Three weeks ago, it is the UK retails system that was hit by the regulation’s wave that blusters around the world for several months. In September 2009, a European Commission report said that information given to some banks' customers was unintelligible and that fees were frosted. According to a survey, only 9% of the European consumers are aware of the difference between banks. Thereof, UK officials try to find an agreement with the banking sector. A month later, October 7th, BBC reported that “Banks agree to 'charges clarity'”.This new regulation will consist of three codes: (the Banking Code of Business (BCOB), which covers deposits; the Payment Services Regulation (PSR), which covers direct debits and other payment methods; and the Lending Code, which covers credit cards, overdrafts and other borrowing. FSA regulation replaces the Banking Code, by which the banks have regulated themselves.
At first sight, this is some kind of good news for all the UK customers. However, when you look for more information about the topic, you realize that some expert fear that the new rules from the FSA will not help the customers. Because of these three codes, they pretend that it will be too complicated for the customers to protect themselves against banks’ "abuses". It is true that on a few points, the new codes are too proscriptive. Indeed, I could find some example where it was the case. When it came to switching bank accounts FSA rules does not say in how many days the switch had to be done, it just says 'in good time'.
By contrast, I strongly believe that these rules couldn’t be worse than self-made banks’ rules. By increasing the visibility, it will certainly increase competitions between banks by putting more in contrast the differences between the various institutions. Moreover, the FSA implemented in its new codes many clauses that give a better protection to the consumers. For example, if some money was withdrawn from a customer's credit or debit card, and it is more than they could reasonably have expected, the bank have to refund his client unless the bank can provide evidence not to.
This a typically a local news that wasn’t reported in media organization outside the United Kingdom. Let’s have a look at three different UK media organization that report quiet differently the news.
I wanted to started with which is, from my point of view, the newspaper that reported the most balance view of the topic. The Gardian reported “Payment Services Regulations mean better treatment for bank customers” (Hilary Osborne, Oct 31th). Its article was not too long, but presented the major facts. Moreover they quote both protagonist and antagonist who spook about the advantages/disadvantage of both systems. At the end of its article, it summarizes some changes that will directly affect the average customers. I think that this article was written to inform UK citizen of this change without any bias (even if in every article, there is some kind of bias). They achieve their goal. The only think I could criticize is the headline, which is; in my opinion, too positive.
On the other hand, was the BBC and the Times really subjective in their approach of the news. The BBC report “Fresh bank rules come into force” (Nov, 1st). The article was quiet long, giving a lot of information about the new regulation, which is good. The subjectivity came from the fact that they only presented the FSA's point of view. Without knowing that it was a state-own media organization, you could find it out by yourself. As a matter of fact, they only underline the positive points of the new regulation. From my point of view, the BBC is a very good international media organization, presenting a well balanced view on most of the subjects. But when it goes about typically British subject, they are often bias by presenting only government’s point of view.
As the BBC, the Times was also bias, but not in the same way. By contrast, they were criticizing the new regulation. They reported “Are new rules for banks good news for customers?” (Lauren Thompson, Oct 31th), with as subtitle “The FSA overhaul promises to benefit consumers — but the devil is the detail”. Only by reading this, you could understand the author’s point of view. They try to warn UK costumers against this new regulation, which is good. Nevertheless, they could be more objective in the article as a whole, presenting both sides’ positive aspects.
To conclude, I would definitely recommend the Gardian for that kind of subject, which gave a short but balance view of the topic. The BBC seems to be too bias and not able to report some topic where the government is involved in some way. Concerning the Times, it gave a lot of information but they are only useful for informed readers that will be able to recognize where the critics are justify or not.
Q. Piloy
Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/oct/30/payment-services-regulations-bank-customers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8333374.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8295320.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6897008.ece
www.myfinances.co.uk/news/bank-accounts/banking-practices-and-conduct/fsa-moves-over-into-bank-customer-protection-%241337791.htm+new+FSA+regulation+banks&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a
Well argued; well researched and good analysis. 8/10
ReplyDelete