Bankers May Not Be Nice People

irishman86

server down wrote: »

We are talking, in the main, if we are talking about the every day man, about a man who bought a simple semi detached house. Nothing greedy about that.

Yes they were greedy, the Irish attitude is to always want more than you have
Someone earning 40k a year should know they cant afford a 500k house
Just because you can "afford" something doesnt make it the right thing to do
So yes the every day man in Ireland needs to do take some flak aswell, the bank didnt force the money on them they could have said no

irishman86

server down wrote: »

By the way some people who bought in the boom did pretty well, given the tracker mortgages they have locked in. Even in 2012 I couldnt buy a house -- on an equivalent income -- as good as some of my friends had done. They werent geniuses and the people who over borrowed werent fools.

The people who over borrowed are the definition of fools, they were rolling the dice. Just because some won doesnt make it the correct thing to do
Some people win gambling on horses, that doesnt mean everyone should go out and do it

server down

irishman86 wrote: »

Yes they were greedy, the Irish attitude is to always want more than you have
Someone earning 40k a year should know they cant afford a 500k house
Just because you can "afford" something doesnt make it the right thing to do
So yes the every day man in Ireland needs to do take some flak aswell, the bank didnt force the money on them they could have said no

Why should they know that when experts are telling them that property never falls and booms never end.

If an expert assured me that his bridge was nice and sturdy and it collapsed I’d blame the expert.

FishOnABike

server down wrote: »

My thought process is wondering about the legality of it. Does the bank, without recourse to the courts, get to seize that money? Can they self appoint a sherrif and seize the car? Can they grab the TV?

Closing accounts seems like a serious business to me. Also he claims no notice was given.

If you read the multipage fine print you have to sign when you open an account, arrange an overdraft facility or credit card account you will have authorised the bank to use money from one account to pay any debt or overdrawn ammount in other accounts. It's the banks business, they make sure they have themselves covered. That's why anyone who is in financial difficulties is advised to open a new working account with a different bank where they have no current liabilities.

FishOnABike

server down wrote: »

Really. So my bank can without notice pay down my mortgage with my savings and current account? Or as much as they can?

Maybe your idea about separate banks is a good idea :-)

If your mortgage is in arrears, yes.

FishOnABike

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I was actually refused a car loan once because I wanted to borrow 8 grand I think it was and the bank wanted me to take 15.
I went to a different bank and got the 8 - why the hell would I want to borrow 7 grand I don't need!

Or, if it was a variable rate loan, just take the 15k loan, buy the car for 8k and repay the 7k you don't need immediately. I'd look at the interest rates and loan terms and go with the most favourable. (And consider keeping all loans with the one bank as others have advised, just to keep my banking options open if my finances went pearshaped)

Allinall

bajer101 wrote: »

There was a moment there in the branch, where the assistant manager was refusing to give me my money.

Haven't read the whole thread, but was it not the banks money they were holding?

You were the one that broke the contract.

Taylor365

Bad Financial Decisions May Be Made By Nice People

irishman86

server down wrote: »

Why should they know that when experts are telling them that property never falls and booms never end.

If an expert assured me that his bridge was nice and sturdy and it collapsed I’d blame the expert.

If a expert cliff diver told you to jump of a cliff would you?
I wouldnt, as for the boom plenty seen it coming as has shown since it crashed when those economists are now being listened to

Donal55

irishman86 wrote: »

If a expert cliff diver told you to jump of a cliff would you?
I wouldnt, as for the boom plenty seen it coming as has shown since it crashed when those economists are now being listened to

Like, eh,economist Jim 'Soft Landing' Power?

Allinall

Donal55 wrote: »

Like, eh,economist Jim 'Soft Landing' Power?

Yeah...or

"Fill your boots with bank shares" Burgess.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing; if only you could see it coming.

irishman86

Donal55 wrote: »

Like, eh,economist Jim 'Soft Landing' Power?

Or maybe the 100 other ones who said that we were in for a big bad crash :rolleyes:
Like Kelly from UCD, see i didnt even need to leave the same University Alumni

Donal55

irishman86 wrote: »

Or maybe the 100 other ones who said that we were in for a big bad crash :rolleyes:
Like Kelly from UCD, see i didnt even need to leave the same University Alumni

In fairness the '00s' of economists were telling us there wasn't a problem.

Kelly and a few others were told to fcuk off and commit suicide for talking down the economy by none other than Bertie.

Allinall

Donal55 wrote: »

In fairness the '00s' of economists were telling us there wasn't a problem.

