Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bankrupts Being Refused Basic Banking


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
Spot on!

There is no reason whatsoever not to offer a credit balance only account except that they can't make money out of it, whilst taking £750billion from the taxpayer with the other hand.

surely, as govt-owned institutions, when the post office ALREADY offers a minimal social account (the benefit card account) and private sector (Barclays and Co-Op bank) offer these accounts more broadly?

where's the need for govt-owned banks to take this on when they already are demonstrably not very good at banking and should be careful not to lose any more taxpayers'money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
As were the stocks, witch dunkings and theories of a flat earth.

yes and in those ages they beleived that was correct,

today the general public beleive that debt = wealth, and if you get to much wealth just go bankrupt and **** the banks, who inturn ****** the savers/tax payers etc as they just lost £x cos some one couldnt pay it back.

that is today beleif, im not aying tis right or wrong its a beleif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445
Stupid banker....they can bounce the call on funds not available. der!

and creditors take money? more ********....it would be the OR that takes the money and that would be with notice to both the bank and the bankrupt.

It's poorly worded and poorly reported, true.

However, what I think it means is that even if the bankrupt receives money into their account (e.g. salary), the money is not actually theirs to hold, it is the responsibility of the OR.

The problem that the bank has is that they may then pay a direct debit, in good faith and while the account is in credit. And once the direct debit has gone through, in good faith and without error, then it can't be returned. However, when the OR asks for their share of the money, the bank must pay them - even if there are insufficient funds in the account. (The bank cannot bounce the OR's request for funds, as their position of debtor is subordinate to the OR). The point being that it is the OR who decides who gets paid, and not the creditors (via a direct debit instruction) or account holder.

However, that doesn't help the bank who has paid money out in good faith, who now has to return the money to the OR.

Of course, the easy thing to do would be to prevent direct debits being made on a basic account - if someone isn't responsible enough to hold a cheque book, then I don't see how they are going to cope with direct debits.

Edited by ChumpusRex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
surely, as govt-owned institutions, when the post office ALREADY offers a minimal social account (the benefit card account) and private sector (Barclays and Co-Op bank) offer these accounts more broadly?

where's the need for govt-owned banks to take this on when they already are demonstrably not very good at banking and should be careful not to lose any more taxpayers'money?

Im sorry, where is the risk? the bankrupt account will not go overdrawn...the bank simply refuses payments.

And creditors have no access to the funds.....the bankrupt has no creditors.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
surely, as govt-owned institutions, when the post office ALREADY offers a minimal social account (the benefit card account) and private sector (Barclays and Co-Op bank) offer these accounts more broadly?

where's the need for govt-owned banks to take this on when they already are demonstrably not very good at banking and should be careful not to lose any more taxpayers'money?

You're talking about the banks here right?

How can a bank lose money operating a credit-only basic account in a society where 98% of money is debt money and many organisations now insist on non-cash payments for basic services?

You've taken the bait hook line and sinker I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
Spot on Injin, the fact that bankruptcy awaits everyone seems to escape most people. For those who think they are safe because they are currently solvent, guess what it is a temporary situation. Why, your government has put every citizen into debt for such a large amount that it will never be paid off, you, as a taxpayer are heading towards bankruptcy.

You may even get there quicker if you fall ill, lose your job, or even divorce. Guess what, it's not only other people that go bankrupt.

Borrowing money from a bank isn't the same as borrowing it from a mate, your mate loses some purchasing power whilst you have their money. But banks, and this is the clever bit, don't lend you any money, and that is because they have none. They merely acknowledge the existence of your debt.

Denying someone basic banking in this current socio-economic situation is the modern equivalent of being banished from the village.

there is a war on - perhaps we could draft them and send them off to afghanistan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
Why bother? you're obviously in the "hang 'em" camp, I have more important things to be doing today than waste my time arguing with the internet.

err -refusing banking services based on inability to trust the individual is hardly hanging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

In 2002, I had an dispute with Natwest over some charges on my account, interest was added and what started as a managable charged turn into one of those Natwest Style Pig F4ck. I had my credit file tarnished and received a CCJ, which I never did pay.

I went to every bank to open an account and the only the Nationwide would open it, but with no debit card or cheque book.

These days services are available from Credecard that give you a debit card linked to a Natwest account and is opened instantly with no bank visit, no credit check and most important no refusals.

You just have to know where to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
no, the feeling of shame is perpetrated due to taking money from peoploe and never paying it back. This is not far off stealing.

they ARE effectively criminals? what's wrong with this?

