Bankers May Not Be Nice People

bajer101

Kolton Fluffy Suburb wrote: »

Any more excuses?

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

I have never received two sided printed communication from the bank prior to this.

What exactly am I claiming an excuse for?

I'm just highlighting what I believe to be unfair practices by a bank, but knock yourself out defending them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bajer101 wrote: »

I have never received two sided printed communication from the bank prior to this.

What exactly am I claiming an excuse for?

I'm just highlighting what I believe to be unfair practices by a bank, but knock yourself out defending them.

Maybe the notification of closing your account was on the back of the page.

I'm not defending them but you don't seem to grasp your part in all this and your acceptance of their terms and conditions.

But, keep shouting about the nasty bank.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's two sides of this...

Just like letters on one sheet of paper...;)

bajer101

Kolton Fluffy Suburb wrote: »

Maybe the notification of closing your account was on the back of the page.

I'm not defending them but you don't seem to grasp your part in all this and your acceptance of their terms and conditions.

But, keep shouting about the nasty bank.

You are absolutely correct. The notice about closing my account was indeed on the back page of the notice in July. The back page! The first and only time that they ever sent me a communication that was double printed and it just so happens that the small print that they are alluding to just happened to be printed on the reverse side of the page. None of the bank statements that they sent me last month were printed double side.

My grasping of their terms and conditions is probably exactly the same as most other people's grasping of same terms and conditions and small print.

I'll just say it again. The bank closed my account without telling me. I had my debit card refused in a store in October while the account had funds, based on a letter in July saying that my accounts may be suspended. Knock yourselves out defending that.

suicide_circus

Kolton Fluffy Suburb wrote: »

Maybe the notification of closing your account was on the back of the page.

I'm not defending them but you don't seem to grasp your part in all this and your acceptance of their terms and conditions.

But, keep shouting about the nasty bank.

Banks are nasty. I've had family working in banking for many decades. They are nasty to the public, their employees and the state.

bajer101

The people who said I was full of shít, I made an offer a few posts ago to PM you a scan of the letter I got from the bank proving I was right, I got no reply. Still waiting from the banker defenders.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Bankers May Not Be Nice People"

Kinda misleading. People working in Banks are just doing a job. Following some very strict procedures for dealing with customers...

Ah, the Nuremberg Defence...

suicide_circus

bajer101 wrote: »

The people who said I was full of sh I made an offer a few posts ago to PM you a scan of the letter I got from the bank proving I was right, I got no reply. Still waiting from the banker defenders.

Why would people doubt you? Look at the news headlines right now. Banks are above the rules in this country.

368100

bajer101 wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. The notice about closing my account was indeed on the back page of the notice in July. The back page! The first and only time that they ever sent me a communication that was double printed and it just so happens that the small print that they are alluding to just happened to be printed on the reverse side of the page. None of the bank statements that they sent me last month were printed double side.

My grasping of their terms and conditions is probably exactly the same as most other people's grasping of same terms and conditions and small print.

I'll just say it again. The bank closed my account without telling me. I had my debit card refused in a store in October while the account had funds, based on a letter in July saying that my accounts may be suspended. Knock yourselves out defending that.

You seem reasonably intelligent so in opening an account you agree to abide by the terms and conditions, I don't understand why people are so surprised then when they are used to enforce the rules.

Same as any service provider, they'll all have terms and conditions. Not overly defending banks here but people need to take responsibility for these things, what do you think would be better, that the bank sit you down and read the terms and conditions to you line by line?

As for the last paragraph....you were told, you said you got a letter in July that was printed on a back page. Again, do you want someone to sit down and read letters to you?

You haven't taken any responsibility for any of this? I find that astounding for an adult in 2017. Before I get slated for defending banks, I have massive respect for those customers that challenged the banks re their tracker mortgages...that's somebody who knows what they agreed to so they knew the bank was in the wrong. I hope they get properly compensated as they deserve it.

This issue is acting like a child....."it's not my fault its theirs"

bajer101

368100 wrote: »

You seem reasonably intelligent so in opening an account you agree to abide by the terms and conditions, I don't understand why people are so surprised then when they are used to enforce the rules.

Same as any service provider, they'll all have terms and conditions. Not overly defending banks here but people need to take responsibility for these things, what do you think would be better, that the bank sit you down and read the terms and conditions to you line by line?

As for the last paragraph....you were told, you said you got a letter in July that was printed on a back page. Again, do you want someone to sit down and read letters to you?

You haven't taken any responsibility for any of this? I find that astounding for an adult in 2017. Before I get slated for defending banks, I have massive respect for those customers that challenged the banks re their tracker mortgages...that's somebody who knows what they agreed to so they knew the bank was in the wrong. I hope they get properly compensated as they deserve it.

This issue is acting like a child....."it's not my fault its theirs"

You are absolutely right. I had no business highlighting possible bad behaviour by a bank and offering proof of said bad practice. Best thing is to just leave the banks to it.

368100

bajer101 wrote: »

You are absolutely right. I had no business highlighting possible bad behaviour by a bank and offering proof of said bad practice. Best thing is to just leave the banks to it.

What's the bad behaviour? Acting in accordance with terms and conditions that you agreed to in advance? After you defaulted on your loan? Every company in 2017 would do the same!

CruelCoin

bajer101 wrote: »

I nearly could have missed the second page if I were a vulnerable person.

"sigh"

What? You're reaching.

Also, what were you doing shopping in Liffey Valley and eating out?
You'd think being in arrears you'd cut your outgoings no?

Your whole attitude stinks.

bajer101

368100 wrote: »

What's the bad behaviour? Acting in accordance with terms and conditions that you agreed to in advance? After you defaulted on your loan? Every company in 2017 would do the same!

The bad behaviour I am highlighting is that the bank cancelled my account and card with no notice.

bajer101

I'm thinking about raising a case with the Ombudsman as I feel I have been treated badly by a bank. You never know, the result of the case may benefit everyone except the banks.

368100

bajer101 wrote: »

The bad behaviour I am highlighting is that the bank cancelled my account and card with no notice.

bajer101 wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. The notice about closing my account was indeed on the back page of the notice in July. The back page! The first and only time that they ever sent me a communication that was double printed and it just so happens that the small print that they are alluding to just happened to be printed on the reverse side of the page. None of the bank statements that they sent me last month were printed double side.

Why did you say they did give notice in a July letter then.

bajer101

368100 wrote: »

Why did you say they did give notice in a July letter then.

Ah please, will you stop trying to defend a bank.

368100

bajer101 wrote: »

Ah please, will you stop trying to defend a bank.

So no answer. Speaks volumes.

I defend who is in the right.....this isn't you.

You were notified and didn't read it, your own fault.

You need to join the real world and take some responsibility but no matter how logical anyone's argument is on the subject you just want people to pour sympathy over you so there's no point in me or anyone else trying to explain it further to you, you won't listen. I retract my earlier comment about being reasonably intelligent.

You also have no case with the ombudsman in light of the above.

Good luck in the future....you're going to need it.

Peace out.

bajer101

368100 wrote: »

So no answer. Speaks volumes.

I defend who is in the right.....this isn't you.

You were notified and didn't read it, your own fault.

You need to join the real world and take some responsibility but no matter how logical anyone's argument is on the subject you just want people to pour sympathy over you so there's no point in me or anyone else trying to explain it further to you, you won't listen. I retract my earlier comment about being reasonably intelligent.

You also have no case with the ombudsman in light of the above.

Good luck in the future....you're going to need it.

Peace out.

Well that escalated quickly!

bajer101

You're almost referring me to the terms and conditions and small print of the bank's contract. Good man. Refer to that same small print on the tracker mortgages. Shower of gangsters.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Ah please, will you stop trying to defend a bank.

And that's really the premise of the thead.

Someone who is defaulting on their loan and who wrongly assumed that he would continue to access, not an entitlement, but a facility extended to him, thought everyone would agree that the bank was wrong...because it's a bank.

Fr Tod Umptious

The OP is obviously pissed to that their access to funds is under threat, we all would be.

They came on here with their story expecting a load of replies agreeing with them that the banks are bad and "you'll never guess what happened to me..", and "sure looks what happened to me" etc etc.

But the majority of what has been said is the complete opposite.

Now they are coming back with "I've never seen anything printed on both sides before"

I'm expecting a "you must work for the bank" reply any time soon.

Do the banks partake in sharp practices, do they hid the negative stuff in the small print (on the other side of the page) ?

Of course they do, but it's up to us the individuals to be aware of what our contract with them is.

GingerLily

GingerLily wrote: »

He did, he didn't read them, and didn't read that they were revoking his overdraft which would have been in a condition of one of the contracts he signed.

So I was right, they did tell you in July but they just put it in the other side of the page! Thanks for clearing that up OP

GingerLily

bajer101 wrote: »

You're almost referring me to the terms and conditions and small print of the bank's contract. Good man. Refer to that same small print on the tracker mortgages. Shower of gangsters.

Did you default on your loan because you were over charged on your mortgage? Was your tracker illegally removed from you?

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

You are absolutely right. I had no business highlighting possible bad behaviour by a bank and offering proof of said bad practice. Best thing is to just leave the banks to it.

By bad behaviour, you mean suspending your account after you went into arrears, and after warning you in July that your account may be suspended as per the t&cs you signed??

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

The bad behaviour I am highlighting is that the bank cancelled my account and card with no notice.

You said that they informed you in July that it may be suspended.

AudreyHepburn

bajer101 wrote: »

The bad behaviour I am highlighting is that the bank cancelled my account and card with no notice.

But they did give you notice in July, you admitted it yourself a few posts back.

Stop trying to pass the blame - you’re a grown man, own up to your own mistakes and pay back your loan.

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

"sigh"

What? You're reaching.

Also, what were you doing shopping in Liffey Valley and eating out?
You'd think being in arrears you'd cut your outgoings no?

Your whole attitude stinks.

