| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
ATM surcharge fees are unfair and unnecessary because the consumer pays two fees for a single transaction (charged twice) and banks collect two fees for one transaction (double dip). When consumers use an ATM that is not owned by their bank (owned by another bank or an ISO), they typically pay two fees for that transactionthe foreign fee and the ATM surcharge fee. Moreover, ATM surcharges create two flows of revenue for bank ATM owners; surcharge fee + interchange or network fee. A portion of the ATM fee consumers pay their own bank when they use another bank's ATM (the foreign ATM withdrawal fee) is retained by their bank. The remainder is distributed by their bank to the network, which retains a portion and distributes the remainder to the ATM owner. Even if the consumer's bank does not assess a fee (although 100% of the banks included in our 2003 survey do assess a foreign ATM withdrawal fee), their bank pays the network, which distributes a portion to the ATM owner. Thus, with surcharging, the ATM owner collects two fees for one ATM transaction: one from the network (indirectly from the consumer) and the other directly from the consumer and the typical consumer pays two fees: (1) the foreign fee their own bank charges to use another bank's (or non-bank ATM owner's) ATM; and (2) the surcharge assessed by the ATM owner and deducted from the consumer's account at the time of the transaction. The combined
fee is anti-consumer and can make electronic banking cost-prohibitive.
The two highest fees identified in our 2003 surveya $2.50 bank ATM
surcharge fee and a $2.25 foreign ATM feemean consumers may pay as
much as $4.75 to access their own money electronically. | |
|||||||||||||||||||
Home | Environment | Campuses | Fuel Buyers Group | CMAP | Support NYPIRG | ||||||||||||||||||||||