A bit harsh. Not every bankrupt is a failed BTLer or a scammer. Some may even be very good businessmen who have been unlucky.

Am I right in understanding that bankruptcy is less of an issue in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
err -refusing banking services based on inability to trust the individual is hardly hanging.

they arent offering services...just somewhere to park their money.

If a monopoly wants to handle the resource over all others, then it is duty bound to handle the resource for all.

it doesnt have to lend....but it does need to honour requests for payment that are legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

Answers to Red Karma and Bloo Loo - I'm considering the earlier poster's point that banks CAN be forced to pay the receiver.

I'd agree more with you (Bloo Loo especially) if I thought this was not the case. And even more so if a govt organisation (The Post Office) didn't already exist to provide basic social financial services. Why should the taxpayer fork out twice over to provide this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416
A bit harsh. Not every bankrupt is a failed BTLer or a scammer. Some may even be very good businessmen who have been unlucky.

thsat's a fair point - most of them, I bet, are scammers or feckless tho. Again services DO exist for these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

Banks are businesses.

Why would they offer account on which they wont be able to levy charges?

They aren't a f*cking charity.

On top of that, if I was a bank, I wouldn't offer an account to anyone who had EVER been declared bankrupt.

People who go bankrupt get discharged free and clear too easily and too quickly.

Soeone who went bankrupt and was free and clear after a year is WAAAAAAY more likely to do it again as they know how easy a ride they'll get and know how to survive bankrupcy, probably even having an idea of how to come out of bankrupcy with more next time. (Gold coins anyone?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
they arent offering services...just somewhere to park their money.

the point is it may not legally be THEIR money, and irrespective, it still is a service, albeit a simple one.

If a monopoly wants to handle the resource over all others, then it is duty bound to handle the resource for all.

it doesnt have to lend....but it does need to honour requests for payment that are legitimate.

can you clarify these 2 lines, not sure I understand you, honestly????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420
Answers to Red Karma and Bloo Loo - I'm considering the earlier poster's point that banks CAN be forced to pay the receiver.

I'd agree more with you (Bloo Loo especially) if I thought this was not the case. And even more so if a govt organisation (The Post Office) didn't already exist to provide basic social financial services. Why should the taxpayer fork out twice over to provide this?

the receiver can only take funds that are in place.

the bank need not set up DDs and SOs.

and quite where the taxpayer comes into this I am not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
the receiver can only take funds that are in place.

the bank need not set up DDs and SOs.

or cash withdrawals?

and quite where the taxpayer comes into this I am not sure.

I have mixed up the point with Red Karma's argument re: nationalised/bailed-out banks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
Looks like an attempt to shore up bankruptsy's image as a bad thing to do. Maybe they can see a lot more of them coming down the pipe and wish to discourage the option?

Agreed. NuLab has effectively turned bankruptcy into a 'get out of jail' card, and the banks are saying that they aren't going to play that game.

But I suspect that another aspect to this is that an account which typically has a low residual balance and a high volume of low-value transactions will cost a bank money rather than make any. Therefore, the banks are keen to keep the number of 'basic' accounts they operate down to the bare minimum needed to satisfy political expediency. Excluding bankrupts is one ostensibly legitimate way to achieve this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
the point is it may not legally be THEIR money, and irrespective, it still is a service, albeit a simple one.

can you clarify these 2 lines, not sure I understand you, honestly????

course its their money!..bank accounts that were in place at the time of the Bankruptcy were frozen at the time...money in those accounts belong to the OR.

new money earned belongs to the bankrupt...although the OR can get an EXCESS of earnings over requirements paid over to the creditors.

not sure where the bank figures in any of this.

If they want the monopoly of handling FIAT, then they must allow it for all. ( moneylaunders excepted...but that is another issue)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
If they want the monopoly of handling FIAT, then they must allow it for all. ( moneylaunders excepted...but that is another issue)

the industry as a whole DO allow it for all - as we said, Post Office, Co-Op and Barclays DO provide these services to all.

I woulod agree that some social banking provision is necessary, even for the reason you cite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
most of them, I bet, are scammers or feckless

Ooooh, science

People who go bankrupt get discharged free and clear too easily and too quickly.

Soeone who went bankrupt and was free and clear after a year is WAAAAAAY more likely to do it again as they know how easy a ride they'll get and know how to survive bankrupcy, probably even having an idea of how to come out of bankrupcy with more next time. (Gold coins anyone?)

More drivel

The penalties for a second bankruptcy are very severe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information