Banks are Bastards When You're Poor.

Yesterday I got a letter from my bank, informing me that my account is changing. I have a Basic Bank Account, because I don't have enough income or good enough credit for a normal current account. It seems that, as of next month, my Basic account is going to become even more basic.

The main change, according to the letter, is that from October I will only be able to use RBS and Natwest cashpoints. Or Ulster Bank ones, to be fair, but there aren't (m)any of those in Sheffield. To me, this is pretty much a disaster. My local cashpoint is a supermarket one - to find an RBS or Natwest ATM I will need to go into the city centre. Every time I need cash.

Also, walking is often difficult for me. I just don't have the capacity to be going to the city centre every time I need to withdraw cash, or - if I'm already in the city centre - walking further than is absolutely necessary, to find the correct cash machine.

Having to use a Basic Bank Account is already a fairly humiliating experience at times, and they tend to be held by people who are unable to access better accounts, because of their income or financial history or age. I am limited to banks that offer basic accounts, and within that selection, to banks that I have not had debt with in the past. Since recent mergers of numerous banks, I am even more limited because banks which were not financially connected before, now are.

The bank assure me in the letter that they value my custom, and in the very same sentence tell me I am welcome to close my account if I am not happy with the changes. Cheers for that, it makes me feel really valued. I haven't yet worked out a way that I can open a different account elsewhere.

So I have no options. I can't close this account in disgust and go to a different bank. I have thought a lot about this overnight, and all I can do is grin and bear it. Cope with the fact that I will only have occasional access to my own money. Work out ways to withdraw lots of cash in one go without being mugged. Learn where RBS and Natwest cash points are and if there are buses that go nearby. Use the small amounts of energy I have to go to the appointed cash machines rather than being able to get out my money and spend it in my local area.

If I had the energy, I'd be even more furious than I am.

[The image is a photo of a hand holding up a piggy bank against a blue sky. It was taken by D. Sharon Pruitt]

Edited to add: I'm not the only person outraged by this. Which.co.uk have said:

NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) have been lambasted for preventing holders of their basic bank accounts from using other banks' cash machines.

NatWest and RBS basic bank account holders can only withdraw cash from NatWest, RBS or Ulster Bank cash machines in the UK or at the Post Office. The move places RBS and NatWest alongside Lloyds TSB, which already restricts it 'Cash Account' holders to using Lloyds TSB cash machines and branches of the Post Office.

Previously, most basic bank account holders were able to use the Link network to withdraw cash.

Which? principal policy adviser Dominic Lindley commented: 'This change will increase financial exclusion as it leaves basic bank account holders at RBS unable to access around 80% of the free cash machines in the UK. These account holders will be inconvenienced and might incur extra costs when travelling to find a cash machine they can use.'

Thanks to @vinnivee for that link.

It takes a rich man to pour such scorn on the poor

by Matthew Norman.

As the disability defiant Churchill would agree, an army must carry its wounded

Please don't take this the wrong way, by reading into it any witless cockney rhyming slang intent that isn't there, but the man behind this new assault on our benefit-dependent poor would appear to be a total investment banker.

Perhaps I do David Freud, architect of the White Paper on welfare reform, a disservice. Maybe, during all his years raising £50bn for the likes of Railtrack and EuroDisney, Mr Freud sat up night after night with the ProPlus, studying the issue until dawn broke over a lavish home far removed, we may guess, from the sink estates he claims he wants to salvage from workless despair.

And yet, by his own words, it seems not. "I didn't know anything about welfare when I started," he told The Daily Telegraph in February, "but that may have been an advantage... In a funny way, the solution was obvious." The special hilarity here, apart from the notion of any obvious answer to so ferociously complex a social conundrum, is how long he took to travel from absolute ignorance to omniscience.

Hired by the Works and Pensions Secretary James Purnell to address this small matter, it took him – wait for it now; just wait for it – three weeks to research and write his initial report. Admittedly by New Labour policy-creation standards, this is hardly a rush job. But by any more conventional measure, 21 days is on the brisk side for so monumental an intellectual challenge.

Still, let's not fall into that very trap by rushing to judge Mr Freud as a man prone to the lure of the simplistic. Indeed, writing in yesterday's Times, he touched impressively on the thinking behind the wizard wheeze of forcing long-term incapacity benefit claimants back to work. "Some of our greatest national heroes suffered from disabilities," he explained, "from Nelson with his lost eye to Churchill with his 'Black Dog' depression, to the physicist Stephen Hawking..."

So there it is. Should you happen to be one of history's greatest maritime warriors, or suited to safeguarding the country from Nazi tyranny while moonlighting as a Nobel literature Laureate, or the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics with rare insight into cosmology and quantum gravity, you really have no excuse for allowing a disability to keep you marooned on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle.

It's the rest I worry about. For every Churchill manqué, Nelson wannabe and putative Prof Hawking, there may possibly (I haven't spent three weeks on this, so excuse the caution) be others who aren't up to much on the work front. They might suffer from crippling back pain, arthritis, or agoraphobia. Plagued by chronic depression, but denied the spur of having Hitler's army poised across the Channel, they might lack the motivation to clean offices or ask "fries with that?" in return for the minimum wage.

Or they might simply be too battered and bruised by the confidence-sapping, skills-denying residue of a shameful apology for an education to care less. Inevitably a portion of the millions subsisting on a benefit designed to make the unemployment figures more palatable are, to borrow from Mr Purnell, playing the system. And while we might argue whether their reluctance to work makes them lazy or inadequate, we surely agree that they are the walking (or slouching) wounded too; and that, as that champion of disability-defiance Winston Churchill would agree, an army must always carry its wounded.

This, it seems to me, is the crux of the debate. To Mr Freud it may be about gaining the entrée into the peerage or quangocracy men with untold bonus millions tucked away often crave. For Mr Purnell, who mollifies on the record while briefing the papers off it that he's one tough muthah with one gigantic cudgel, it's presumably about ingratiating himself with the Sun and Daily Mail with his summer 2011 leadership campaign in mind. For some of us, however, it's about clinging to what vestiges of a civilised society remain to us.

The fact that nothing significant will change – that this Bill will have its teeth filed down to the stumps by that gallant cabal of backbenchers who remember why they joined the Labour party in the first place – is not the point. Nothing important will change because in this area nothing ever does. Soon after taking power, in the week he chartered a 747 to Seattle for £700,000, Mr Tony Blair floated the intention to trim "workshy" single mothers' benefits by £11 per week. He earned a few nice headlines, and the reflex disgust from the centre-left that was also mother's milk to him, but the political price of such malevolence was too high, and the proposal was quietly buried.

This latest sub-Thatcherite, far right-wing political posturing may come loosely disguised in the raggedy cloak of stick-and-carrot philanthropy, but it would come at a higher price still. The wilful stupidity of the timing, with at least a million poorly paid jobs about to vanish, needn't detain us. The concept of punishing the poor for receiving the assistance that is their right, by making them dig the gardens of the better off, feels like a pastiche of the vindictive nihilism of the rock-breaking Alabama chain gang.

What stinks worse than the idea is the tone. From the pious, cruel-to-be-kind brayings of the Freud-Purnell pantomime donkey, every word emanating from the rear end, they seem confused into thinking that the jobless have a lesser stake in this society than the employed, and believe in the deserving and undeserving poor. To watch a minister with a plumply padded pension and a free widescreen telly and, of all creatures, an investment banker threaten those on £69 per week is to observe the unspeakable in pursuit of the unemployable.

The only way to address the syndrome of long-term dependency is through education. It requires massive, sustained public investment in buildings, equipment and, above all, teachers, and knowing that's not going to happen either the grown-up government accepts, as an unavoidable fee for a moderately civilised democracy, that some people will take liberties to secure as much each week as Mr Freud might spend on a bottle of claret, if he was pulling his horns in.

In the absence of schooling worthy of a developed nation, you turn a blind eye to the alleged scroungers not only because the risk of denying the more deserving their dignity is truly unthinkable, but because the lazy and above all the children of the lazy deserve some dignity too. What you don't do is further stigmatise the poor, the sick, the illiterate, the weak, the befuddled and the inadequate for the delight of tabloid editors.

"Love and work, work and love... that is all there is," said Sigmund Freud, and in a utopian world all of us would have oodles of both. Back in the world as it is, meanwhile, another of his quotes comes to mind. "If you can't do it, give it up!" he said. It's advice James Purnell would have done well to consider before unleashing Siggy's great grandson on his three-week crash course in welfare reform.

The Provident.

Shame on greatoffers@allaboutsavings.co.uk for this email, which is neither a great offer, nor anything about savings.

The Provy, those bullying, preying-on-the-poor, knocking-on-the-door loan sharks, have offered me possibly the worst terms for a loan ever.



Have a look at the bottom right,

*Example. Cash loan amount £300.
56 weekly repayments of £9
Total amount payable £504

Typical
183.2% APR

183.2% APR typical. So some people presumably get even higher rates!

Let's have a look. CCJs, poor credit history, been turned down before, renting a home, unemployed... yep!

So you're perhaps not in the best financial situation? How can you almost guarantee to make it a million times worse? Oh yes, borrow from the Provy! Borrow £300, pay back £504. And that, of course, is if you make every payment every week. If not... well, higher interest, increasing your 'loan' amount to cover missed payments... add a bit more to the end cost. You're already buggered, why not?

I am furious that this was sent to my email. I *hate* these people.

Now, a good organisation is Church Action Against Poverty. A Church group putting their faith and efforts to the good (unlike some).

Their Debt On Our Doorstep campaign

is a national campaigning organisation made up of local activists and public organisations. We aim to end extortionate lending and ensure universal access to affordable credit and other financial services. To this end our objectives are to:

* Publicise the extent and impact of extortionate lending on low income groups

* Lobby Parliament, assemblies and other decision makers to end extortionate lending

* Research and promote models of affordable credit

* Provide a platform for people on low incomes to comment on the impact of debt

We are part of a growing international movement for responsible lending and have been involved in the planning of a series of national conferences throughout Europe which culminated in the launch of a European Coalition for Responsible Lending in Brussels in 2006.

Debt on our Doorstep was the first organisation in the U.K to call for a 'responsible lending' duty to be placed on lenders, and this has since been introduced into the new Consumer Credit Act. We are expecting a consultation exercise on the requirements for lenders in the near future. Unfortunately, our campaign for interest rate ceilings to be introduced has not been successful, although the Government has pledged to keep this matter under review, and our work to bring about a competition commission inquiry into the Home Credit industry has recently brought about a real possibility for price caps in that market.

We are also working to develop local financial inclusion partnerships, and are calling for requirements to be placed on the banking industry to disclose, and then improve, the level of financial services available in low-income communities. In this respect, our work has been informed by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition in the U.S, with whom we are closely involved in our international work.

Debt on our Doorstep is also calling for excessive default charges, made by credit card lenders and banks to be refunded to borrowers - a total of £1.8 billion has been overcharged in the past 6 years for credit cards alone - and is working with the Bank Charges Action Group to recover these..

Good on them.

Also, if you're in financial trouble yourself, I can't recommend National Debtline too highly. They are a source of great advice and support, they don't charge anything (unlike so many of those companies who advertise on TV to help with your debts) and have helped me consistently over a long period.

As for greatoffers@allaboutsavings.co.uk, gmail rightly put their shit into my spam folder, where it will stay.