature as most credit cards now charge a one-off fee of 2-3 per cent for balance transfers.

In addition, there’s no exchange rate loading on foreign currency purchases or on withdrawals from overseas’ cashpoints, and no fee for ATM withdrawals. NOr is there an annual card fee.

This fee-free combination certainly makes Abbey’s Zero card look extrememly attractive. For anyone about to  book a summer holiday, this card could be a useful addition to their wallet.

The zero foreign currency loading, which can add up to 3 per cent to foreign currency transactions is particularly attractive as few cards, apart from the Nationwide credit cards, offer this for worldwide transactions, with Saga’s credit card providing it in EU countries only.

So what’s the catch? First, the no fee cash advances incur interest at an eye watering 25.9 per cent whether you take cash in the UK or abroad, and second, the 0 per cent introductory deal on purchases and balance transfers  lasts only six months.

Balances transfers that haven’t been paid off at the end of the six month introductory period will be charged at 18.9 per cent as will be purchases, whether in the UK or abroad.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Dramatic increase in second charge loans

The dramatic growth in second charge loans being secured by creditors against debtors’ homes reflects the increased determination of creditors to get their money back, as the  the credit crunch drives up the number of households in serious debt.

The number of court orders issued by lenders to secure these charging orders rose 42 per cent in 2007 to 131,644, according to the Ministry of Justice.

Lenders have traditionally pursued debtors through the small claims courts for repayment, but the  rise in the size of unsecured household debt and the upsurge in bankruptcies have prompted creditors to  apply for a second charge on debtors’ property when that fails.

While charging orders rarely result in homeowners being re-possessed, they are a useful way for  creditors to ensure that they get repaid when the house is eventually sold, because a charging order will rank as as a second mortgage and be paid after the principal mortgage and any consolidated loans have been settled.

John Fairhurst of debt advisory company, Payplan, says the number of people with charging orders on their properties could be much higher than the official figures suggest, because the latter don’t account for instances where debtors voluntarily give their creditor a second charge on their home, in return for for a freeze on their debt or some other inducement.

Fairhust says: “A charging order gives comfort to the creditor that if the debtor goes bankrupt, they will get their money back, with interest. They are treating these orders almost as an insurance policy for repayment.

“The typical client we see has £40,000 of unsecured debt in the  form of credit card debt and personal loan,  which the creditor is unlikely to get back of in a bankruptcy,  whereas a second charge on a property will rank third or fourth. So it’s worthwhile for creditors to spend £200-£300 on a charging order.”

Payplan expects an upsurge in bankruptcies and IVAs later this year as the credit crunch limits the availability of easy credit for those with poor payment histories. The debt advisory firm makes its money by charging creditors 10 per cent of any money it recovers as a result of putting clients onto a debt management plan, although a few companies such as GE Capital refuse to do so.

“Some debt recovery organisations working on behalf of the big banks have become very aggressive of late, so I expect to see more charging orders in the coming months,” says Fairhurst.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit