/ Money

FCA: why we’re taking action on overdrafts

Unarranged overdraft fees can be expensive and harmful – that’s why we’re proposing a radical redesign, says Christopher Woolard, Director of Strategy and Competition at the Financial Conduct Authority.

We think it’s time for a radical redesign of the way banks charge for overdrafts. They need to be simpler, fairer and easier to understand. Today we’ve put forward a package of proposals that will address this.

In particular, unarranged overdraft fees can be very expensive and harmful to consumers.

They regularly exceed 10% a day and can be over 20% a day for some customers and half of firms’ unarranged overdraft fees came from just 1.5% of their customers in 2016.

We’ve found too that people who are least able to afford these charges are more likely to have to pay them – people living in some of the poorest areas of the country are twice as likely to pay overdraft fees and charges compared to those living in other areas.

Which? research informs change

Today’s proposals are built on a huge amount of analysis and data that we’ve gathered on overdrafts, what they cost and how they’re used. We’ve taken into account a wide range of evidence, including from Which? and other consumer groups, as well as talking to consumers directly.

Which?’s evidence showed how unarranged overdrafts can be more costly than payday loans – we expect to see a significant reduction in unarranged overdraft charges and that all overdraft charges will be below the level of the daily price cap on payday loans.

We also agree with Which? on the need to simplify overdraft charges – just bringing down unarranged overdraft charges isn’t enough to address the underlying problems in the market.

Our research shows that only one in five people can correctly pick the best overdraft deal from a set of current products.

Radical redesign

So we’re proposing changes that will mean consumers are much better placed to understand the price of their overdraft and choose the best deal for them. Under our plans:

◘ Unarranged overdrafts won’t cost more than arranged overdrafts – the cost to firms of providing unarranged overdrafts isn’t significantly higher and we see no justification for them to charge higher prices as a result.

◘ There will be no more fixed daily or monthly fees – firms will need to charge a simple, single interest rate for each account.

◘ Firms will have to show the APR for arranged overdrafts in most of their advertising and the industry will have to provide an overdraft cost calculator.

◘ We’re also encouraging firms to show examples of the cost in pounds and pence.

Protecting vulnerable consumers

We found that 69% of all overdraft fees come from people who go into their overdraft every month of the year.

Under our proposals banks will be required to do more to help customers who are showing signs of strain or are in financial difficulty, and help them reduce their overdraft use.

These proposals go alongside new rules we’re introducing to require banks and building societies to provide customers with better information about overdrafts.

Empowering customers

Customers will receive mobile phone alerts, and they’ll see a negative balance at cash machines if they use an overdraft.

This is an ambitious set of changes that will both protect consumers and empower them to better use their overdraft as a buffer when they most need it. We look forward to reading your comments on our proposals.

This is a guest post by Christopher Woolard. All views expressed are Christopher’s own and not necessarily those also shared by Which?.

What do you think of today’s overdraft proposals? Have you been put in financial difficulty by unarranged overdraft fees?

Howard THOMAS says:
29 December 2018

This is great news. The next thing we need to look at is the practice of banks and building societies of charging customers for the privilege of paying off their mortgages. For example, I am being quoted a fee of £250.00 by my lender on top of what I owe if I want to discharge my mortgage early. Imaging Tesco adopting a policy of adding a ‘payment fee’ of, say £5.00, every time you shopped there!

That does seem to be on the high side, Howard but there are legal alterations to your property title that have to be carried out and, obviously, the premature closure of a loan does have implications for the lender in terms of reassigning the financial provision. I thinks lenders get away with this level of charging because mortgagors generally don’t complain about being relieved of a significant monthly expense and by custom and practice it sort of goes with the territory. It probably would not stand up to forensic scrutiny on an actual cost plus reasonable profit basis. You will probably find that you signed up to the early redemption charge when you signed the mortgage agreement all those years ago.

Selwyn Lawrence says:
31 December 2018

Fantastic victory. Congratulations Which? of securing a well fought campaign against rip off unaranged bank fees. However, it has come too late for myself. I fought hard and long for more than 8 years, with the assistance of various PIP claims organisations, to recoup what I beleive was stelth fees charged by my then bank Halifax, an overdraft which I arranged in 2006 but was overcharged repeatedly right up until I had no choice but to close the account in December 2010 without any settlement. They even have the cheek to refer myself to debt recovery. Lastly, they seem to have conveniently have no record of me ever having a Halifax account.

Several years ago it happened to me. I accidentally went over my legitimate overdraft because I had given £5 cheques each month for several months to a charity. The charity presented them all at one time. The bank charged me separately for each cheque,way above the value of the cheque. It ruined my bank account (I had to open one in another bank), cost me my good financial reputation and took years to pay off.

A bit of financial mismanagement by the charity there, Margaret. Charities should remit income to their accounts as expeditiously as possible (a) to prevent loss or misuse of the money, and (b) to attract interest wherever possible.

By reconciling your statement with your own figures you should see that the cheques had not been presented.

If you do not reconcile your statement to check that DDs, SO’s and chequaes have been presented and credits recieved then it is very likely that eventually there will be a problem. Whether the public is properly educated on this when opening accounts I doubt as certainly I never knew of it happening up until 2010.

Which? itself, as suggested before, be more assistive in helping people budget or understand the fiddly bits of managing finance. I suspect if you are one of the thousands who subscribe to Which? Money you will know Which? has articles on these matters but I cannot recall seeing anything in the main magazine in the last decade.

My experience of banking is that concrete examples help solidify the concepts and practical ways and habits that make for a reasonably stress free financial life. Being “tight” with your money is a necessity in a world where advertisers are continually telling you that something better, shinier, or with higher status will make you happier.

People who go over their spending budget should be charged for it, as it helps them to learn that they cannot use anybody elses money (through banks ). they should curtail their spending

Companies should not be able to access names and addresses via terms and conditions of third parties; only by direct approval of prospective customer. It should be possible to easily unsubscribe from unwanted mailing lists.

Simon Holdsworth says:
30 December 2018

Agree about the Halifax charging exorbitant overdraft fees, and they are going to get worse.
I exceeded my overdraft with Hallifax by £3 back in 2005 and was charged £35 to be paid with 7 days or I would be charged another £35 and then charged £28 at the end of the month for exceeding the overdraft limit in that month. In the course of a year I was charged approx £2000 in these fees as I kept going over the overdraft limit by less than £30 (I was overdrawn do it was my fault but the fees then were excessive). However, 11 years later I found out Halifax added PPI to a loan I took out in 2004 and paid back in 3 months when I had specifically said I would never qualify for PPI due to my job (civil servant). The PPI charged was only £18.00 but if I had had that money I would never have exceeded my overdraft limit and been charged all those fees.
The Halifax committed fraud by adding PPI to my loan. There is no two ways about it. Now if I had made a fraudulent loan application to them I coule be looking at up to (though unlikely) 10 years in jail. Well the financial hardship caused by Halifax against me has lasted far longer.
I am waiting for the FOS to answer a complaint against Halifax for not putting my account back to how it should have been all those years ago as Halifax refunded the PPI but never told me they should have put my account back as if I had never had the money charged. I am looking at not only all those fees being refunded but lost interest, all fees paid for changing to a premium bank account being returned, plus compensation.
Now Halifax is increasing agreed overdraft charges from 1p per day to for every £7 overdrawn to 1p for every £6 overdrawn. This is making it more expensive to be overdrawn but they do not offer help (offer a loan but reduce the overdraft to Nil being the best way) as they are money making machines for them.
It is no wonder a small number of people are the ones who are paying the majority of overdraft fees.

Some years ago now my mother, who had dementia, accidentally overdrew her account by about £3. The bank charged her about £15 for doing that. She only had her pension and they were threatening worse. She didn’t understand at all and I tried contacting the bank but they would not talk to me. I paid off her debt to stop it all escalating but I felt it was all so unjust. What about those who do not have anyone to sort it out for them?

The difference in principle, it seems to me, between an arranged (authorised) overdraft and an unarranged (unauthorised) one is that in one case the bank has the opportunity to decide whether you are financially capable of repaying the loan, in the other they do not. I do not condone excessive fees for either but believe there should be a disincentive to people who do not bother to ask if they can borrow money from their bank. It is the prudent borrowers who suffer through lower interest, for example, to support the defaulters.

I think in most cases banks should simply not provide an overdraft unless it has been agreed. With fast on-line communication there is every opportunity for the customer to request a facility when it arises or the bank to suggest one if they see a temporary but resolvable financial problem arising.

If you have a permanent difficulty making ends meet – your outgoings exceed your income – then an overdraft is no solution; you will just get deeper into debt.

However, much of the discussion avoids addressing the root cause of the problem for many people – not being in control of their finances and not keeping track of their income and outgoings and their timing. It is surely our responsibility to this properly. We should be campaigning for this to be taught in school, and particularly for banks to provide the tools that their customers could use to prepare a budget and to track all their account activities so they know where they stand at any point. It is not difficult to do, just requires a bit of guidance and a little regular time and effort. Can Which? not push for this, through the British Bankers Association and the CMA? They could also help provide the tools – they already produce an income tax calculator?

There is no reason whatsoever to have punitive interest charges. As far as I know, there is no obligation for banks to offer unarranged overdrafts but it’s an easy way of exploiting their customers and is quite lucrative.

The FCA should also look into how banks and credit card companies continue to have APR’s of 29.9% & higher, whilst the BofE base rate has been as low as 0.5%.
Surely there should be some correlation between the two, as this seems to be exploitation of the less well off, and it is tantamount to fraud.

I respect every ones comments and their right to comment, however my concern is, that through the euphoria of the success in making the Banks re-evaluate or even cancel their excessive and Draconian Fees for “unscheduled” overdrafts, we assumed this to be an un-presidented win for democracy. This is a missnoma. It is fairly obvious from my experience that the Banks (well at least two of them) pre-empted the situation by attacking the standard “scheduled” overdrafts by Twice changing the goalposts of their agreements and ammending the fees from monthly to daily charges and then in one instance increasing the boundaries of those daily charges by banding them on a further three levels. By doing this it is fairly obvious this will compensate for the loss of revenue from the “unscheduled” by overcharging the “scheduled”. I hope this makes sense to all who read this. As an aside, one of the Banks (who currently remain anonymous) have Blamed the F.C.A for the change of rules, stating that the F.C.A told them to do it, even when I accused them of a breach of contract!!

Hello Mr Macfarlane. Your post illustrates that the banks may be behaving exactly as I would expect under these circumstances, i.e. by levelling overdraft charges upwards.

At the real heart of this matter, here on W?C, some of us support the view that there is no such thing as an “un-arranged overdraft”. This is said because, if the mechanics of a bank account permit it to be overdrawn, then that won’t happen by accident – it can only happen where the bank has previously given the account an overdraft facility.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I agree that Provident’s advert could be deemed irresponsible, and the ASA has reprimanded them for it, but at no point can I see that it was not “legal, decent, honest and truthful” which are the qualities that the ASA seeks to enforce. I do share the view of several other commentators that the ASA is getting a bit nanny-like and has gone a bit too soft. They are at risk of reinforcing in practice the convention that adverts are extremely persuasive.

I thought Provident’s defence of its lending assessment process was fair and reasonable, and I don’t think Provident can be described as a “loan shark” or even a “dodgy pay-day loan company”. The company made clear that its advertisement was addressing existing clients [whose loan history and repayment record would be known to them], declared its cumulative interest rate prominently, and was describing very short-term loans in a difficult period that many of its clients had had before and found useful.

I accept that the advert did tug at the emotions, to which some vulnerable people are especially susceptible, but it’s a fine line to tread. On balance I think the ASA’s assessment and mild sanction did not justify the outcry that has followed.

It will be interesting to see if the petition gains critical mass and whether the Financial Conduct Authority carries out an investigation. I have not seen any evidence of financial misconduct by Provident. Blocking last-resort credit providers like Provident is bound to drive more people into the arms of the real loan sharks with all the risks that could then ensue.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I appreciate your opinions, Duncan, but on legitimate credit providers I take a different view.

I did not make any comment on the UK’s welfare system. I happen to think that the approach introduced by Universal Credit is right but the method is wrong. The government seems to have realised that it has to make major changes before rolling it out en masse.

Is anybody unjustifiably worse off under universal credit, or is it a timing and money management issue? Those defects can be rectified.

I can’t comment on individual cases without knowing all the circumstances – which is not possible.

I don’t have an answer to poverty. What would you do about it? I don’t think there are any easy answers. Perhaps you can suggest a country where there is no poverty or where all the most vulnerable people in society are looked after much better than here.

I agree with you on the off-shoring of tax liabilities [it’s not evasion because its legal] but, rightly or wrongly, people in this country thought it was a good idea to have a massive company like Amazon based here with all the employment that provides. One consequence of being in the EU was that we couldn’t prevent it. If you put the question about Amazon to the public – Should it stay? or, Should it go? – you might not like the answer.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

But you haven’t really dealt with John’s questions, Duncan. How would you address the issues of poverty in the UK? Despite the fact that I frequently joke about it, I was brought up in what would be described now as ‘poverty’. The air pollution was so bad the only birds we ever saw were black birds, and instead of singing on tree branches they would hang on washing lines in the back yard and cough. My father used to leave out empty mouse traps with begging letters in them.

But enough of the good times; the question remains: how would you deal with those living in poverty now?

I think the existence of doorstep and other short term lenders illustrates that many folk will choose to borrow money at exorbitant rates, rather than go without, or go to actual loan sharks.

I think the Provident advert expertly manipulated the home making instincts of parents, to get them to borrow more money, for greater material well-being over Christmas. Hence I support the protests against that.

As regards the austerity measure that is Universal Credit, I think it is doing very well at helping all us rich folk pay less of our taxes towards helping the poor. For example, their rent arrears seem to be rising:


…and folk who cannot even afford to pay their rent will be easy prey for any short term lenders.

As a lifelong Liberal Democrat, I don’t much like what I seeing here, but I cannot see how we can easily fix it.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This seems to be returning to an approach I thought we had decided to abandon?

Those in need of short term funds and who have the ability to repay can use a credit card or an overdraft – preferable arranged – at far lower terms than the pay-day companies (or so it seems to me). I seem to recall that when Which? went in front of the Select Committee discussing pay day lenders some years ago they were not against the practice; that seemed a strange view for a consumer protection organisation but my memory may be defective.

For larger and longer-term loans I see M&S Bank are offering £7.5 to £20k at 2.8 to 2.9% depending on the term – but only to credit worthy customers with an income (seems reasonable).

I believe there is a need for lenders of last resort – for people not eligible for credit cards and personal loans – but they must act responsibly and not precipitate debt crisis and other personal misfortunes. We should not dismiss all borrowers as feckless fools and spendthrifts.

Provident has been in business for many decades and is not a pay-day lender in the sense that various other exploitative lenders are or have been. I accept that it is a difficult sector of the credit market to defend, and that there are a lot of troubling issues around borrowing and debt, as there are around gambling and debt, and drinking and debt, but we need to think what the alternatives are.

Society needs to find the techniques to support people at the margins and reduce the necessity for debt; it needs to come up with a decent and non-patronising model of combined financial and welfare support. If any group of thinkers can do it I would expect those who regularly contribute to Which? Conversation to be able to make some useful suggestions. We need a solution for the twenty-first century, not a rehash of the Poor Law or a mechanism like the workhouse which embodied the deterrence principle.

I am disappointed that these discussions don’t seem to be able to continue without extreme exaggeration, wild and inaccurate comments, personal hostility between participants, and – frankly – a lot of emotive claptrap that does nothing to solve the problems and is an insult to the victims of poverty. Let’s sign some more petitions. Let’s get back to the middle-class problem of overdraft fees.

I do not see it to be the role of a commercial organisation, like a bank, to give money away (their depositors funds). No more than supermarkets give food away, or your local butcher. Lenders will only do this if the repayments overall exceed the loans – through the interest they charge. so risky lending will be at higher rates.

For those genuinely in need it is the state’s role to provide adequate support. How do we ensure that taxpayers’ money is better targeted? How do we determine who is genuinely needy, and help others to better control their finances? Some, hopefully many, could best be helped by organisations looking at their income and spending and working with them to plan and stick to a budget; now there is a role for banks perhaps

This comment was removed at the request of the user

The Primark (and Sports Direct) stories are interesting. Primark didn’t actually pay less than the minimum wage per se but it did make wearing black a condition of employment. It was having to purchase black clothing that took the employees wages below the minimum.

It’s curious as to why they tried the tactic, too; most occupations have dress standards, but these are not always made explicit. A Barrister who turned up in jeans and Tee shirts each day would be unlikely to make progress within Chambers and social workers who wore certain styles of clothes would get short shrift from a judge. But these are occupations where the employee would have sufficient basic pay to afford appropriate dress.

Is the cases of Primark and Sports Direct their employees would have been on the basic and to then demand they paid for their own uniform would have taken their overall salary below the minimum. From the Telegraph:

“Primark was listed as the third-biggest offender after it deducted shop worker’s uniforms from their salaries, resulting in them earning less than the minimum wage. Primark was forced to pay back £231,973 to 9,735 employees.”

Currently, both companies are paying the correct minimum wage.

At least those in work should have regular assured incomes and will be able to plan accordingly. Life can be much harder for those who need to claim benefits:


I know that film is fiction – but it is very closely based on real life.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Actually, I can’t see how anyone could manage in London on £10.55 per hour, unless they worked a lot of hours…

Derek mentioned a film a few posts back. It’s currently available on iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08c2xlg/i-daniel-blake

On the subjects of overdrafts, I would like to see everyone who uses banking services to pay for them rather than being subsidised by punitive overdraft charges for those who are living in debt, for whatever reason.

wavechange – thanks very much. I hope everyone who hasn’t already seen that film takes the time to watch it while it is available on iPlayer.

Ian – I agree. It is hard to see how the likes of retail staff, kitchen assistants and cleaners can get by in London (or anywhere else). Here, in Gloucester there are seldom every many vacancies for such jobs and most of the ones on offer only pay the national minimum wage.

Duncan – I’m sure the UK benefits system is designed to subsidise those on low wages, because it is better to subsidise them in that way than fully support them, if they don’t work at all. These days, a lot of organisations only accept on-line job applications, even for minimum wage jobs like hospital cleaners. Helping folk find and apply for jobs is a recurring task in my voluntary computer buddy role at Gloucester Library.

I believe everyone does pay charges on their overdraft (apart from on a threshold figure on some accounts). However, I would like to see an incentive for people who want to borrow money from a bank to discuss and arrange it rather than simply take it. I would like banks to be more responsible in who they lend money to and not to profit excessively from lending to certain sectors. This may make borrowing money on overdrafts much more difficult for some. As far as charges go I would rather see an interest rate or rates charged than a fixed daily figure.

In short, I’d like to see Which? propose for discussion a policy on overdrafts that is fair to both lenders and borrowers and also a proposal to help people better manage their financial affairs.

Banks don’t need to offer unarranged overdrafts but they provide them as a service because their shareholders can benefit from exploitation of the vulnerable and careless.

What I would like to see is for everyone to pay for the services used in relation to their current account. Apart from paying for transfer of money to buy a house I cannot remember paying any charges in all the years I have had a bank account.

I believe that as well as working for fairer loan terms a more important issue is to address the root cause of many people’s problems – lack of financial control. One such is to prepare a budget – look at your income and outgoings. The Money Advice Service gives an online tool to help people with this https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/tools/budget-planner
MAS also give sound advice on overdrafts https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/overdrafts-explained and other matters https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/living-on-a-low-income-tips.

I wonder how many banks are proactive in this area? They could send customers who are clearly struggling with their finances links to appropriate advice and tools from the MAS.

The assumption that many problems are down to a lack of financial control fails to take into account the very real issues that affect youngsters. The real problems are far, far more likely to be:

* zero hour contracts
* varying working hours
* inconsistent working week length caused by societal issues
* essential outgoings exceeding income
* seasonal variations

They’re just five of the most common issues that affect young, hourly-paid workers. No matter how hard they work, how much they save or how careful they are with their outgoings if their essential costs exceed their income what is the solution?

