Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

wouldnt it be interesting if them forceably closing your account ended with you blacklisted. If banks stood together they could easily do it.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

wouldnt it be interesting if them forceably closing your account ended with you blacklisted. If banks stood together they could easily do it.

:ph34r:

Exactly, it could be really nasty - especially now the Post Office has stopped. It could be worse than being a bankrupt! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, it could be really nasty - especially now the Post Office has stopped. It could be worse than being a bankrupt! :ph34r:

If the punters won the case against the bank fair and square, don't reckon the banks will get away with summarily dismissing them. Just wait until someone sues the bank for the inconvenience of closing their account.

:lol: good

Bet they aint the last to do that either! No so f*ckin clever now ey :lol:

Probably not - who's clever now?

Fair enough, they are businesses. If you are a barman, you don't want rowdy customers.

The question is will any other bank give them an account? :ph34r:

Hrm, we need these muppets to fund free banking. I have a magic device that makes me immume to such bank charges, it's called a positive balance.

Jesus. You sound like a bunch of bankers......or did I misspell

Edited by geneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

If the punters won the case against the bank fair and square, don't reckon the banks will get away with summarily dismissing them. Just wait until someone sues the bank for the inconvenience of closing their account.

You are right, the banks lost, that doesn't mean they can't take revenge. Still as someone said before, if it wasn't for these people I would have to pay for a current account, just like in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we trundle towards a cashless economy (for many) with the spread of internet accounts any bank actively closing accounts (ones which presumably they still make money on) must be hatstand.

I suspect many will quite happily stick two fingers up to UK banks anyway. Only a matter of time beofre there is some serious competition for the current mob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the channel 4 news site Alliance and Lester say their penalty schemes are transparent.

"The group offers people a £10 buffer zone if they overdraw without authorisation or breach their agreed limit. But on the second day they are charged £25, followed by another £25 if still overdrawn on the fifth day with charges capped at £50 a month.

On top of this they will pay £25 for every item that is paid from their account, such as cheques or direct debits, while they are in unauthorised overdraft and £34 for any payments that bounce"

Transparent maybe, but bollix.

So if you go fifty pence overdrawn, if you don't find out and hand it in, cash, the next day (cos cheques and electronic transactions take 5 working days dontcha know) suddenly your in spiraling debt. They pray on the poor.

F**k the banks. F**k them up their stupid ar**s.

Edited by geneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. You sound like a bunch of bankers......or did I misspell

Maybe I'm under no illusions, the rules are quite clear, step one foot out of line and the banks will whack you, it's not nice but the answers are quite clear, don't get yourself in that position to begin with or bank elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm, we need these muppets to fund free banking. I have a magic device that makes me immume to such bank charges, it's called a positive balance.

:lol: quite! Although an even easier solution would be just to stop people from withdrawing cash or making payments beyond the agreed limit. The current system is quite cunning, but it is difficult to describe it as unfair.

Another one in the eye for creditors and savers? The current sympathetic coverage afforded to debtors does not fill me with much optimism for the eventual solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: quite! Although an even easier solution would be just to stop people from withdrawing cash or making payments beyond the agreed limit. The current system is quite cunning, but it is difficult to describe it as unfair.

No more cunning than those without any form of self-control ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unilateral Termination Terms

Terms which allow the supplier to unilaterally terminate all or part of the contract may be unfair. Terms which allow termination on an arbitrary basis will be always be difficult to justify. Terms which state that the contract may be terminated in the event of a material breach of contract may be fair. For example the OFT upheld a clause which allowed a canal boat operator to unilaterally refuse to release a boat where the renter was an unsuitable person. Unsuitability could include drunkenness and inability to operate the boat or for general safety reasons. If this type of term is used then an illustrative list of good reasons for refusal to perform should be included.

The banks may find themselves being sued for closing accounts.

Link

Stephen Hone

Most banks will always leave the option to close your account in there contracts, and I doubt if any court would find that unfair, but I would love to be proven wrong.

To be honest when I sued Abbey National I expected them to close my account, it just so happens they did so at Christmas, so I got even more media coverage for that.

However even after all the media attention my case received I walked into another bank and opened a new account, so all I say is don’t worry if the close your account you soon get another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there people who were claiming back 1000s of charges? That'd mean they were habitually bad at looking after their finances.

If you're a serial offender why shouldn't they charge you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the customers had this coming to them. They were right in taking the bank to court as I would agree the charges are excessive and unfair but they can't demand to be a customer. I've almost been stitched by the bank though and think that there behaviour can be despicable. When I was a student the bank stopped a check that was cashed late that would have made me go over my overdraft limit by £7. They then charged me £15 for the privalage of them stopping it and then another £15 for the first £15 making me overdrawn. Since this was just before I graduated and I had a job waiting and I complained alot they agreed to waive the charges but I do think the banks over charge for some simple things and it's not as if you have a choice in todays society. 2.5% to pay for an electronic sales system is another one that annoys me. That in my mind seems like daylight robbery however I don't actually know how much the switch/maestro system costs banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the customers had this coming to them. They were right in taking the bank to court as I would agree the charges are excessive and unfair but they can't demand to be a customer. I've almost been stitched by the bank though and think that there behaviour can be despicable. When I was a student the bank stopped a check that was cashed late that would have made me go over my overdraft limit by £7. They then charged me £15 for the privalage of them stopping it and then another £15 for the first £15 making me overdrawn. Since this was just before I graduated and I had a job waiting and I complained alot they agreed to waive the charges but I do think the banks over charge for some simple things and it's not as if you have a choice in todays society. 2.5% to pay for an electronic sales system is another one that annoys me. That in my mind seems like daylight robbery however I don't actually know how much the switch/maestro system costs banks.

Not a lot, most merchant service providers charge 20p to 40p to a retailer for each debit card transaction, and its much cheaper than printing cheques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the punters won the case against the bank fair and square, don't reckon the banks will get away with summarily dismissing them.

Oh yes they will!

There is no way that any commercial organisation can be forced to do business with anyone - especially when one side refuses to agree to the terms of trade. It's necessary, though, for the banks to give a customer reasonable time to make other banking arrangements; one calendar month seems more than sufficient for a private customer.

Can you imagine what an enforced relationship between a bank and a non-welcome customer would be like? What if the customer again helps himself to an unauthorised overdraft i.e. the bank is forced to lend money to a person they don't trust? They would block his cards, make sure that no cheque books are issued, cancel all standing orders and direct debits. The only way the customer could get at his cash is to present himself at the bank branch where his account is held. His signature and balance would be checked every time and then he'd be given his money. He might as well have a savings account somewhere without any other facilties.

And, how d'you think the bank would answer a standard credit check question like 'Do you consider Mr X good for his financial committments?' They would say something polite like 'We regret we cannot speak for this type of committment.' which everyone in the trade knows means 'Don't touch him with a ...king bargepole'.

The only mistake that the banks made was not to dump these time-wasters when they first messed them about.

Tomorrow, I'm going into Woollies and fill a huge bag full of Pick 'n Mix. I'll pay for them, take them home and eat them. Then I'll sue Woollies for making a profit on the deal - they should have only covered their costs! Don't make me laugh!

This isn't spite on the part of the banks, it's common sense. You can't go into a business relationship without knowing what the final terms will be. That would be madness.

(No, I'm not a .anker.)

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Fair enough. Just like if my tenants openly don't accept my terms, I will ask them to leave.

Only after months of dragging them through the courts though. :)

You've not been posting much recently, whatcha been up to?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.