The consumer defense association pinpoints the income ceilings decided by the baques which allow them to limit the effects of the capping of these very juicy costs.
UFC What to Choose goes back to war against incident fees billed by banks to customers whose accounts fall into the red. However, faced with the pressure and the economic context, the government asked the banks to make efforts.
Thus, it has tightened the cap at 25 euros per month for incident costs for consumers designated as “fragile” by their bank. And since November 1, the cap can also occur after the accumulation of five incidents during the same month, and no longer five per month, during a quarter.
86% of margins for banks
However, the association notes that the banks are doing everything to circumvent these safeguards and denounces “the foreseeable bad will of the banks”. “How to be surprised in view of the exorbitant margins of incident costs”, estimated at 86%, on average, by UFC-Que Choisir.
In what way? According to the association, “although logic would dictate that the cap applies to everyone, almost all banks have chosen to maintain very arbitrary eligibility conditions”.
And to highlight the amounts of income (monthly and quarterly) limiting access to the cap currently used by the main banking networks (see table below). Only Crédit du Nord does not apply a maximum monthly income to benefit from the cap.
“In November, BNP Paribas and La Banque Postale decided to drastically tighten their quarterly detection income ceilings to align them with those of their competitors. If the prize goes to BNP Paribas (drop of 400 euros), La Banque Postale does not is not left out since it has just established its own ceiling, ”explains the UFC.
“While it should make it possible to identify fragility more quickly, the cap linked to monthly detection is just as misguided. At LCL, for example, the maximum amount of income allowing to be entitled to it is only 1063 euros. this pernicious alignment of banking practices, the decision of Crédit du Nord to benefit from it for the moment to all its customers accustomed to exceeding the overdraft therefore appears very precarious “, she continues.
The icing on the cake, the UFC says that more than one in two establishments (57%) does not inform, or only very partially, its customers about the new regulation of caps. “Such a deficiency with regard to consumers, especially the most fragile, reminds us to what extent the sector resolutely refuses any form of supervision,” she denounces.
The association therefore asks “to establish a global cap on the costs of banking incidents for all, requiring an expansion of the number of services subject to a cap and to review their level with regard to their degrees of automation”.
– to www.bfmtv.com