'A legal right to a bank account'

The banks are there to make money, not provide a social service you got it wrong Mr Darling. If I cannot sell you a credit card, mortgage, life insurance or pension because your income is low or you have no desire to have any of these products then I will delete your account.
Running a bank account costs money and they make money on the other things what do you think we are a charity? (just imagine them saying that LOL!).
How else will we hit our targets and pay massive bonuses?
No I don`t work for a bank just taking the stance of a bank employee!

History repeats itself: To quote Wikipedia on Girobank: "It reflected a general feeling in the Labour Movement that the banks were not meeting the mass banking needs of the British population. In the early 1960s, the majority of adults in the United Kingdom did not have a bank account and the banks did not court business from the working classes, which they regarded as unprofitable."

Robert;

It is a wonderful and great idea in regards of the legal right to have a bank account....

(Dennis Junior)

Accounts with a very low average balance are deemed not profitable, this is a natural consequence of banks choosing to (and being allowed to) net off the positive interest they earn on your money against the cost of keeping your account (whatever the amounts). In this world, why would a bank provide bank accounts (or develop services) for people with almost no money?

This is yet another reason to require banks to unbundle the service you provide to the bank (your money) with the service they provide to you (payments, statements, cash points, branches), this would also encourage saving, increase bank funding, boost the signal effect of market and BoE interest rates, and force competition on to cost efficiency, not superficial marketing differentation.

Force banks to pay interest on to customers and charge for services (including branches and cash). If you have a healthy balance but use few services you'd be better off. If you have little money you can still obtain minimum banking services for a small fee. And since bank operations are almost entirely fixed costs, there is ample scope for price differentition whilst still making money on the cheaper account.

Go to the root of the problem, don't start trying to legislate to force services into a market that doesn't work properly.

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Labour Statistics. Assuming a 10% saving over the high street, who is poor and spends 5600 on line? And the majority of the poor live in cities, not in the shires Gordy. This is a bill to provide internet to the villages in the country. who can afford to get it installed in any case, as they have lower rates and higher incomes.

Unless it is specified that the bank account has to be free expect to see every bank opening a new type of account that comes with a monthly fee for those who don't pay in a certain amount each month.
Capitalism at work.

Strange but I thought the post office provided such an account, if not it would be ideally placed...

No one will give me a credit card because of my poor payment history. I have one bank account into which I pay no salary and my bank is now fed up with the fact that I have built up an overdraft of £10,000 by paying my household bills through these wonderful things called Direct Debits.

Yesterday I received a letter from my bank saying that as I have offered no assets as security (largely because I have none), they can no longer subsidise my lifestyle and as a result they will be closing my account and not making any more payments on my behalf.

Tomorrow afternoon, I intend writing to the bank advising them that I am UK citizen and, as the Government insists that all UK citizens should have access to a bank account and be able to benefit from the savings associated with paying their household bills using Direct Debit, they have a legal obligation to provide me with a bank account meaning that they cannot close, or deny me access to, my one and only bank account.

Or have I missed something?

One step towards categorising the banks as utilities?

Someone was up early or late, Robert.
Very valid points.

Is it really about "financial inclusion" and the "poorer" (like myself) though or making it easier for the State to deduct what they consider to be "our dues"? (Shades of Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood here!)

Is the State forcing EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN in the UK to have a bank account to not only generate extra income for the Banks (and therefore the State through taxing profits), is it also "check up" on everybody - tax, national insurance, unemployment benefits etc?

Are they effectively wishing to "track" every single payment made, every item purchased and every item of income received, which in a cashless society we would be forced to do?

If so, are the State now effectively wishing to "chain us to the workplace/taxpayer railings" from "cradle to grave"?!

Next step, do away with Cash once everyone has a "legal right" to a Bank account.

Banks (and Credit Card companies) are behind this push for a cashless on-line society, as it benefits themselves and clearly the State has "latched on" to that idea as well!

What's next? Digital inclusion or do they mean a Micro-Chip in the body?

#8 Wotmenah, I believe you are confusing a bank account with a bank loan. There is no technical reason the two have to be bundled. Direct Debits can be refused.

I too thought that in the past much was made of the Post Office's role in providing a basic bank account for all.

Forgive me, but didn't 'financial inclusion' for social engineering, ie., giving mortgages to those who could not afford them in the US, not cause the melt down in the first place.
Will they ever stop tinkering.

>I have built up an overdraft of £10,000 by paying my household bills
>they will be closing my account and not making any more payments
>they have a legal obligation to provide me with a bank account

>Or have I missed something?

Yes, there's also an obligation on you to put money into the account as well as withdraw it !

Oh Chris, please don't spoil my day.

I am hoping that as this was designed to address the fact that

"a recent report by the Treasury's Financial Inclusion task force, there are 1.75m adults with no access to .. an account that can be used to pay bills "

the Government might be saying that a bank account is a basic Human Right meaning that my bank can't close my account, even though I have been a naugthy boy.

I think I'll go to the European Court and demand my human rights.

Sob sob. Infamy ..infamy, you've all got it in for me. ;-)

It's a shame there's no semi-government organisation that has an office in every town and village; maybe one that carries out other, general services for the public. then there could be a kind of national bank that would have a branch at each of these offices.

This would provide a country-wide service and perhaps form a kind of social hub for villages and towns.

Wait a moment, I know !!! - there are lots of suitable places already in villages... the village pub, call the accounts people have there the 'BeeroBank' and everyone can have an account !

Maybe the BeeroBank could also handle parcels and post, sell stamps and provide benefits to people who don't want a BeeroBank account and prefer cash and human contact.

As a principle this sounds great, but in the general scale of things is this really a major issue? Even if this goes ahead, how many people will actually benefit, especially given that it seems that a lot of pensioners are in the target group who are probably not familiar with and have limited understanding of things like Direct Debits. For this to be effective it would need to be backed up by a significant programme of education.

As worthy as this idea is, the cynic inside me can't help thinking that this is just clever headline-grabbing designed to divert attention from the real issues.

The question has to be asked, how many want a bank account and why they do not own one?

I for one feel that we the public are being forced down the road of having to have a bank account and credit card.

You get nothing for nothing in this world, or so I was continually being told as I grew up. So the big question is who makes out of us having bank accounts.

Well of course it is the banks, if there is nothing in it for then you can be sure they will drop you like a hot potato. How much would an item cost if the shops did not have to pay for the privilege of using a credit or debit card. It can be as much as 5% of the transaction. So in theory if there was not this charge things could be 5% cheaper. Then there are all the other bank charges levied on businesses.

We should also not forget that the government take a cut. There is also the Big Brother aspect of a bank account. All transactions are monitored and can be investigated. There is always a paper trail. Finally there is the possibility of theft. We are being told that there is a great possibility that identity theft is going to soar. Surely some of the people without bank accounts are the most vulnerable. To you or I loosing £50 would be annoying, to them it could be devastating and could lead to them spiraling into debt. How many times have we heard the story of excessive bank charges for some one who goes overdrawn.

A bank account for everyone sounds like a good idea but has it been thought out.

Peston Wrote:
The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, is convinced that gaining access to a bank account enhances an individual's ability to find permanent employment...

Yes, it's almost as if there was some other agenda - perhaps gaining access to a bank account also enhances an individual's ability to be kept tabs on by HMG.

>my bank can't close my account, even though I have been a naugthy boy.

Just woke up error, admittedly and apologies :^) - but I think your underlying point is flawed; there is no obligation on them to provide you with an overdraft facility - they could close the hugely overdrawn one, converting it into a pure debt, no acoutn attached and open you a new one with no overdraft.

The banks won't find themselves in a tricky position at all, they rarely do, and HMG are too emamoured of them (and up to their... our necks in them !) to make it otherwise.

#15 Wotmenah - therein lies the problem. They should have given you an account without the ability to go overdrawn. No matter, if all this works out you can always start a new one of those somewhere else :)

#18 what about the cost to Tesco (and the bank) of handling cash? This is not cheap either, and is built into the prices just like card payments.

Bring back the Giro Bank - It was a social bank selling basic accounts with no frills available in all the smallest communities via their post office - and it kept the commercial banks honest.

We talk about competition keeping prices down - but there is (effectively) no competition in basic banking services as the banks make their profits us debt - not managing our money.

Hmmm.

Next comes the compulsion of everybody to open a bank account. Then the banks provide debit cards for even small transactions and cash is removed from society (no more cash payments to my builder). Lastly a fee is introduced for all accounts similar to North America and the bank can now recover any additional taxes raised against (Tobin or otherwise) them from you the customer via fees on your only method of carrying out transactions.

It will force the banks to start charging for personal banking services, no question. There is a company, who's products I promote, which has developed an online current account designed to meet the needs of people who can't get a normal bank account. You can ringfence funds, so you always know that your essential payments are covered and you can't go overdrawn.

You can also use BACS and standing orders, but it does not, however, include the facility for direct debits, for the simple reason that the banks are in control of whether the debits go through or not if you go overdrawn your agreed limit. This can be inadvertent, but can cost you. And that's how they make a lot of their money.

Banks are not in the business of promoting financial prudence, because that doesn't make them any money. Everyone is going to have to get used to paying explicitly for their personal banking pretty soon, regardless of their credit status.

I can not imagine a person more liberated than who he/she does not need/have a bank account.

History shows that banks are bad places to store money - you'd be better of hiding it in the garden. The government can snoop on your records and find things out. Boneheaded execs leave laptops on trains. To open an account, you have to send your passport through the post, where it can be intercepted by Israelis and used to disguise assassins. You need to declare your address, so you attract junk mail and other rubbish. Then you get snowed in with offers of loans, cards, house/car/home insurance, and even insurance on your insurance. Then you get certificates that you have to send to the tax man, who makes you fill out a “return” - a giant, 30 page convoluted pile of rules and regulations that are, basically, a pain the neck. Then the bank goes broke, and you need to queue for hours to get your money out, then you have to bail out the bank with your own tax money to make sure you get anything back at all from the bank. And all the time, belligerent, boastful and greedy fat cats down at the bank dip into your money whenever they want and use it to buy country mansions, with hunting hounds and servants and what have you.

No thanks – cash only.

I find this a bit odd. Banks are already obliged to open a basic bank account (cash card, no lending, able to have direct debits and direct credits) for anyone who asks.

I work at a high street bank (not a government funded one before you start bashing me) and the only time I have turned away someone who wanted one of these basic accounts is when they do not have enough ID and address verification to prove who they are and where they live.

We have to follow money laundering regulations set down by the government when accepting these documents, so unless these rules are going to be changed to accommodate this idea, I can't see how it will increase the number of people holding accounts.

It seems like a piece of banker bashing electioneering to me.

#10 costmeabob

As usual with this and previous governments the motives contain the altruistic (social need) and the dark side (monitoring, a la 1984).

My business sector is notorious for 'cash' payments and bartering. The treasury knows that it loses a fair chunk of revenue (VAT, income & corporate tax) as result.

Is this treasury income loss in the altruistic (loss of funding of social projects) or dark side. Both I think.

I'd love a government to tell it as it is, no hidden agendas, but too many voters cannot face a truth that hurts them in some way, so the spin doctor works out the least risky vote-losing agenda,and that's all we hear.

#10 costmeabob

So my comment 28 basically agrees with you and others.
Ensure everybody has to do everything via a bank account, preferably online so it can be monitored 24/7.

Wonderful thing the digital age, a double edged sword.

The banks like to tell us we should start paying for accounts, or that people can't have a free account because it costs them too much to run them for free.

Can anyone tell me in this day and age what the actual cost of running an account is? I struggle to see how it's even measurable when most things are automated by computer systems and the storage space for account data need only be so small you could fit the entire world's population of accounts on a consumer grade hard drive a few times over.

I struggle to see how there's any measurable cost whatsoever in running an account, and certainly not one outweighed by them getting to milk the interest, and use our money in investments to net the massive profits they do.

10# costmeabob
Your right and bright. Without a doubt, this is a big brother idea to track every payment and every penny paid and spent by all citizens in a paperless, cashless society.

8/15 wotmenah

It's ok some of us haven't been stressed out to the extent our humour fails us.............Keep it coming!

As far as I know, a bank account, a basic bank account, is open to all already, even the bankrupt. What's the big deal about compulsion?

"Labour and the Tories are vying with each other over policies to promote the provision of fast internet connections in homes"

How do these numpties always get it so wrong. Where is the policy to develop a fast internet connection technology company that designs, develops and builds real hardware that we can sell around the world?

God forbid that anyone might consider providing an actual service to people! Banks, like virtually all companies nowadays, see their actual customers as inconvenient side issues in their pursuit of money and profit. And we, as a society, (and our government), have allowed big businesses to ride roughshod over everybody because Profit is Good. Sorry, Profit is God!

Victorian-age businessmen understood the need to give something back to the society that sustains them even, (and I'm about to blaspheme here), even if this means MAKING A BIT LESS MONEY (cue gasps of exclamation and accusations of being a Commie!!). Profit is ONE reason for being in business. There are other reasons. Providing employment, providing a service, helping one's community... these are all valid reasons as well. But modern businesses have jettisoned all of these in the single-minded pursuit of money to the absolute exclusion of everything else. Banks are the worst offenders. They force down wages of their staff, (except a very few golden boys to whom they pay millions), shut branches, minimise their staff, subcontract their customer contact overseas to faceless stilted voices on the end of a phone, and engineer all sorts of ways to deduct maximum charges from people to boost their income further. Banks don't want YOU - they only want your money.

As a society, we have almost certainly gone so far down the slippery slope into the pit of greed that there is no hope of recovery any time soon. The only way banks will even consider changing is if they are forced by legislation to do so. But as the Governments (Labour and Tory) have been seduced by these greedy Jezebels, I wouldn't count on it.

I'm pretty sure that there's a certain amount of reinvention of the wheel here. There used to be a national bank, open to all, access was available in every city, town and village via The Post Office (which still has more branches than all the banks combined).

It was called Girobank and was sold to Alliance and Leicester by Margaret Thatcher's Tory government in 1989 or 1990, who then turned it into something else. It may also be a coincidence that this was also the start of the long term decline of the Post Office network.

As Leanne1603 pointed out, banks are compelled by Government regulations to provide address verification, but these conditions (as usual)are just not given enough consideration!
My wife came to this country from abroad and was unable to give the Bank's computer system the 5 years of addresses with post codes that were demanded (there are few formal addresses with Post Codes etc in Africa). Fortunately a more flexible bank in the high street, applied a bit of common sense and allowed her to open an account and they now make money from her and myself as I moved most of my business to them as well.
The Government needs to look at the problem from more angles, than just what might win a few extra votes.

I don't believe removal of bank charges would benefit us, Price rises would simply move in to fill the gap! Look

what happens to domestic gas and oil and petrol prices. As soon as the source price is reduced by market

forces, the retail price jumps up to take advantage. Surcharges in response to given market situations are

almost never totally annulled but quietly coninue under another name.

# 23. At 09:20am on 23 Mar 2010, Uphios wrote:

> cash is removed from society (no more cash payments to my builder).

For a moment, I thought you'd written "no more cash payments to my butler"!

> Lastly a fee is introduced for all accounts similar to North America and
> the bank can now recover any additional taxes raised against
> (Tobin or otherwise) them from you the customer via fees on your
> only method of carrying out transactions.

That's exactly where it's leading, my friend. Cheques are being chopped, as well.

But people are still people. Which means you could pay your builder (or butler) with an IOU. And you could work it off by doing some electrical work for him, or a bit of fencing, or mend his office equipment, or his m/cycle or his car, or give him guitar lessons, or German lessons, or programming lessons. Or brew some beer for him. Or mend his TV. Or maybe pick him up at the airport. Whatever.

Bankers, on the other hand, are stuffed unless they can do something socially useful.

Mypov - good point, I have (in the past) had a couple of run ins with banks from small part time businesses which were "not profitable" to the fact my first business bank gave notice of closure of my account. Recently I voluntarily ceased my Ltd company and my bank closed my account without telling me (bank codes did not apply according to them)and I have had to fight to get nearly £1000 back from them and the treasury due to their failure. Suffice to say my existing bank (also my own personal account has been with them over 24 years) has now benefitted from my business expanding and increasing in revenue. If you cannot make them money - they do not want to know!

But then again it is also down to choice - if you want an account you can have one - low income earners just say no to an overdraft, my 18yr old son has!

#30 I completely agree - or at least that is how it would be, if banks were forced to compete on operational efficiency and better services.

Unfortunately they have no incentive to pass on savings and better services to customers, for the simple reason that the actual cost is not visible, and hence does not feature in your choice of bank account.

So we live in a world where it would make perfect sense for a new bank to leapfrog old banks legacy systems and create an efficient, online only bank, but unfortunately it can only attract customers by offering a higher interest rate (not lower fees, as competitors have none). Hence it would mainly attract customers with higher positive current account balances, and the efficiency savings get rapidly cancelled out by higher funding costs. If the market instead charged for the services separately (and paid market interest rates), they would win hands down.

Perhaps Mr Darling has the cart before the horse. When money is tight, people don't want to risk it.

When you receive £100 a week a charge of £30+ because your money is one day late to pay a direct debit is simply not affordable.

Banks used to be useful and were seen as on people's side. These greedy tactics have changed people's view of banking and created a whole underclass for whom the banks are an irrelevance.

Quite like this idea, the problem is, of course is how responsible will the banks will be. They should not be allowed to charge the poorest, I would imagine (but not totally sure) that they already make enough profit charging retailers who accept debit cards. Secondly they should not be allowed to market or allow these customers into taking credit cards or overdrafts which frankly would be a heavy burden to say the least.
I'm not overly concerned with the HMRC potential aspect, frankly it is unfair to those who play by the rules if others are geting away with benefit cheating or cash in hand, often the customer is not really better off after the cost of rogues doing bodge jobs. I would be very happy if the system was used to make payments of bona fidi benefits which many are still unaware of, find too complex or feel "to proud" to accept what they are rightly entitled to.

Why should i have a bank account , i prefer to be paid in pound notes which i prefer to spend in shops , i don't want to be forced into using plastic in superstores . The banks have done us no favours and have shown total disregard about the publics opinion in regard to overly inflated bank charges and bonuses etc , the goverment has shown the same in regards to expenses , peoples privacy etc . Just who i want to manage my finances .

38. At 10:16am on 23 Mar 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

For a moment, I thought you'd written "no more cash payments to my butler"

.....................................

We may have our difference of opinion Jacques but that made me laugh out loud.

Back to bartering you think, maybe but I read an article yesterday on local currencies or we could go WOTW route and all buy and swap gold.

I work at a bank in an area that makes and review these types of decisions.

Basic bank accounts are loss making for banks. We have an obligation already to provide universal banking for free. Adding more obligations to sell them (especially if it must be free) will mean others are cross charged to cover the cost. If you give them direct debit functionality or cheque books, you end up with losses you can't cover and can't collect as it is too costly for such small amounts. We also pay a fair chunk every time they use a competitor ATM. Finally there are practical fraud issues with identifying many unbanked customers who don't have billing relationships elsewhere, don't have passports or anything which identifies them as them.