“if their essential costs exceed their income what is the solution?”. I do not have a solution except that borrowing money that cannot be repaid from a commercial company is not one of them. Talking to Citizens Advice might be a place to start.

I did say “the root cause of many people’s problems – lack of financial control” – not the root cause of all problems. My comment concerns those who need help with their budgeting, do not have control of their finances and, as a consequence, will not know if they are going to become overdrawn and incur costs and unpaid bills. We each have a personal responsibility to look after our own lives (exceptions being those without that capacity of course), not a responsibility that we should just ignore. Seeking assistance to organise their affairs properly will help keep them out of avoidable debt, and the costs that brings with it, both financial and reputational.

I appreciate you were only taking about a certain segment of society. My concern, however, is with a very large sector: the 20-30 year age group who are attempting to gain their independence and finding it almost impossible.

The age group concerned is in a unique position; without salaried occupations they’re at the beck and call of whomever will employ them and, with many traditional heavy industries having gone, they’re often left with either jobs in the service industry (a fast growing sector) or as shop assistants.

Traditional tourist resorts have this problem: the younger, post-University group with STEM qualifications move away, as finding a job in a seaside town that’s relevant is nigh on impossible.

The others have to seek employment as indicated and they’re faced with a conundrum: firstly, if they’re hourly paid then they’re usually on zero-hours contracts. which means they’ll be brought in during the busy times which, as they’re everyone else’s busy times, means holding more than one job of that kind is very difficult.

But they need somewhere to live, so they look to the rental market. They can’t afford the cost of a flat by themselves so they have to share. Then there’re all the associated costs: fuel, electricity, gas, insurance, council tax, food, telephone – once they’re added up it comes to far more than a single, hourly paid job in a shop or in the service industry will provide, so they then have to seek at least another job.

That has to be in a different sector, so they become shop assistant and hotel barman, meaning they’re working both day and night.

But then we come to the next problem. Every shop, hotel, pub, book store or convenience shop will pay on a different day in a different cycle. That, alone, makes budgeting a nightmare, since all the DDs for rent, fuel, electricity, gas, insurance, council tax, food and telephone become due on precise dates while the income does not.

This means that no amount of budgeting will deal with what is an intractable problem for the age group mentioned. And buying a property without salaried income is close to impossible, even if they could raise the deposit – a herculean task at present.

So although it’s very tempting, as we sit in our well-furnished, paid-for houses to imagine that such people should be “seeking assistance to organise their affairs properly (to) help keep them out of avoidable debt” it’s also unrealistic and futile for the vast majority of hard-working young people.

That’s why I fully support this long overdue change by the banks who – let’s not forget – are the very reason why life is so very, very difficult for the youngsters of today.

Open Banking (how many people use it?) should give those who want to be in control of their finances one way to get detailed views of their current state through the apps available. This could help them keep out of unexpected overdrafts or remind them to top up their account before they get caught unawares. I use MS Money, but it requires regular input from me to keep it up to date. Not a bad discipline.

Which? list some budgetting apps – https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/01/5-budgeting-apps-to-help-you-save-money-in-2019/ – but it might have been useful if they had also pointed people to the Money Advice Service and personal financial software for those, like me, who are wary of allowing 3rd parties access to all my financial information. Possibly a dinosaurial attitude but I’d like to look after my affairs in a way I’m comfortable with.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Chris says:
12 February 2019

Well I am all for protecting the vulnerable against excessive unarranged overdraft fees. But what they have done is pass on excessive charges to those who wish to use an overdraft within their agreed limit. Overdraft charges within the agreed limit used to be in the region of 19%. Now they have introduced a ‘so many pence per £10 borrowed charged daily’ system (I refer to Lloyds). It pushes the actual interest equivalent to nearer 50% per annum which I think is a disgusting tactic. Like many people I arranged an overdraft as a cushion for the rare occasions I might need quick access to some borrowing. Perhaps you are in between jobs, or need some extra money for an unforeseen emergency. So ‘Mr and Mrs Careful’ are now having to pay for the few who have difficulty managing money. Don’t forget this ….it is the banks that allow people to get into debt. In the past if you did not have sufficient money in your pocket or in your bank account book you could not spend it. The banks are full of the brown smelly stuff.