The plebs should know their place. No eating until the arrears are paid. The banking managers who went into meeting rooms to deliberately break contracts and thus put themselves in arrears with their customers should be eating out instead. On bonuses.

AudreyHepburn

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.

And he’s clearly not being truthful about that.

I’m not protecting anyone - I just have a serious aversion to people who refuse to take any personal responsibility for anything. It’s the biggest problem this country has at the moment and it goes right down to ordinary joe soap on the street refusing to acknowledge that he shouldn’t have taken that loan he could never repay.

server down

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And he’s clearly not being truthful about that.

I’m not protecting anyone - I just have a serious aversion to people who refuse to take any personal responsibility for anything. It’s the biggest problem this country has at the moment and it goes right down to ordinary joe soap on the street refusing to acknowledge that he shouldn’t have taken that loan he could never repay.

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

AudreyHepburn

server down wrote: »

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

I never said elites not taking responsibility wasn’t a problem but there’s no point in pretending the so called ‘ little man’s’ refusal to do the same isn’t also a problem.

We are all adults here, we must all own our choices.

BillyBobBS

server down wrote: »

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Wanderer78

BillyBobBS wrote:

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

What would the alternatives be like in power?

server down

server down wrote: »

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

But the tracker mortgage scandal and your point about elites and society have nothing to do with the OP's issue which is that he defaulted on a loan, other facilities were withdrawn, and he believes the effect of his breach of contract should have been explained to him.

You might as well say the war in Syria is a bigger problem.

BillyBobBS

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

No elected representative forced the OP to default on his loan. None of them withdrew the overdraft facility.

SEPT 23 1989

They could pay back what they stole by close of business tomorrow if they really wanted to but we are dealing with sociopaths here,they want to drag the pain out a little longer sure whats a few months more destroying lives when they have done so for the last decade?

CruelCoin

server down wrote: »

The plebs should know their place. No eating until the arrears are paid. The banking managers who went into meeting rooms to deliberately break contracts and thus put themselves in arrears with their customers should be eating out instead. On bonuses.

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

CruelCoin

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Wake up!








*amidoinitrite?*

Wanderer78

CruelCoin wrote: »

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

why should banks have the ability to create money freely and not the general population?

CruelCoin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

why should banks have the ability to create money freely and not the general population?

They don't

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

They don't

Banks in fact do create money. the principal way money is created is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. That, provided it is regulated, is not a bad system.

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

Can you explain what is precisely populist about it? Populist is a term not synonymous with wrong as it happens although I think you are using it in that context and incorrectly.

Wanderer78

CruelCoin wrote: »

They don't

server down wrote: »

Banks in fact do create money. the principal way money is created is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. That, provided it is regulated, is not a bad system.

correct, this has been extensively written about and recently acknowledged by the bank of england and the bundesbank.

server down

Wanderer78 wrote: »

correct, this has been extensively written about and recently acknowledged by the bank of england and the bundesbank.

In fact my post is largely taken from the BOE paper. Well, the synopsis.

Wanderer78

server down wrote: »

In fact my post is largely taken from the BOE paper. Well, the synopsis.

can you link that paper, ive been aware of it since its release but have never actually read it. thank you.

server down

Wanderer78 wrote: »

can you link that paper, ive been aware of it since its release but have never actually read it. thank you.

Here’s the highly populist paper from the Bank of England explaining how money (technically broad money but that’s most of it) is created.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

I posted the bold bit in the synopsis

server down

It might seem off topic to post about bank’s malfeasance (or link to populist radicals like the BOE) but I would argue that we are discussing the thread title as well as the op’s post.

And in the tracker scandal the banks, in some cases, did tell people in the contract that at the end of the fixed term they would revert to non tracker mortgages but it either wasn’t emphasised or was in the fine print.

Therefore where and how the Op was warned about having his account seized matters and relates. And that was his major concern.

lawred2

bajer101 wrote: »

A major Irish bank decided to deactivate my current account without informing me. I first noticed it when my direct debits started failing and then noticed that my overdraft facility seemed to have been removed. Phoned them and they said that it was due to my car loan which was in arrears. Ok, but it would have been nice to be have been told about this. Losing your overdraft facility with no notice is challenging, but it's ok. I'm getting hammered on those overdraft rates anyway and I have a deposit coming in which will cover all that. Grand.

I get the lodgement into the account, nothing major, just a few grand of a tax rebate. Go shopping with the daughter and the card gets rejected. Try the ATM, rejected. Call the card service and am told the card has been cancelled. Go home annoyed.

Yesterday morning, go to local bank branch and they refused to give me my money saying that it was tied up with my loan account. Got my money out in the end.

sounds like you were defaulting on a loan that they provided you...

those terms and conditions can be a b!tch alright

server down

lawred2 wrote: »

sounds like you were defaulting on a loan that they provided you...

those terms and conditions can be a b!tch alright

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

He’s already stated that he was notified in July.

server down

weldoninhio wrote: »

He’s already stated that he was notified in July.

Small print. Look he may be unreliable (but I’m assuming he is telling the truth for now) but in fact companies have to be upfront about major consequences of default.