Kelly and a few others were told to fcuk off and commit suicide for talking down the economy by none other than Bertie.

Attributing words and phrases that weren't used just makes you look foolish.

maryishere

irishman86 wrote: »

Someone earning 40k a year should know they cant afford a 500k house

Then why did the banks sometimes lend the money - say 600k - to someone on 30k - on an interest only basis, and not tell the borrower what the repayments would be when the interest only period was up?
Sharp practice by the banker. They should share the pain, otherwise they will do the same again.

Iceland, a small country, jailed something like 18 bankers. The same should happen in Ireland.

Donal55

Allinall wrote: »

Attributing words and phrases that weren't used just makes you look foolish.

Paraphrasing Bertie in 2007 'why people on the sidelines, cribbin and moanin, don't commit suicide'.

Will that do you?

irishman86

Donal55 wrote: »

In fairness the '00s' of economists were telling us there wasn't a problem.

Kelly and a few others were told to fcuk off and commit suicide for talking down the economy by none other than Bertie.

My point is there was people that were saying it and for some reason this is ignored
Lets put it this way, the economy has turned for the better, lets see how people this time dont go crazy and buy massively overpriced houses :pac:

irishman86

maryishere wrote: »

Then why did the banks sometimes lend the money - say 600k - to someone on 30k - on an interest only basis, and not tell the borrower what the repayments would be when the interest only period was up?
Sharp practice by the banker. They should share the pain, otherwise they will do the same again.

Iceland, a small country, jailed something like 18 bankers. The same should happen in Ireland.

Off course they should share the blame, thats the key though
SHARE
Rightly so for a person who took out a loan of that size to lose the game

Rubberchikken

People in banks are just doing a job.
Doubt they make the rules.

And who defaults on a loan payment and then heafs off shopping and doesnt expect to be pulled up.

bajer101

how.gareth wrote: »

Not being smart but why not use the few grand tax rebate to pay off your arrears on your loan?

OP here again. That's irrelevant. My problem is that the bank removed my overdraft facility and closed down my current account without informing me. The overdraft is now paid off as the facility was removed and subsequent deposits paid it off.

The loan account is still in arrears but they are charging me extortionate interest which I continue to pay.

You are all missing the point. The bank closed my account without telling me.

Fliucharbith

Akrasia wrote: »

A ludicrous amount of a bank's profit is made up of fees and charges. (up to 40% )

It used to be that people got paid for services they provide. Now banks get rich from creaming charges and penalties off the top of people trying to make ends meet.

Its extortionate when you think about.

Average Bar of Joe Soap: Heres MY money, all you have to do is keep it safe. I will allow you to use my money in your profit scheming in the background, and I don't mind that you make money from my money.

Bank: Yeah no sweat, joe. By the way we're going to charge you for the pleasure, that cool, hmm?

Shop around for banking fees, there are some crazy differences out there. With the setup I have I pay zero. And its only right.

368100

Akrasia wrote: »

A ludicrous amount of a bank's profit is made up of fees and charges. (up to 40% )

It used to be that people got paid for services they provide. Now banks get rich from creaming charges and penalties off the top of people trying to make ends meet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/21/the-crazy-growth-of-bank-fees.html

How is that ludicrous.? I don't understand why people are so surprised and angryphon about paying fees and charges, when it comes down to it a bank is a business out to make profit, of course they're going to charge for the "service" provided. Any other business that people avail of will charge for a service provided.

Now before anyone jumps down my neck about the level of service provided...Im not justifying that.....I'm well aware levels of service have been on a downward slide over the last few years but even a basic example of maintaining software to enable the system to function costs money. for someone with no lending, how else do they make money from you?

maryishere

Rubberchikken wrote: »

People in banks are just doing a job.

Most, but there are a few dozen bankers in Ireland who should be in jail.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Doubt they make the rules.

Those who break the rules / destroy lives by telling customers they are "checking to see if the customer can afford it", and then who lend the customer say 15 or 20 times their income, should go to jail. Otherwise it will happen again.

Iceland jailed about 18 bankers. Iceland has a far smaller population than ours.

368100

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here again. That's irrelevant. My problem is that the bank removed my overdraft facility and closed down my current account without informing me. The overdraft is now paid off as the facility was removed and subsequent deposits paid it off.

The loan account is still in arrears but they are charging me extortionate interest which I continue to pay.

You are all missing the point. The bank closed my account without telling me.

Have you checked their terms and conditons to see if they had the right to without giving you notice? I know two banks that have notice detailed in their Ts and Cs.

368100

seamus wrote: »

This is why you never bank and loan with the same bank. Loans & mortgages with one bank, savings with another, current account with another.

The only reason I'd see someone doing this is if they were planning to default

368100

seamus wrote: »

The bank is already in possession of the money, it's not "seizing" anything.

From the bank's point of view, every account isn't a separate entity - every customer is. The purpose of the accounts is to just separate your money out into virtual buckets to manage it.

Legally though you have a single balance, which is the sum of all your accounts. The bank can move money around these accounts basically at will because they're not changing your final balance by doing so - i.e. they're actually not taking away anything from you by moving your money from a current account into a loan account. Your balance remains the same, the only difference is the funds available to you.

It's well-established law.

What law is this? Have you the S.I. number?

There is no such law, the banks rights are governed by their terms and conditions which have to comply with for example the consumer protection code, and nothing detaI led in cpc about that. Most banks will include a right of set off in their t&c to give them the right to do this but in practice they don't usually invoke it unless the loan has been defaulted on, and at that stage it's repayable on demand, i.e, they can call in the full amount.

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here again. That's irrelevant. My problem is that the bank removed my overdraft facility and closed down my current account without informing me. The overdraft is now paid off as the facility was removed and subsequent deposits paid it off.

The loan account is still in arrears but they are charging me extortionate interest which I continue to pay.

You are all missing the point. The bank closed my account without telling me.

They froze your account. If it was closed the tax rebate would have bounced back to the sender.

Colonel Claptrap

Fliucharbith wrote: »

Its extortionate when you think about.

Average Bar of Joe Soap: Heres MY money, all you have to do is keep it safe. I will allow you to use my money in your profit scheming in the background, and I don't mind that you make money from my money.

Bank: Yeah no sweat, joe. By the way we're going to charge you for the pleasure, that cool, hmm?

Shop around for banking fees, there are some crazy differences out there. With the setup I have I pay zero. And its only right.

We've just been through the longest sustained period of ultra low interest rates in financial history. It has become very costly for banks to hold depositor's cash. In addition, consumption has been very low. People have just stopped spending money. Instead they build up their savings and take out fewer loans. Traditionally a bank makes money on its loan book and it's deposit book. Now the loan book is tiny and the deposit book is a liability.

Following the financial crisis, banking reform forces banks to hold more capital on their balance sheets. They have little scope for investing depositor funds on the open market. They rely more and more on short term liquid asset classes which have feck all return.

And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

368100

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

We've just been through the longest sustained period of ultra low interest rates in financial history. It has become very costly for banks to hold depositor's cash. In addition, consumption has been very low. People have just stopped spending money. Instead they build up their savings and take out fewer loans. Traditionally a bank makes money on its loan book and it's deposit book. Now the loan book is tiny and the deposit book is a liability.

Following the financial crisis, banking reform forces banks to hold more capital on their balance sheets. They have little scope for investing depositor funds on the open market. They rely more and more on short term liquid asset classes which have feck all return.

And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

Well explained.

Colonel Claptrap

maryishere wrote: »

Then why did the banks sometimes lend the money - say 600k - to someone on 30k - on an interest only basis, and not tell the borrower what the repayments would be when the interest only period was up?
Sharp practice by the banker. They should share the pain, otherwise they will do the same again.

I'd love to see numbers on how many people on 30k salaries received 600k mortgages. Interst only too.

I'm going to pick a random number out of the air myself and guess that it was zero.

368100

Prick cyclists 2 wrote: »

A STATEMENT FROM THE NBRU ON THE NECESSARY RAIL STRIKE

Following a meeting this afternoon, the NBRU in pursuance of a long overdue flat pay award, have decided to serve notice on the Company for the following series of industrial actions which may unfortunately result in an overall public transport strike throughout the country.

1. Wednesday November 1st 24 hour Work Stoppage and the placing of pickets at Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann locations
2. Tuesday November 7th 24 hour Work Stoppage and the placing of pickets at Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann locations
3. Tuesday November 14th 24 hour Work Stoppage and the placing of pickets at Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann locations
4. Thursday November 23rd 24 hour Work Stoppage and the placing of pickets at Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann locations
5. Friday December 8th 24 hour Work Stoppage and the placing of pickets at Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann locations

Our members have had enough of the type of behaviour witnessed last evening at the WRC when senior management at Irish Rail pulled a potential proposal which we felt could have been presented to our members for their consideration, it would appear that this Company are hell-bent on forcing its own staff onto the picket lines and creating an environment which will bring nothing but misery to thousands of rail commuters.

