LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRightOriginally Posted by TheAnimus
.
Wrong.
Right
Wrong
Here and I was being niceLook, you ain't gettin' no more info. The facts shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of a good ol' sob story.
Or at least, objective
this was when i was young and....very stupid with money! ive yet to go into debt again and currently debt free
i was 18 when it had happened and on benifits (which i hated btw)
Not that im running away from banks santa, as im not ive done it with lloyds that was there own problem, i tried on countless accasions to try and resolve it, yet they refused to help me. and yes i did write to them in a polite manner (with much better grammar back then before the "txt" i use came into play so much XD)
It was so small that mine wouldn't fit into it
Well done razer...thank you for correctly interpreting the harmless nature of my comment and not going off on one. Everyone has trouble managing money (even George Osborne) and there is no crime in being young and carefree. Been there, got the badge.this was when i was young and....very stupid with money! ive yet to go into debt again and currently debt free
i was 18 when it had happened and on benifits (which i hated btw)
Not that im running away from banks santa, as im not ive done it with lloyds that was there own problem, i tried on countless accasions to try and resolve it, yet they refused to help me. and yes i did write to them in a polite manner (with much better grammar back then before the "txt" i use came into play so much XD)
If a bit of tough love helps someone else to avoid the same traps, well, I don't mind the odd internet drubbing.
razer121 (17-08-2011)
Shame Gordon Brown wasn't a member of HEXUS...
(Flashback 3 years...)
Ah well, we'll never know!Dear HEXUS,
I have had a bit of bother managing the nation's finances, basically I sold off a lot of gold reserves when gold was at its lowest, and bought Euros when they were at their highest.
But I also created a de-regulated banking system for the banks to place fast and loose with bad debt, and then pledged lots of government money (taken from the taxpayer) to bail them out. And a whole lot more financial mismanagement, borrowing money I couldn't pay back.
What should I do?
Yours aye,
Gordon
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Not in the sense you mean. My point all along wasn't about paying or not paying, but about whether the charges were fair or not. And, I stand by the view that they are not. And I stand by the point that just accepting them to avoid stress is lousy advice, and that pushing, probably by the ombudsman route, is a better bet.You got there in the end.
Who knows? Situations change. It's quite possible, for instance, to already have a fancy rig, then lose your job. Or to need a powerful machine and a fast connection for work purposes, but to still be hard up against it.
And no, I make no claim for my opinion being the best advice. Merely that writing off several hundred pounds of charges in a situation like this is the best advice "of the year" is completely wrong, in my view. I actually said I thought the best advice as dodgybob's.
Oh, and I note a bit of hyperbole creeping in there. We were talking about best (or worst) advice of the week. It seems to have escalated to yearly advice.
Okay, that nicely let's Santa off the "worst advice" hook. By quite a margin, IMHO.
Santa, I revise my original estimate to worst advice of the thread, and qualify it with a "so far". You've just been trumped. Instead of Robscure ending up £300-ish down, he'd be risking a small claims case, and a messed up credit record, perhaps as well as ending up £300 (plus costs) down.
It wouldn't go to small claims court. Any Judge with 2 beans to rub together will be wondering why Llyods stole £360 from the account, and they know it.
But he should still deal with them directly, before it gets to that point. And then ditch them.
Well, I'm sure Rob will let us know if your advice comes up trumps (for him) leaving the taxpayer (everyone else) footing the bill for his misdemeanour.
Larf, stoppit. Rob has already said he bought the rig to 'spoil' himself. When we wanted to spoil ourselves back in the day, we bought food.Who knows? Situations change. It's quite possible, for instance, to already have a fancy rig, then lose your job. Or to need a powerful machine and a fast connection for work purposes, but to still be hard up against it.
Ouch, I won't be able to sit down for a week now.
its very hard to make any personal judgement santa but if you read what rob said earlier, he bought the rig in 2009 with a payout from his job... Im sorry but 2 years is a heck of a long time, considering his rig probably cost him £700 or something, if he spoilt himself with food for the the next 2 years instead of buying the pc that would have been £30 a month really... how does buying excess food really help, atleast the computer has some return from it, 2 years on and its still going strong and being used whereas the food would have been eaten.
Normally your posts are pretty good, i just think maybe your looking at this with tunnel vision and not taking into other factors.
From what I have read its basically like this... Rob missed one DD, went into overdraft (crap happens) but to correct it he then added £60, which should have been enough (obviously the £85 charge? wasnt taken into proper account), as it didnt cover the new charge then the bank put him back into the overdraft and continued to add more charges as he couldnt pay, as he thought it was settled (hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it?) he didnt check for awhile.