The best scenario for this type of thing is a basic account that is online only, with e-statements, no facilities for direct debits, no cheque books and can only use our own ATM's for free. Even then it will be somewhat loss making.

Banking costs quite a lot to run. You either have a cross subsidy model like today or people get charged fees per transaction or annual fees. This is sort of thing (including the overdraft fee changes) is the sort of thing that ushers in annual fees by the back door.

Morally I agree, people should have a right to an account (they already do)

The banks have recently released many pre-paid cards such as 02 Money Manager allows the "unbanked" to transact online without an account.

Problem solved.

What the Government mean is that there are 1.75 million adults for whom whereabouts cannot be checked, nor financial details/transactions followed. Every time we use a bank card for a transaction, the details are logged. Every time we advise our bank of change of address, the details are logged with databases such as 'creditexpert.com'. Data protection laws apparently do not apply to banks. Hence the reason the Government wants bank accounts for everyone. Do not be fooled. This is Big Brother at work again.

Leanne1603 (@27)says that basic banking provision without lending is already available for all townies with ID.

All that remains is basic provision for all in country villages.... a bank in every villiage??? No, of course not - just a village postoffice with an updated Giro.

So simple really, I'm suprised politicians didn't realise that this was the sort of social provision that they were elected to provide and sustain.

The best solution would be to bring back the right to be paid in cash!!
The trouble is we have all slept walked into this absolute rule made by the banks that you must have a bank account to be a valuable member of society. I do not want, need or have a desire to have a bank account yet I am forced to do so because my employer says I must. The banks have been engineering this for years to ensure that we are a captive customer base...and the best thing ever is that they made us think it was our idea!!

This is not about providing bank accounts for all - it is about further state control. Once everyone has a bank account fines, taxes and any other government charges will be taken straight from our accounts. They are also going to provide broadband to every house and then they will be able to comunicate with all of us at once and then we will have no excuse whatsoever for not doing what they tell us to do or for doing what they tell us not to do. 1984 or what?

To: iwinter

Comprehensive list of costs for you :) Hope you are a happy chap after all that.

* Branch costs
* Systems development and maintenance costs (quite high)
* Staff costs - Branch, call centre, head office
* Paper and postage costs for statements and other literature
* Government regulation compliance
* ATM cost (almost 50p a pop when you use a competitor)
* Bad debt (even on bank accounts without lending facilities, from bounced cheques etc and defeinitely from those with overdrafts, loans, credit cards)
* Fraud monitoring systems and fraud write off
* Marketing costs
* Tax - don't forget that RBS for example was the biggest corporation tax contributor in many years in the UK.

It is mainly the need to sustain a branch network, call centres and the universal obligation of free banking. Also the free ATM networks and free transactions that already exists that means you get charged what you get charged on interest or fees.

If I was a new competitor today, i'd make an online only play and things would be considerably cheaper. Many older and poorer people still like branches and as we don't yet charge for their use or aren't allowed to, they will remain. The branch of the future is really a shop front in a supermarket or shopping centre for selling complex products like mortages, pensions and investment advice with everything else being automated.

If I pay a large amount off a loan (or any big bill) from my account the company "want to know where the money has come from" through Money Laundering rules - I always come back with "Data Protection restricts my answer to mind your own business" they tend not to ask a 2nd time. This is also applicable to the government and HMRC

Companies charge for Credit card transactions but not Debit card ones - it they change that then I will start going by the cheque route again.

As other poster noted this recent move is part of the wider plan to have an excuse for taking printed money (cash) gradually out of circulation and thus impose the ultimate control on people.

Any dissident who does not agree with official governemtn policies could literally be made to starve and give up by freezing of their bank account.

This crisis is used in exactly the same way as they used the alleged terrorists attacks to implement the anti-terrorists laws and empower the police to stop and search innocent citizen with a crime being committed.

PEOPLE WAKE UP - WE'RE SLEEP WALKING INTO AN ORWELLIAN WORLD!

My immediate reaction was "Ah, so they're working toward the outlawing of cash."

Cash handling is expensive so it would be good for banks to eliminate it. But the sooner the government gets people onto plastic or some equivalent, the sooner the controls will be there to search into people's lives and spending habits. The government already knows what most of us earn but it has no idea how we dispose of that part of our earnings left after tax.

Cash preserves anonymity. The gov hates something it can't control and cash spending is just that.

For all that some don't want a bank account anyway.

Always look for the hidden agenda.

Even if a bank provides an account for free, they still make money.
Banks charge all business per transaction - so each debit card transaction or direct debit a person makes on their "free" account has a levy charged to the shop or business the payment is going to.
If banks cry foul, it is because they don't feel they can make the super-profits they want to through disproportionate charges on overdrafts or interest rates 36 times the base rate.
My heart bleeds...

In the Nat West ads they go on a jolly in their van banks to islands and villages all around. Is this not true? I saw it on TV...
The gap between the real world and the banks and the gap between the banks and politicians just gets wider.

The point being made about the post office is good but they are closing down quicker than pubs and farms.
Social inclusion is more than just forcing banks to open accounts. After all the 'hidden charges' would be dropped into to those accounts quicker than a politician banking his, or her, expenses...

#45 Freespeaker - Thanks for the interesting insight. Are you saying that legally you are not allowed to charge for banking services?

This is a good and welcome move.
Banking licenses provide protection to Banks from severe competition. They carry an obligation to support the community (that's us) who issues those licenses/trade restrictions.
Current credit checking agencies should be sophisticated enough to alert banks to truly bad risk applicants on an individual basis. There's absolutely no need to resort - as most Banks do - to red-lining whole neighbourhoods, just because there are some unreliable people living nearby. Our urban areas are far too dense for that to be viable anyway.
The emergence of new small banks will require a special codicil in these new requirements.
We've learnt just how important Banks are, both as public utilities and as potential liabilities. They need to be regulated for reasons similar to the reasons why we regulate other public utilities. Just like those other utilities (water, electricity, phones, etc) that must supply all-comers.

This is an interesting proposal from the government Robert. Having done virtually nothing to reform the banks we now get this measure which I hope will help the financially excluded but as other posters have already pointed out has further implications too.
I was just reading about plans and objectives to reduce and then end the "poverty trap" which affects many of our poorest citizens on notayesmanseconomics web blog and feel that this would be a much more revolutionary and inspiring move...

Just more Labour spin....big deal Darling! People can get access to a bank account if they want. They will NOT be allowed an overdraft and the cash card almost certainly will not have a cheque guarantee facility, so it's not really a problem, unless the customer wants to borrow. But that's precisely why they're being put into this type of account - to make sure they can't.

It's just Labour bigging the story up to make it look like something vital. In these strained times for politicians the chance to make ANYTHING look visionary will grab their attention. Sadly it's just that a) most people think it's not (visionary) and b) we know all too well how politicians can and do make a complete horlicks of the eventual policy execution!

However, there is a very positive element to this slightly left of field policy development. Namely that whilst Darling has been dreaming up this one, it may, just may, have distracted him from thinking about new ways to increase taxes? (Mind you he looks like a man with half a dozen new ways up his sleeve should the need arise!)

51. At 10:47am on 23 Mar 2010, chris wrote:

Companies charge for Credit card transactions but not Debit card ones - it they change that then I will start going by the cheque route again.

.....................................

You are aware that the banks have already announced the phaseing out of cheques? :-]

Great way to tax people and know even more about them- and if the banks dislike it well its like a thank you for savings your hides. And to the post about his account being closed well you spent £10k of other peoples money you did earn or save it jsut overdrew it. People like you are the other side of the recession
cretins like you who signed the loan papers knowing you could never repay them..

Banking is a perfect example of a business that makes huge sense as a single, nationalised entity.

It's just money, it's a token, it's not a product or an end in itself.

Money has no style, flavour or other properties, every penny is the same so why have a vast set of opposing companies providing the very same service managing an identical and unchanging product ?

Nationalise the banks, give the resulting entity to a trust that is not accountable to the government, that runs it for the people, not for profit.

No more bank adverts, standard mortgages and savings accounts, no more financial advisers proffering dodgy advice for plump commissions; get some useless bean-counters back into the workforce doing something useful instead.

Most banks already have a basic account, it was brought in to pay benefits into, this was supposedly to save money on fraud but in reality it was to take income away from Post Offices.

Doing away with benefit books, was supposed to save the tax payer money in fraud etc etc but i am unable to find anyone claiming the amount that fraud has dropped, while the cost of a bank transfer is more than the benefit books they replaced.

I see no reason for people to have to pay more to bail the banks out, which would be the result by forcing people to have accounts with the very people who shouldnt be dealing with money.

Robert

Banks have offered "basic bank accounts" for at least 10 years as a social service. They have restrictions such as no overdraft but have been taken up by millions of people.

Making their provision a legal requirement is just government spin and makes no difference to the take up.

Robert you have been duped.

I'm curious to know how AD got his information about people with no bank account.

My grandparents had a bank account for as long as I can remember-they weren't exactly rolling in it! I have also known lots of unemployed and young people with bank accounts. They prefer to cash their pension/benefit, bank some money and keep some cash back. what about people who have fallen on hard times and have an account in the red? Their benefits would get sucked up into this and they would have no money to live on? Places like the Abbey and Alliance and Leicester provide basic bank accounts, so I find the government's certainty over these figures somewhat confusing.

Is it possible that people who prefer to cash their money at the PO choose NOT to have it paid into the bank first? Are these the people of whom the government speak?

It will no doubt save the government loads of money to pay everything electronically. It will save companies money too-hence the discounts offered for diect debit payments. Utility companies seem to make a monthly DD bigger than average monthly usage with promises to reduce it after 6 months if needed. Also, if less people use the PO, more will be forced to close.

On balance, I agree that this is an electioneering ploy hiding 'Big Brother' intent to monitor people, save costs, enable companies and banks to make more money and eroding personal choice even further.

I seem to recall this 1984 citizen tracking was a real concern at the time of the bailout.

And didn't the government push through legislation to allow monitoring of personal Internet use last year while we were all distracted with something else (credit crunch and expenses scandal I think)?

This 'bank account and broadband for all' sounds great, but strikes me as a smokescreen for other things.

Makes me shudder and I find it very sinister. I hope people don't take this at face value.

So what's wrong with making the Post Office a bank offering a range of services,as the case in France. It will a) save the post Office, and b)permit people who are unsure/afraid or overwhelmed by banks to manage what little resources available.

# To Chris B

All the high street banks (and high street banks only have this obligation and subsequent costs) have already a universal service obligation to provide a "no frills" basic bank account with a certain set of features for free to anyone who asks. this has been the case for about 10 years already.

They are not obliged for example to give overdrafts or "packaged account" benefits such as free insurance but do have to provide basic chequing and paying facilities.

As the revenue model changes in banking due to legisative/ regulatory environment, banking is tending much more so to annual fee based environment (especially in low interest rate times). Basic bank accounts are a major spanner in the works of this as who would want to pay for banking when you can get it free. The answer is to have such a restricted set of features in the basic bank account that you want to pay for better service or a better product.

What is being proposed above sounds like a marketing campaign for existing legislation as there doesn't seem to be a change proposed to what is already done.

#50 Freespeaker,

I have commented on your list to illustrate my point, that the cross-subsidy model gives me no chance whatsoever of getting (and paying for) only the banking services I actually need, transparently so I can compare you with competitors. Which in turn gives you little incentive to innovate and rationalise. I agree that different people have different requirements, but unless the real costs is passed on, individuals themselves also have no incentive to force through the kind of products they need, or change their behaviour. So I'm still (genuinly) curious about your previous statement, are you saying it's illegal to charge for banking services, hence unbundling of credit/debit and services is not possible?

* Branch costs [I don't want branch services - but if I did, can you think of a smarter way?]
* Systems development and maintenance costs (quite high) [Yes for the kind of legacy systems that haven't been replaced along the way - I'd go with a modern outfit]
* Staff costs - Branch, call centre, head office [I don't want branches, and call centres only when your website isn't working or you have messed something up]
* Paper and postage costs for statements and other literature [I don't want them - online only]
* Government regulation compliance [yep]
* ATM cost (almost 50p a pop when you use a competitor) [and presumably a similar amount coming in from your competitors customers? Even so, I'd be happy to pay to get cash when I need it - from any competitive ATM network or supermarket cash-back]
* Bad debt (even on bank accounts without lending facilities, from bounced cheques etc and defeinitely from those with overdrafts, loans, credit cards) [I don't want an overdraft, credit card or cheque book, only a bank account]
* Fraud monitoring systems and fraud write off [yep - but presumably these are also mostly recovered through card transaction fees?]
* Marketing costs [I need alot less of it if you simply introduce fees that I can compare with others and pay me market interest rates for my money, as a minimum]
* Tax - don't forget that RBS for example was the biggest corporation tax contributor in many years in the UK [you forgot profit - why not just call it profit before tax? :)]

The banks have all been lobbying government for the last twenty years in an attempt to turn the economy into a virtual economy with everyone being paid directly into their bank accounts and all major bills being cheaper to pay by direct debit than with cash as well as the use of chip and pin cards for all transactions.

