The Larg Print Giveth, and the Small Print Taketh Away (co-operativebank.co.uk)

Member Name: JudgePickled

Product:	co-operativebank.co.uk
Date:	06/10/01 (108 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Rosey, Red, Walnuts

Disadvantages: Dishonest, Marketing, Pays

I'm looking for a better business bank account. But then - isn't everyone?

Business banking rates are one of those unsupportable legacies from era of " entitlement mentality banking" which has yet to crumble the way personal banking is doing.

They levy charges on you when you pay something in, take something out, or wiggle anything about.

They do this BECAUSE THEY CAN, and we pay them BECAUSE WE MUST.

Only when some upstart offers an alternative will it all begin to crumble, and until then, the gravy train rolls on.

So.

The Co-op bank sent me sales literature flaunting their low bank charges - comparing them to the big high street banking alternatives, showing how much cheaper they are.

In fact, you have to scratch off the "other banks'" charges to see them - sheer entertainment, I can tell you (I sniffed but nothing) and Lo - the co-ops charges are MUCH LOWER!

BUT WAIT MEN, THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE...

You might be forgiven for missing the tiny asterisk on the glossy bumpf next to the pricing chart.

Even if you saw it, you might not find, or be able to read, the tiny text at the bottom of the sheet which explains the asterisk.

Those LOW LOW CHARGES only apply if you keep your account permanently £2,000 in credit. The charges if you do not are WORSE than the other banks.

But ... but this is misleading, and seemingly deliberately so! Imagine my dismay and dissappointment, and in Britain, for goodness sake!

So, ever the idiotic optimist, I called their Freephone number, to have a free and frank exchange of views on this.

The PhoneDrone of course, wasn't playing ball. (Why do these people all say "Obviously" and "as you can imagine" with mind-numbing regularity?)

Realising how futile this was, I asked to speak to the man who supposedly sent the letter - Mr Hodgso
n, Director of Customer services, I think. This was "not possible" (It never is), but I persisted, and got another number I could call, which I did.

Some young buck answered, and he informed me that Mr Hodgson doesn't speak to customers. Of course not. Silly Me. He's Director of Customer Services - what would he be doing filthying himself up by talking to the punters?

Anyway, I tried hard to get Mr Youngbuck to accept that the only reason for presenting data this way is to mislead the average potential customer into thinking that what was on offer was far better than what was actually on offer. His inexperience meant that his ceramic mantle of polite, content-free drivel wasn't quite hardneded off, but even so, I couldn't get him to move past his well-considered, highly reassuring position, which was: "well, it's marketing, isn't it - everyone does it".

Does that make it right?
No.
Does it reflect well on the bank?
No.
Do we need a baseball bat here?
Absolutely.

Any bank or - any organisation - whose initial customer approach involves this kind of dishonesty, are really giving us valuable insights as to what's under the expensive glossy vaneer, and I for one don't want any of it.

It would be rather nice if this were illegal, but I'm not holding my breath for that either.

I visited their website. They talk about ethics. Nice touch. I submitted a summary of my views there too. So any day now, I imagine they'll be seeing the error of their ways, and doing the decent thing.

Yuh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm not mad, I tell you. I'm not mad.

Judge Pickled has spoken.
The court is adjourned.

Summary: