Most Recent Stories

Most Popular Stories

Dark day for consumers as banks win test case

Britain Needs Better Banks is go!

“Thank you for your feedback, your views are important to us… please hold”

What next for people with bank charges?

Bankers Say the Funniest Things (Part 1)

Banks could face 8 million charges claims

The Future of Banking Commission

Can anyone stop Dire Straits?

Banks charges and customer service are the top reasons to complain

Welcome to the 146% APR overdraft from HBOS

The Future of Banking Commission

Since the financial crisis in October 2008, a number of reports have looked at the causes and consequences of the crisis and suggested possible solutions, but they’ve all been written from the perspective of bankers.

Which? research shows that eight in ten members of the public think banks haven't done enough to ensure that the credit crunch doesn’t happen again and six in ten believe the banks haven't learnt their lesson from the crisis.

We think the strong feelings of the general public must be heard and acted on.

Giving people their say

That's why we're launching the Future of Banking Commission - to put the wider interests of society at the heart of a reformed banking system.

It's aims are to:

* Listen to people's concerns about banking

* Listen to the views and concerns of industry and regulators

* Enable the restoration of rowing public trust and confidence in the banking system

We'll be taking our findings to the government after the 2010 general election to show whoever is in power how people want the financial crisis to be tackled.

Restoring trust between the public and banks

The Future of Banking Commission which was developed will enable all groups to express their ideas for a reformed banking system, by getting ordinary people, bankers, politicians, regulators and business leaders together to discuss the culture and regulation of the banking sector. We believe this is needed to restore trust between the public and the banks.

David Davis MP, John McFall MP and Vince Cable MP have all signed up to the Future of Banking Commission along with Which? chief executive Peter Vicary-Smith.

Other members of the Future of Banking Commission include Philip Augar (formerly a Group Managing Director at Schroders’ and now a writer on the financial services industry), Clare Spottiswoode (former DG of OFGAS), David Pitt-Watson (Chair, Hermes Focus Asset Management) and Roger Bootle (Managing Director Capital Economics).

The Which? Big Banking Debate

Which? will be organising the Which? Big Banking Debate, which will be solely focused on getting consumer views and feeding them into the Commission's discussions.

The Commission will also consist of three further events in early 2010 where bankers, politicians, regulators, trade unions and business leaders will give evidence. A report will then be published later in the year.

We'll have more news in the new year on the events and how you can get involved, but in the meantime, we'd like to hear what you think.

alex - 2 weeks ago I like your post its quite informative and i love to visit you again as you have done a wonderful job. i love to bookmark this site and would send it to other friends to read it and visit it to get upto date and quite interesting information real answers, i like the way you are working,keep it up, i will be here again as i get some time from VCP-410 studies because they make me little busy, but i would love to stuck here again after my exams of 350-001. Thanks for sharing nice information with us. ------------------------------ 70-680 Report this comment

vfv - 8 weeks ago comment* Report this comment

jane - 10 weeks ago It is quite difficult to find a trustful bank these days, most of them act crazy, by increasing their interest rates over the night and charging you extra fees for nothing. I hope all this madness stops soon, they have to learn how to respect their customers again. The demand for better bank services is high and has to be satisfied sooner or later. The banks should understand that they have to protect their customers if they want to keep them, otherwise most of them will be looking for better offers and cancel their accounts eventually. banks Manchester Report this comment

Dave Scrivener - 30 weeks ago There used to be a State run Bank called National Girobank which provided a basic banking system i.e. no frills but took care of most of the needs of many people. As long as you kept in credit there were no charges. The branch office was the Post Office and I found it cheap and efficient .This Bank was sold off to Alliance & Leicester which is now owned by a Spanish Bank. I cant see why banks ,which are only glorified computers should be there to make huge profits. How can they possibly justify charging what they do when the bank rate is only 0.5%. Investors should be earning at least 3% below the bank lending rate.The top brass should not be paid bonuses at all. they are highly paid to do their job and if they fail they should be sacked for incompetence the same as anyone else Report this comment

Sharon Coleman - 30 weeks ago A small note to congratulate Which? and the Future of Banking Commission on a very interesting, and enjoyable evening at the Big Banking Debate. Some important issues were raised and the high attendance shows how important the future of banking is to the average consumer in this country. I hope some of these ideas will be taken forwards further and the next government listen and act upon the commission's recommendations. Personal Accounts were described by the public, and by the commission as a 'utility' which IS what they have become. The main points I took away from the evening were that people want fairness, transparency, less sales focussed GOOD customer service, more control over their personal accounts, and much much stronger regulation in retail banking. Thank you for the opportunity to take part. I look forward to reading the report of the evening soon. Report this comment

Caroline Sullivan - 30 weeks ago Having attended the big banking debate in London on 4th February, I was extremely encouraged that members of the Future of Banking Commission had a real understanding of many of the problems that people face with banks today. The message from the platform was that there is a genuine desire to listen to bank customers/victims and tackle the unacceptable behaviour of the banks. Those on the platform also took the opportunity to join delegates in their groups,talking and listening to what they had to say. Thanks to Which for organising the event. I came away with hope that the Commission is serious in it's desire to change banks for the better and that there is hope for the future. Report this comment

Anne Belsey - 30 weeks ago The fundemental problem within the economy is not the banks, but the money supply. Our money supply consists almost entirely of bank credit. There is very little 'real' money in existence. Almost our entire money supply is based on someone, somewhere (or a company or a government) being in debt to a bank. Without such debts, based on credit that the banks conjour out of thin air, we would have very little money and the economy would grind to a halt. To get out of recession, more people will have to borrow considerably more money into existence; but given the high level of debts currently carried by households, businesses and the government, this is surely impossible. Report this comment

Ian Minogue - 33 weeks ago I think the single most important regulatory change which should be made is to (re)instate the LEGAL SEPARATION of COMMERCIAL and INVESTMENT banks. i.e. so that a particular institution can only be one or the other. COMMERCIAL banks hold deposits and use them to finance loans and mortgages to individuals and businesses. Their objectives are good service and solid reliability. These are the banks on whom the real economy depends and would (continue to) be backed by a Government guarantee. They don't pay big bonuses as they are not taking big risks. INVESTMENT banks' objective is to maximise profits by clever, if risky, investments. They need expert staff who are able to make good judgements about risks v. returns and they pay big bonuses to attract such people. These banks would continue like this, but with the clear understanding that they are NOT Government-backed: if they fail, they fail. Bonuses would then be 'earned' as the recipients would be taking the real risk of losing their jobs (and any bonuses paid as shares) if the company went bust. This separation used to exist in the USA as the 1933 2nd Glass-Steagall Act, to prevent exactly the problem of banks taking big risks with depositors' money which led at least partly to the 1929 crash. Other countries had similar rules. The US Act was only repealed in 1999 after years of lobbying by the Banks, who obviously wanted the freedom to gamble with ordinary depositors' money. They argued that the Commercial and Investment functions could be kept separate within a single institution by having separate internal divisions: we have now seen how well that works! Other suggested regulations about not allowing 125% mortgages etc. are obviously sensible, but until we have this CLEAR STRUCTURAL SEPARATION again, no amount of tweaking the rules will tackle the basic problem. This issue is now being vigorously debated in both the US and mainland Europe, but there is a deafening silence from both Labour and the Conservatives in the UK. We need them to state their position and justify it, as it is probably the most important issue in the General Election. Report this comment

Chaser - 33 weeks ago I consider that since the State has allowed so many badly run Banks to survive, it is fair for us to expect them now to cooperate more fully. The government has proved to be weak in establishing the disciplines which the taxpayer is seeking, and is being hypocritical in pressing the Banks to increase their lending at the same time as the need is clear for them to strengthen their capital base. The comments on this site demonstrate there are plenty of constructive views being put forward, but where is the Bank to which some of these unhappy customers should be transferring their business? Report this comment

Mal - 35 weeks ago All banks (and Building Society) should be made by law to included current interest rate they are paying you when sending out statements etc. They should be made to tell you about any better rates available with them and not leave you on a poor rate. There should be the same rate for all not ''only available to new customers' Report this comment

Post new comment

In accordance with Which?'s Data Protection Policy, the information you supply will only be used by Which? and for the purposes stated and will not be passed to any third party for marketing.

Comment rules - quick guide

We reserve the right to remove or edit comments without notice which:

-We consider to be unlawful whether defamatory or otherwise

-We consider to be objectionable, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit or abusive.

-Contain swear words

-Condone or encourage copyright or trademark infringement, defamatory statements and contempt of court or other unlawful acts

-We consider not to be genuine or contain advertising

-Disclose the personal details of others

-Constitute spam

Your comments are:

-Posted to this site

-Processed in accordance with our privacy policy

-Valuable to us - thanks for your time

Read the full comment rules