If the banks want the extra profits that come with working in a virtual economy then they have a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to a bank account that can be used in this economy.

Obviously the banks are going to complain that they'll have to give accounts to some people who won't make them any money as they're so used to getting everything their own way but unfortunately in this situation they can't have their cake and eat it, they were the ones who wanted to create the cash free society so they'll be the ones to ensure everyone has access to an appropriate bank account that will work in a cashless society.

In a way it makes sense, because the only way for poor people to become richer is to save money and multiply that money. But education would be better than this.

Just teach in schools the effect that saving just 10% of your income and putting it in bank can have. Put £2k a year from the age of 24 till 64 into a 5% yield investment and if you stop at 64 you can draw 15k a year from that amount a year until the age of 96 when that money runs out. In the end you will draw out almost 400k from an account you only put 80k into. This is all basic stuff that needs to be taught.

If you save 10% of all you earn then you have capital to make more money with. This is only a small percent to save and is affordable and will make you at least have to opportunity to get your way out of being poor. It all adds up and earns money.

Wasn't the poster with the £10,000 overdraft making a joke?

Certainly seemed like they were! A black comedy showing the point of view of some people who genuinely behave this way...

I found it hilarious! Particularly in view of the news yesterday of a prisoner using his European Human rights after having cigarettes withdrawn as part of his punishment for bad behaviour!

The poster seemed to highlight this increasing attitude of 'not my fault' as a way of showing what some people's response to all this will be.

Excellent post!

Bring back Girobank. And change the wording to every "UK resident" and not just "UK citizen" since there are so few. But then again, they're the ones who need the dole paid into an account I suppose.

60 - Uphios

yes I know they have said they would LIKE to withdraw cheques - however if people continue to use them, they cannot get rid of them.

On another note - Banks are to blame if people are allowed to go over their overdraft facility just as much as those who spend what they do not have in the account - SIMPLE economics - you aint got the money dont spend it!

As Leanne1603 said the money laundering regulations are a major hurdle for those who wish to open a bank account. I used to volunteer at a CAB and we dealt with a large number of people who were caught in this trap.

The requirements for documentation like driving licences, passports and utility bills is a major hurdle for those who wish to open a bank account, especially at the lower end of the income scale.

I am interested and encouraged by this as I wonder when I'll have to pay bank charges.

I've had to down-job, and am doing part time cleaning while I train for a better future. I get about £140 a week, so anyone with a bit of maths will realize there is never much on the account, and I'm not saving much either.

I am paid via BACS which is fine by me, but BACS is the only way the company will pay me, so I have no choice in the matter and I have to have a bank account.

I've been with LLoyds for 20 years and have the basic account, and am charged no fee. Besides, anyone can see that I cannot afford to pay a monthly charge.

Since the economy runs on money, and having a bank account is obligatory for receiving a salary or wage (unless we are talking black market of course) the banks have a captive public.

Thus it would be tantamount to extortion for banks to impose a fee for handling the current accounts of the poor (in particular), or otherwise it would be an obligatory payment amounting to a privatised tax.

I'm all for this.

Bit of a blip on Monday, but back in the groove now.

Considering most benefits now have to be paid into bank accounts then I would have thought this is a right long overdue.

27. At 09:30am on 23 Mar 2010, Leanne1603 wrote:

"I find this a bit odd. Banks are already obliged to open a basic bank account (cash card, no lending, able to have direct debits and direct credits) for anyone who asks."

This is not true - I have had personal experience of this where a disputed amount on your credit record prevents you openeing the most basic of account even if you don't want an overdraft!

Currently I am 'stuck with my current bank' (who coincidently used to be 3 banks and are now 1 - as my record prevents me getting a simple, non-overdraft account, despite my earnings.

Now that bankers are 'taking their job seriously' you will find more and more problems - how many of you have tried to switch accounts since the credit crunch started- and what is the success rate.

At the same time my credit card limit has been reduced from it's original (unrequested) level of £8000 - to a paltry £200. This is a sign of either a continuing shortage of credit - or a sign of how badly wrong credit scoring was prior to the crisis.

There will be a lot of us finding out (when we come to switch accounts) how tiny little problems on your credit score will leave you hanging outside of the system.

I earn a very nice salary, my only debt is my LTV mortgage of 60% and I have savings (until they're inflated away) - and I am having to apply for a 'pre-paid card' in order to have a card I can use abroad.

Now doesn't that ring alarm bells?

I do agree with many posters that this idea, whilst noble, will result in yet another way for the private sector banks to extract money (or I like to call them, financial taxes for the proles) from the members of society who can least afford it.

It's the same mentality by which the markets are charging Greece twice the amount to borrow than Germany - making a collapse almost certain.

The markets are like the banks - predators who prey on the weak and avoid the engaging with the strong.

What they mean is that a bank account will be compulsory,and you will have to have an ID card to open one, or, a bank card will have photo and biometrics and that will be your ID.(just a thought)This will go with the headcam we will all have to wear once there is internet access to all the country.

Perhaps they will issue the cards that dont need to be swiped so that every time you pass a Government building they take a small amount hoping you wont notice.

Almost out of glue i need to get some more.

64. At 11:27am on 23 Mar 2010, Pensfold wrote:


"Banks have offered "basic bank accounts" for at least 10 years as a social service. They have restrictions such as no overdraft but have been taken up by millions of people."

Can you name some? Can you show me a bank account which you can open without having your regular wages paid into it?

BTW - 'offfering' is not the same as 'providing' - this is evidenced by the fact that banks do not tell you why you have been turned down

Which means they could reject you for any spurious reason and they don't need to explain it to anyone. Even though anohter bank finds you acceptable this pathetic regulatory system makes no effort to make them explain themselves.

For all I know I might be getting rejected because I am not white (or at least they think I'm not from my surname, but I actually am)

This is what the consequence is of centralised administration - in the past I would go to my bank, speak to the bank manager, explain my partcular set of circumstances and hey presto! - a sound and sensible decision made.

Ah the progress in banking over the last 20 years has been 'exceptional' - and most of it bad.

So Robert,

When are we going to get rid of this silly moderation holding things up for an hour or more and just get round to removing those posts that get reported? You are aware the government is trying to speed up the internet arn't you.

Irrespective of what government says, the decision, even to the most modest and least well off citizens of Britain is the right to choose if they WANT a bank account or not. Perhaps those who don't have one now CHOOSE to. We live in a Big Brother age. Soon it will be the very well off who perhaps CHOOSE NOT to have bank accounts - perhaps for very different reasons. What do you think?

>62. At 11:15am on 23 Mar 2010, Chris wrote:
Banking is a perfect example of a business that makes huge sense as a single, nationalised entity.


Thoroughly agree. I have yet to see a single example of where having a multitude of banks- competing with each other to the extent that their ultimate aim is to buy up all competition and be a single entity anyway, and designed both now and in the future to gain as great a profit as possible from the customer- as being an 'advantage' to society.
Actually that goes for the other utilities as well. Private companies as a supplement can be useful, but the infrastructure of a nation (and that is what banking has become) should be in public hands always.


And let us not kid ourselves, whether we want them to be or not the banks have function creeped their way into being a necessary part of modern life.

Tried to get a job with a big corporation lately? Bank account required, non optional. Employment agency? Required. Want electricity, gas or water? Well we'll charge you more if you don't have a bank acount. Ever tried to buy a new car with cash? You even get a funny look if you want to do it for an expensive sofa! And the list goes on...
I haven't applied for one lately, but has the passport agency moved to bank account payments only yet? Don't be surprised when it comes- and then it will be effectively illegal to cross borders without a bank account!


So AD is correct in that being disallowed a bank account is a detriment to such things as wanting to get a decent job. However, once again the people at the top are addressing things the wrong way around!

@KeithRodgers : I disagree and believe that a typical (in credit) Bank account costs zero to run; its just a couple of extra kB on the database of a rack in docklands.

There are 60 million people in the country. Say there are 30 million of the population of working age and say the mean IQ is 100. That means that 16% of the working population has an IQ of below 85, that would be 4.8 million to start with. Lower that IQ even further and you get begin to understand why some might not be able to responsibly handle a bank account in the past (not so much 'working class' as just 'not very bright'), without getting themselves and those close to them into trouble. That's why they were paid wages in cash. Now, who might benefit most from having a bank account when they can't responsibly manage one, and who may have a vested interest in playing down innate individual differences in cognitive ability (diversity) via political correctness? Would that more likely to be right-wing economic anarchists (money-lenders) or left-wing socialists?

I have a bad credit history and have a basic account with a major Building Society but it only has a cashcard not a debit card. I have been refused a debit card with several banks/building societies purely due to my credit score even though I am not asking for any credit faciliities, just a debit card.
The reason is they make the basic account far too basic - for some reason a debit card only comes with their standard accounts which also have the optional facilitiy to use an overdraft (which I don't want but they will not listen!).
This is a real pain sometimes as I have to carry enough cash with me or make sure I know where a cashpoint is.
If a Universal account came with the right to have a debit card it would be extremely useful to me and I wold jump at it.
However I expect banks to fight this all the way to include as little as legally possible with the account.

This is only a governmental ploy in advance of forcing us to stop using cheques and paving the way to do away with cash altogether. That way ALL of our transactions will be known to the Government (treasury). Therefore a bank account will become a total requirement, if you need to buy or sell anything. It is my understanding that they are already working towards stopping cheques within two years. Why? Apart from electronic transactions (traceable by the government) that will only leaves cash. I am convinced that the government's (BIG BROTHER) intention will also be to try and do away with cash in the not too distant future. This will undoubtedly allow them to fully computerise absolutly everything and know where every single penny we spend, receive or have is coming from or going to. Imagine that for a moment if you will. George Orwell should have entitled his book 2010 instead of 1984. Remember these words.

As we already own a few banks, and the goverment has a list of all our national insurance accounts why dosnt it just Automatically open you a bank account when it sends you your national insurance details.

Job done

79. writingsonthewall wrote:

"I might be getting rejected because I am not white (or at least they think I'm not from my surname, but I actually am)"

"Wall" sounds 'white' to me....

A cashless society would make it even easier for our masters to further inflate the currency (whislt increasing their skim), circumvent capital reserve ratios and not have to concern themselves with the inevitable bank runs that usually follows such behaviour. After all, you can't queue up to withdraw virtual cash. It would also make their control over us complete, as they, and their servants in governement, could deny anyone access to their savings, at anytime, at the flick of a switch.


Welcome to slavery. Enjoy the confines of your shiny new debt cage. You might not be able to see the bars, but they are there.

They put them up whilst you were reading Heat magazine.

84. At 1:08pm on 23 Mar 2010, Statist

Come on, you know that IQ isn't really a measure of intelligence - because if it was then I would be one of the cleverest men in Britain.
(I scored 175 when I was 16)

I met a farmer once who was 'of very low IQ' - but when we were stood in a fields of what I thought were 'harmless cows' - not realising they were 'angry bulls' - his direction of what to do demonstrated which of us was the 'most intelligent'.

In many parts of this country large numbers of people have no bank account. My brother only got one when he joined the armed services. I got one when I went up to University; I suddenly became a potential car-buyer and mortgage purchaser in their eyes and there were offers in every direction. Three months before there were none available to me. My parents and other siblings still don't have one; they aren't good prospects to banks who want to make money. Most of the people I grew up with, just like their parents, do not have bank accounts to this day.

All this suspicion!

There are 1.87 million people apparently who can not get a bank account. Right, so you can have a bank account and use cash! Get your wages or whatever. Put all your money in a coffee jar if you want. Now supposing you decide to buy a book from a well known on-line store. Just put your tenner in your account and now you can get your book at a discount!

If that worries you, don't use money online. Of course the government can get their paws on your info, well some of it at any rate, if they wanted to from a bank. So don't use one then.

Where this comes in as an important feature is this. Imagine you've left school, come from a deprived area and never went to University. You've been in and out of low income jobs for a few years and then decide to, say join the police force. They will immediately want to have your bank details in order to pay your salary. But you don't have one. I know someone who experienced something very similar to this. It was a nightmare for him and his family. He couldn't get paid until he had a bank account, and the banks wouldn't give him a bank account because, as far as they were concerned, he didn't count, he'd never had any loans, he'd lived with his parents and therefore no track record of paying bills on time. Catch 22! It could have been so easily prevented and was just, well stupid.

