Call To Freeze Atm Fees Gains New Momentum Consumer Backlash Prompts Move To Limit Increases

Customers’ anger over rising ATM fees is so high that even a key banking industry ally, House Banking Chairman Jim Leach, suggested Wednesday that bankers ought to hold off on any new increases.

“I think it would be wise for the industry to take a step back and put a voluntary freeze on any surcharges,” Leach, R-Iowa, said as a House Banking subcommittee opened two days of hearings.

Bankers and ATM network operators strongly defended their actions at the hearings, which were prompted by actions earlier this month that could result in people being charged twice for using cash machines owned by another bank.

But inside the hearing room - and at ATMs on Washington’s streets - consumer anger was obvious.

“Why are we paying banks to make a profit on our money when they’re paying such low interest rates?” asked Randy Capps of Washington after using a downtown ATM. “I just feel like I’m spending more and more and getting less and less for having my money in the bank.”

At the hearing, Rep. Marge Roukema, R-N.J., said her subcommittee on consumer credit issues will determine what role, if any, Congress should play in response to such consumer anger.

Several House Democrats already have proposed legislation to force greater disclosure of ATM fees, or in one case, to ban the fees altogether. In the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D’Amato, R-N.Y., is developing a bill that would prohibit ATM surcharges.

The American Bankers Association argued that legislation isn’t needed because customers already are informed about ATM fees. When a customer opens an account, a Federal Reserve rule forces banks to disclose the fees for ATM usage. Typically, that’s about a dollar for using a “foreign” cash machine, or one not owned by the customer’s bank.

In addition, major ATM networks, including MasterCard’s Cirrus System Inc. and Visa’s Plus network, require ATM owners to warn customers when they will levy an access fee in addition to the one already charged by the customer’s own bank.

ATM owners are supposed to post signs, issue warnings on the computer screen and print on the receipt this notice of the additional fee. That is an industry practice, but isn’t spelled out in federal law.

Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., urged the bankers to change their systems so consumers could see all fees and charges displayed on the ATM’s computer screen at the time of the transaction.

But Paul Allen, executive vice president of Visa U.S.A. Inc., called the idea unworkable because the owner of an ATM in a convenience store might not know how a customer’s own bank calculates fees, which vary widely.

Allen noted that ATM access fees have been charged for more than seven years in a handful of states and said: “Plus has not received complaints about the inadequacy of these disclosures.”

Plus and Cirrus acted earlier this month to let banks in any state charge an access fee if they wish.

Neil Marcous, executive vice president of Texas-based EDS, which provides computer services for ATMs, denied that banks make large profits off ATMs.

Revenues to ATM networks from transaction fees have remained “relatively flat” in the past 15 years while the cost of running the terminals has risen 30 percent, Marcous said. The new fees simply recoup banks’ costs, he said.

Nearby, Eric Hennessey saw it differently. As he got cash on his lunch hour, Hennessey said he thinks banks began offering ATMs so they could save money on tellers’ salaries.

“And as soon as people get dependent on ATMs, they put surcharges on them,” Hennessey said.