The simple fact is that the extra charges the bank put on his account put him into red again, its just an endless cycle which sounds like even if he noticed couldnt afford!. From my own experience about 9 years ago with natwest... i had done a microtransaction for a game and via paypal, paypal emailed saying it went through fine, 2 weeks later got a "failed transaction" email from paypal... 2 weeks was along time lol, checked and i was £300 in debt.... over a 10p miscalculation, yes 10p! the transaction was like 2.50 and i had £2.40 now i was only 10 years old so safe to say it was an error on my part and would never happen again. Over those 2 weeks paypal had made like 10 or so attempts to get the money without telling me (after saying it was a success), so each transaction as my account was missing the money natwest were adding £35 charge to my account, eventually me and my parents got natwest to waive the fee however they were slow to reimburse me (we had also added £30 in to ensure no future issue.) so before they embursed me paypal had tried another stupid amount of times, went to over -£600, natwest added the original fee back so it went back to -£300 but still indebt because they took to long... again more phone calls and they threatened to black list me because of my incompetence or something
I have only just gone into my student account overdraft (which is 0%) due to having to lend family and friends a good chunk of money, have £2000 of savings but id rather not take it out of my isa as i want to keep it going for the future, but again its all about hindsight, if i never had that issue i probably wouldnt treat my finances as well as i do now, im very strict on how i manage it, even use a spreadsheet now for purchases to ensure i know where what is coming from, i may buy a bit to much but i always ensure my finances are solid enough to compensate that.
but back to the main topic... i wouldnt pay the £300 id dispute it to the bitter end, if natwest didnt refund me id either be taking paypal or natwest as best i could since it was natwest who let the dd go through (said my account couldnt have dd as it was a childs type account) and paypal who failed to notify me in a reasonable time for a failed transaction. I dont see how your bank could get away with an £85 charge! Atleast natwest is like £18 now, at the time they said yeah it was a bit much and would be changing it in the future (and they did)... some banks are just to unfair, however you did sign up to that, as a last resort just pay up and switch banks, personally natwest was good to waive it for me so id say they are solid.
Hopefully you get it sorted!.
Hm...your right i didnt even relise what i had said untill you pointed it out...that is bad advice!
But still dispute it to the end
It was so small that mine wouldn't fit into it
Well, there is precedent for that!!
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Thanks. But don't you think your comments are tunnelled by your own unfortunate experience (which YOU have never allowed to happen again)?
Look, this is getting circuitous now. It remains that I think the banks have to have rules, that they have to tell us what they are and that by opening an account we agree to abide by those rules. Other posters feel that if the rules they have signed up to are invoked they somehow become unfair in certain circumstances.
Why should the bank be expected to consider and determine the merits of each case? What is the impact of say 4-5-600,000 account holders going overdrawn by 10p? I'd prefer they get on with managing my account efficiently rather than spend time pussyfooting around the rule breakers and the only way to do that is to have a penalty structure. The bank applies that structure dispassionately because it has a duty to customers who obey the rules.
The issue, as TheAnimus correctly said, is one of personal responsibility. Your mum must have told you that if you look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. Paying attention to detail in finance is important. This is why I'm not joining the rallying call of Rob being 'wronged'.
I guess you guys will have to learn the hard way.
Dog with a bone day?
Well, if he takes your advice, the best he can hope for is to be hundreds of pounds out of pocket. If he takes my suggestion, the worst he can hope for is to be those same hundreds out of pocket, and the best is that he gets much of it back. In terms of advice to Robscure, I know which I think is better for him, and that's to protest at getting thoroughly done over by his bank, and perhaps avoid it.
And, the taxpayer is not out of pocket at all, because I've said time and again that a reasonable charge would cover interest and any admin costs. So the taxpayer would not be out of pocket, other than forgoing excessive profiteering from a small mistake.
If you go to court and win, the banks will have to "abide by rules", because laws trump their contract. If you complain to the ombudsman and win, it will be because the bank didn't abide by rules. The rules a bank, or for that matter, any other company, choose to put in their contracts are NOT the final arbiter of what goes. Regulators and courts are.
So even if we're going by the "rules rule" logic, it's still the best advice to send the case to an independent arbitrator, not to let the people with a vested interest, the bank, be judge and jury.
And this surprises you? I'd have thought that that was close to the definition of a forum debate, and it's certainly a critical element of one.
I thought forum debates went like this :-
1) Someone says something.
2) And someone else disagrees.
It doesn't really matter what the initial assertion was, someone will disagree, even if it was "the centre of the Sun is hot". Someone will probably say that hot isn't enough and it's actually super-hot. Someone else will point out the obscure situation in which it might be cold (dead star, and the Sun either not ours, in billions of years in the future).
3) Someone then has a side-dispute about the exact definition of hot.
4) Someone gets hot under the collar.
5) Go to point 1).
Isn't that how it works? Or have I been getting it wrong all these years?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
