Banesto customers charged €215 despite meeting PSP promo terms

Customers report €215 charges despite meeting the PSP promotion terms

A charge of 215 euros under the heading 'failure to meet PSP promotion conditions' appeared in the account of a customer who, according to his account, had been paying in the agreed 700 euros a month for two years. According to him, the bank admitted he was right at the branch and acknowledged the error, and yet the money took weeks to be refunded. The promise was, always according to his version: salary paid into the account, a credit card at 18 euros a year, 36 euros paid upfront for administration and tax withholding costs, and free transfers. In return, a handheld console.

In the thread, various customers have reported the same pattern: the 215-euro charge appears months after the commitment period has ended, with no prior warning and with a justification that changes depending on who answers the phone. According to the original account, Banesto has no proper customer service phone line: you have to call as if you wanted to check your balance and ask to be put through to someone. There is never anyone available. Six attempts, zero callbacks.

What the Banesto PSP promotion actually requires

The mechanics of the promotion, according to the accounts in the thread, are the usual ones: the bank gives you a gift and in return ties you to a salary account for a period that, depending on the case, runs from 24 to 25 months. In the original case, the commitment was to pay in 700 euros a month for two years, without routing any other direct debits through the account, and to take out a credit card costing 18 euros a year. The bank charged 36 euros upfront for administration and tax withholding costs.

According to the original account, the problem arises when the bank decides, on its own, that it no longer accepts as salary what it previously accepted. In the original case, for three months transfers from another bank were no longer considered valid salary by Banesto. The coding did not suit them, they said. In other words: the system marks you as non-compliant without warning, charges you the penalty and then, if you complain, explains that it was a computer error.

Another customer reports an identical case: he paid in his salary for 27 months, two more than agreed, and still the 215-euro charge arrived. The only irregularity he acknowledges is paying in one month five days late in 2007. Everything else was on time. According to his account, he got his money back after complaining, but only after the bank admitted the actual term was 25 months, not 24.

The phone line that does not exist and the complaint that never arrives

According to those affected, Banesto's customer service works like a maze designed to make you give up. There is no direct number. You have to call the general line, ask to be transferred to the relevant department and accept that there is never anyone there. They take your number and promise to call you back. They do not. When someone from the 'incidents department' finally makes contact, nine days after the in-person complaint and twenty after the charge, the explanation is that it was all a computer error and the machine did something it should not have done.

Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking. The advice given to those affected is to complain first to the bank's customer ombudsman and, if there is no solution within a month, to go straight to the Banco de España (Spain's central bank and banking supervisor). Some in the thread argue that the bank knows most people will not go that far and that the 215-euro penalty is low enough for many to write it off.

Some argue that the bank only acts this way because the expected cost of a complaint outweighs the benefit of refunding the money. Against that is the argument that, when the customer insists and threatens to go to the Banco de España, the refund does arrive. The question is how many do not insist.

Fees for withdrawing money at another branch of the same bank

The catalogue of questionable charges does not end with the promotion. One customer reports that, when withdrawing 400 euros at a Banesto branch other than his own, he was charged 1.5 euros for verifying his signature. The employee's explanation was that, if he wanted to avoid that fee, he should take out a card costing around 30 euros a year.

A more serious case: a customer's vvife had her handbag stolen and 1,200 euros were withdrawn with her card — the maximum that, according to his account, Banesto had set without informing the cardholder. The bank's initial response was that, since the PIN had been used, the responsibility lay with the customer. After two months of complaints and a letter drafted with all the legal provisions the affected party could gather, the bank refunded the money minus 150 euros it kept for who knows what.

According to these accounts, the bank applies the fee, hopes the customer will not complain and, if they do, negotiates downwards. One forum user argues that an error in the customer's favour is corrected within hours, while an error in the bank's favour takes months, requires a formal complaint and often ends in a partial refund.

The gift you have to declare to the tax authorities

There is one detail that, according to one forum user, almost nobody considers when signing up: the value of the gift is declared. The console, the laptop or the television the bank gives as an incentive would be counted as income in kind and included in the income tax return as if the customer had received that money in cash. The gift, therefore, would not be free: it would be paid through income tax (IRPF).

To that, according to the same forum user, is added the opportunity cost. For two years, the customer keeps 700 euros a month in an account that probably pays no interest. The bank uses that balance to lend to other customers at far higher rates. The gift would, in reality, be the payment for attracting stable, cheap funding.

The question hanging over the whole affair is why the bank decides to charge the penalty to customers who have already complied. Some in the thread argue that the system is designed to detect 'non-compliance' automatically, with no human verification, and that the burden of proving otherwise always falls on the customer.

What those who work on the inside say

The bank's defence comes, in some cases, from within. One forum user who claims to be a Banesto employee argues that a bank is not a bazaar, that if you want a television or glassware you should go to a specialist shop, and that generalising by saying all bank employees are incompetent is disrespectful. The argument has its logic: the promotion is a contract with conditions, not a charitable gift.

But the accumulated experience in the thread points to something different, according to several participants. It is not that the employees are incompetent: it is that the system is designed so that information flows poorly, so that conditions change without notification and so that complaining is an ordeal. The result, for the customer, is the same: you pay for the console twice.

The most striking thing is not the 215-euro charge. It is that, according to these accounts, the bank applies it to customers who have already complied, justifies it with a computer error and only refunds it when the affected party proves they are willing to see it through to the end.