More mis-selling among high street banks

Scandal over fee-charging accounts lower trust, again.

The PPI mis-selling scandal has threatened to engulf the packaged account offerings of the UK’s high street banks.

In February of 2012 it was reported that the fee-charging account market in the UK was booming, worth nearly £2bn and rising. With regulation on the up and a low interest margin rate adding pressure to an industry facing crisis after crisis, banks turned to packaged accounts as a source of regular, easy cash.

Unfortunately they may have taken to them with a little too much enthusiasm, with banks being accused of signing up people who have no use, and may not even be eligible, for the features of their packaged accounts.

Amid claims of aggressive sales practises Lloyds TSB pulled their packaged accounts from sale in their stores and over the phone from the 1 January 2013. The AVAs are still available for customers to sign up to online, far removed from pushy sales staff.

According to Lloyds the reason for removal of their bundled accounts from sale in-store is that they wish to “harmonise the way we sell bundled accounts across all brands within Lloyds Banking Group, to align the sales process with that currently used within Halifax.”

Halifax continues to offer its packaged account while the sales process is “harmonised” across the group.

A December 2012 Which? investigation of more than 500 front line bank staff showed that there is still high pressure to make sales in Lloyds, Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Santander.

Over half (65 per cent) of bank staff in sales roles and have sales targets say there is now more pressure than ever to meet the goals set for them.

The report showed that mis-selling of products is rampant in all of the big five high street banks. Nearly 50 per cent of staff in sales know someone at the bank who has mis-sold a product in order to meet their targets and 40 per cent say their targets encourage employees try and get the sale when it's not appropriate.

Metro Bank, which turns three in March, removed their packaged account offering in December 2012. Metro Bank Plus was pulled because the fledgling bank “considers its market proposition on an ongoing basis to ensure that it gives the best value to its customers.” Meaning the packaged account was not giving value to customers because no one who bought it (most commonly, it seems, suggestible little old ladies) could use the features.

Santander, who also fled from packaged accounts before the mis-selling scandal consumes them, ditched their packaged accounts in March 2012 in favour of the “simplified” 123 Account. Despite this being a paid current account with bundled features, Santander maintains it does not count as a packaged account.

The ongoing mis-selling scandals are a result of banks who have not yet adjusted to life post-2008 financial crash. Banks who believed the good times and endless credit would never end and that people would happily pay out £10 a month for products they were unlikely or unable to use.

While the mis-selling of packaged accounts won’t bring down the economy, it will only further peoples belief that banks are not your friend and are not to be trusted.

Photograph: Getty Images

Billy Bambrough writes for Retail Banker International at VRL financial news.
 

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.