Ian

My sympathies

I have had a credit card, but I have occasionally used interest free credit because as an accountant I thought it was a good ruse. I bought a TV in 2000 with payments by direct debit spread over a year. When it came to the final payment (unbeknown to me) they placed my payment in someone else's account. They then sent me a reminder for that final payment, which I immediately disputed. It got quite nasty until I demanded to see their receipt records, waving my bank statement in front of them. They finally agreed that they had made a mistake, and apologised, and cleared the account. I thought nothing further of the matter, but vowed not to bother with interest free credit any more.

Two years later I was approached in Marks and Spencer about their new shop card, and after much persuasion decided to have one. Filled in the forms, and it was duly rejected. My credit rating was shot for reasons they could not explain. They told me to get in touch with the rating agency Experian, who, for a £2 charge told me that I owed a month on my TV from two years back and suggested I pay it. I explained the situation and got back in touch with the TV company who assured me they would contact Experian.

I finally got confirmation that my credit rating was OK and vowed never to enter into any financial transaction that could not be paid from my debit card. The idea of having money but being regarded as a bad credit risk seemed to me to be an unwelcome addition to my ordered life.

#67 Freespeaker - think we cross-posted

" banking is tending much more so to annual fee based environment (especially in low interest rate times). "

Why an annual fee? Why not a fee per service? If mobile phone companies can charge me for individual text messages, why can't banks charge me for individual transactions? I don't want to pay an annual fee to cover expensive branches. And I don't want banks to confiscate my interest when rates are high, then decide they want to charge fees when they are low, and for good measure do both when the rates go back up again.

"Basic bank accounts are a major spanner in the works of this as who would want to pay for banking when you can get it free."

I think this hits the nail on the head - anyone with any kind of positive bank balance has had to do this for a long time. Forgone interest *is* payment, but I'm paying for all the services, not just the ones i want.

I would introduce a mandatory market based minimum interest rate on all positive deposit balances now that rates are low (they are still not negative) and have banks start charging for services, not balances. A very basic bank account should be very cheap to run. And that's all I want.

"British banks would be legally obliged to provide a basic bank account to every UK citizen"

Do they really mean Citizen? Will we now have to prove citizenship in order to open a bank account? It looks like another fabricated reason to "need" an ID card. If they deny bank accounts to non-UK-citizens it could cause a lot of trouble with the EU.

I've always found it distasteful that US politicians will use "Americans" when they mean people. It's just as distasteful if our politicians go the same way, adding a Little-Englander undertone to their pronouncements.

If they do away with Cheques and cash and force every individual to have a bank account it opens up the door for the following :-
a)Recording of every transaction so they can introduce a transaction tax.Similar to the airport or insurance tax.
b)The unscruplous employers who do not register employees e.g. cash in hand would have no where to go they would have to pay NI and deduct taxes.
c) All of the individuals who operate in the black economy would be suddenly flushed out thus getting them to contribute something in taxes and NI.
d)The government would save billions in processing benefits payments electronically and it would be faster!Problem would be identity fraud I guess somebody pinching your ID.
e)Seeing as the taxpayer already owns the majority interest in some banks use them to set this system up!
f)It paves the way for a cashless society thats for sure.
g) All the illegal immigrants will be panicking because no cash in hand any more they would have to pay taxes and NI! So thats going to show all those up too!

Bring it on it sounds like a good idea to me, if your honest you have nothing to fear link it to ID cards and you will cut fraud big time!
The only people who do not like ID cards are people who have got something to hide period!

89.

should read: further inflate the money supply.

Logic is simple people are not spending so the VAT tax revenue is down big time.So instead of taxing spending we tax financial transactions.Everybody has to perform transactions even in a recession or slump so it is a very easy target for taxation.
Cheques are on there way out, payments by the government departments to your bank account will be electronic (family allowance, unemployment benefit, paying council tax and rents etc). It makes sure all the government departments get there cash first then whats left you live off if anything is left of course.So the days of spending your rent money at the pub may soon be over LOL!

This has to be an online banking monitoring system, especially so as its announced hot on the heels of the announcement that all citizens are going to be allotted an individual web page yesterday.
The really really scary thing is, I don't think they that lord over us have thought this through.
The public sector already has a track record of losing important personal e-data.
And far more importantly electronic systems are fragile, with everything online Britain would invite cyber attack, which could be catastrophic.
Thanks to NuLab war mongering policy of the last 10 years there are an awful lot of people and countries who would try anything to harm Britain.

I have to say that banking like the health service is one area were efficiency comes from having ONE state controlled provider. Seeing as both are now in state hands one by principal the other by default. The sinister bit is the Orwell type monitoring of everything but again if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear its a bit like ID cards.
They have to close the loop on - identity theft, workers in the black economy,either illegals or people claiming benefit.
The identity theft issue is sorted by biometric data on the card, nobody can pass themselves off as you any more. So that would flush out all of the illegals. Deny anybody health care or places in schools that has no ID card or papers.
The deterant for unscrupolous employers who pay people cash in hand to avoid paying employment taxes would need to be a hefty prison sentence.
Say 5yrs for avoiding payroll taxes and NI.

77. At 12:43pm on 23 Mar 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

"This is not true - I have had personal experience of this where a disputed amount on your credit record prevents you openeing the most basic of account even if you don't want an overdraft!"

I suspect the bank you requested an account from was not actually doing a basic account application, but an application for a current account. Even if you asked for no overdraft, a current account has the potential to have one, and would be subject to a credit search.

The basic account application will do various searches (voters roll and fraud related), and the only reason you would be turned down is for a record of fraud or from being an undischarged bankrupt. It is understandable why a bank would say no in these cases.

85. At 1:11pm on 23 Mar 2010, Ian wrote:

"I have a bad credit history and have a basic account with a major Building Society but it only has a cashcard not a debit card. I have been refused a debit card with several banks/building societies purely due to my credit score even though I am not asking for any credit faciliities, just a debit card."

There are basic bank accounts out there which do offer debit cards. Loads of info on the fsa money made clear site.

But I do agree that banks make it undesirable to people to have these basic accounts, I am targeted and rewarded for opening any account other than a basic, they are seen as a waste of time by management even if they are the best account for the customer.