The responsibility for this dispute lies squarely with the CEO and his management team at Irish Rail. The treatment meted out to staff over the last number of months, and in particular the debacle which occurred at the WRC last evening, has been nothing short of contemptuous and will make a resolution to this dispute even more difficult, if not now impossible.

It is long since passed time that political leadership was provided by the Minister for Transport with regard to the publicly-owned public transport Companies but as usual he does not want to get involved and allows the workers to have to directly subsidise the underfunded companies via no wage rise in over 10 years.

It is an unfortunate consequence that tens of thousands of commuters are now going to be discommoded as a result of the intransigen

Wrong thread?!

368100

What has that got to do with the topic?

Ah I see, it doesn't. Promoting your own agenda. I didn't think this sort of stuff would be allowed on boards.

sbsquarepants

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

Not as many as there should be!

Banks are not relying on fees to stay afloat - Irish banks are 3 times as profitable as the European average. They are basically a cartel- they colluded amongst themselves to steal 1b billion euros off their customers (that we know of so far). This is the 2nd or 3rd overcharging "scandal" I can recall. Look all around the world and you'll find the same thing, cartels stealing from the public - You'll struggle to find a single example of mass undercharging! You can bet if some robin hood style employee swindled the banks profits to give to their customers, they'd serve 20+ years in some max security hell hole for it.
Steal from the customers to give to the bank, you'll get a promotion!

Globally banks are run by and for criminals, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Yes they are very smart professional criminals, but to be a really rich criminal you need to be very smart + professional - you just don't get to steal a billion by breaking into peoples garden sheds, or shoplifting! Paddy the manager of your local branch is probably just an employee, but when you get to the big boys you may as well be dealing with Pablo Escobar, a lot more subtle, but no less insidious and certainly no less ruthless.

But back to OP's dilemma - even if you've borrowed the money from a criminal (some would argue especially, if you've borrowed from one) you still need to pay it back.

bajer101

I have never said that I will not repay the loan. I am repaying the loan at 12.4%. I never tried to ditch this loan or claim bankruptcy. I just complained that my bank suddenly closed my account. Justify that please.

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

I have never said that I will not repay the loan. I am repaying the loan at 12.4%. I never tried to ditch this loan or claim bankruptcy. I just complained that my bank suddenly closed my account. Justify that please.

If they “closed” your account your tax rebate would have bounced back to wherever it was sent from. Your whole story stinks.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bajer101 wrote: »

I have never said that I will not repay the loan. I am repaying the loan at 12.4%. I never tried to ditch this loan or claim bankruptcy. I just complained that my bank suddenly closed my account. Justify that please.

But, did you not say the loan was in arrears?

AudreyHepburn

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here again. That's irrelevant. My problem is that the bank removed my overdraft facility and closed down my current account without informing me. The overdraft is now paid off as the facility was removed and subsequent deposits paid it off.

The loan account is still in arrears but they are charging me extortionate interest which I continue to pay.

You are all missing the point. The bank closed my account without telling me.

There’s no way the bank didn’t inform you they were closing your account. Apart from it being the decent thing to do they are legally obligated to do so.

Why can people in this country not take personal responsibility for their choices and mistakes? Not everything is the fault of the banks/government/insert scapegoat here.

OP you defaulted on the loan - man up,act the adult you are and take the hit.

server down

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

We've just been through the longest sustained period of ultra low interest rates in financial history. It has become very costly for banks to hold depositor's cash. In addition, consumption has been very low. People have just stopped spending money. Instead they build up their savings and take out fewer loans. Traditionally a bank makes money on its loan book and it's deposit book. Now the loan book is tiny and the deposit book is a liability.

Following the financial crisis, banking reform forces banks to hold more capital on their balance sheets. They have little scope for investing depositor funds on the open market. They rely more and more on short term liquid asset classes which have feck all return.

And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

Except anything I’ve read suggests the banks are making money from trackers, or breaking even.

server down

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There’s no way the bank didn’t inform you they were closing your account. Apart from it being the decent thing to do they are legally obligated to do so.

Why can people in this country not take personal responsibility for their choices and mistakes? Not everything is the fault of the banks/government/insert scapegoat here.

OP you defaulted on the loan - man up,act the adult you are and take the hit.

I mean he clearly said he was paying back the loan. He clearly said he received no notice.

It’s amazing how protective people are of banks. They clearly tried to screw people with the trackers. They massively over lent. Anglo Irish was a corrupt organisation. And yet the belief continues that they are on the side of angels and the little man is to blame.

maryishere

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I'd love to see numbers on how many people on 30k salaries received 600k mortgages. Interst only too.

I'm going to pick a random number out of the air myself and guess that it was zero.

You would be surprised at the mistakes some financial institutions made during the celtic tiger days. Lots of possible reasons - for example, some greedy loan manager trying to reach his target for a bonus or whatever, etc

Did you know the manager of one small building society retired with a pension pot worth 20 million?

server down

server down wrote: »

I mean he clearly said he was paying back the loan...

He was in arrears.

bajer101 wrote: »

Phoned them and they said that it was due to my car loan which was in arrears.

server down wrote: »

He clearly said he received no notice...

He received notice about the car loan

bajer101 wrote: »

Eh, no I didn't. That's my point. I received two notifications advising that my loan was in arrears.

The OP's issue is that he didn't receive notice about all of the consequences arising from his defaulting on the car loan, such as the withdrawal of other facilities.

I think a few posters are not siding with the bank as much as saying...use common sense, and read the terms and conditions in the overdraft facility.

server down

Bring in arrears means he wasn’t abiding by the terms of the contract he had with the bank. He was paying some, but not all, of what he owed.

Now in reverse that’s just what the banks call business.

CruelCoin

bajer101 wrote: »

You are all missing the point. The bank closed my account without telling me.

I'm fairly certain you would have received letter to the gist of "please pay or we'll have to take steps"

What were you expecting?

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

I mean he clearly said he was paying back the loan. He clearly said he received no notice.

It’s amazing how protective people are of banks. They clearly tried to screw people with the trackers. They massively over lent. Anglo Irish was a corrupt organisation. And yet the belief continues that they are on the side of angels and the little man is to blame.

I don't think people are protective of the banks. They just have an aversion to bullshit

bajer101

OP here again. I received a letter today from the bank responding to the complaint I made about my account being closed. (I can scan and PM if anyone thinks I am bull****ting). The gist of the letter is that I was informed in July, by letter that my overdraft could be withdrawn and that my debit card could be cancelled, and direct debits cancelled etc. They included a copy of the July letter which I do not recall receiving originally.

Even accepting that they did send this letter in July, this still doesn't tally with what I was told over the phone about being sent a letter in September informing me that my account was about to be closed down. They are effectively now admitting that no such letter was sent.

Again, just to reiterate my complaint - they closed my account without telling me.

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here again. I received a letter today from the bank responding to the complaint I made about my account being closed. (I can scan and PM if anyone thinks I am bull****ting). The gist of the letter is that I was informed in July, by letter that my overdraft could be withdrawn and that my debit card could be cancelled, and direct debits cancelled etc. They included a copy of the July letter which I do not recall receiving originally.

Even accepting that they did send this letter in July, this still doesn't tally with what I was told over the phone about being sent a letter in September informing me that my account was about to be closed down. They are effectively now admitting that no such letter was sent.

Again, just to reiterate my complaint - they closed my account without telling me.

If your account was closed. How did your tax rebate hit it? It would have bounced directly back to Revenue if the account was closed. I recently had to pay a friend €50 for a booking he made for me. I sent it through internet banking, I had his old details for a closed account, the money I sent was back in my account the following morning because there was nowhere for it to go.

bajer101

Another interesting aspect of the reply I received from the bank was that it was printed on both sides of the paper, which I think is the first time this has happened. I nearly could have missed the second page if I were a vulnerable person.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bajer101 wrote: »

Another interesting aspect of the reply I received from the bank was that it was printed on both sides of the paper, which I think is the first time this has happened. I nearly could have missed the second page if I were a vulnerable person.

Any more excuses?

Double sided printing has become the norm - it saves money !

steddyeddy

There's two sides of this. The people who accept the loans are obviously personally responsibly for those loans.

Saying that, I never took out a loan so I can say that the bankers that gave out these unsustainable loans and mortgages were complete idiots. Their cretinism put this country in debt for many generations. So yes, bankers have not been the pillars of the community in Ireland.

bajer101

Yet another interesting inference from their letter is that they are a law upon themselves. They have conducted an internal review and decided they were right. (No shït), but you are entitled to question this as per the legal instructions that we have been legally obliged to provide.