Banks cancelling overdrafts

rb10

pedro123456 wrote: »

Hands up all those who took out overdraft facilities who were "actually told" that the said overdraft "was intended for short term use" as Shelf Stacker appears to imply.

Hands up who all who.....were "actually told" that.....the overdraft was "legally noted as being repayable on demand at any time"........again as implied by shelfstacker.

If you wern't "actually told" these two things you cant put your hands up.......

It's in the T&Cs, and when you opened the account you signed a piece of paper to confirm that you had read and understood the contents of them. In my view, that constitutes being 'actually told'.

Skeenfleent

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Oh goody, another opportunity for people to whinge that a line of credit that was intended for short term use, that they were constantly up to or well into the limit of and was always billed and legally noted as being repayable on demand at any time, was taken away from them. As if MSE didn't have enough.

Overdraft misuse is a big problem, and one of the reasons we're in so much deep sh*t at the moment imho.

OK, I'll whinge about Merton bloody council again instead - the amount that they under-paid me by (on a technicality, not because I didn't qualify for the period concerned) happens to be exactly the same as I'm overdrawn by constantly (when my ex flat-mate was spending his housing benefit on beer whilst working and not informing them, which goes unpunished). I'm ill, so didn't have the strength to challenge their decision... but the fact that I haven't been able to replace the money says a lot. I'm now forced to get a job to the detriment of my health as I can't live with this debt hanging over me... good benefits system for scroungers, of course...

Lokolo

Skeenfleent wrote: »

OK, I'll whinge about Merton bloody council again instead - the amount that they under-paid me by (on a technicality, not because I didn't qualify for the period concerned) happens to be exactly the same as I'm overdrawn by constantly (when my ex flat-mate was spending his housing benefit on beer whilst working and not informing them, which goes unpunished). I'm ill, so didn't have the strength to challenge their decision... but the fact that I haven't been able to replace the money says a lot. I'm now forced to get a job to the detriment of my health as I can't live with this debt hanging over me... good benefits system for scroungers, of course...

Can't blame the banks because benefits are ****ed in this country. Vote Labour out...?

pedro123456

thanks rb.........."It's in the T&Cs, and when you opened the account you signed a piece of paper to confirm that you had read and understood the contents of them. In my view, that constitutes being 'actually told'........

"In my view, that constitutes being 'actually told" what's your veiw got to do with anything?.........all banks finacial institutions have T&C.............they are personal get out clauses and used to intimidate and threaten ppl................and just because you signed to agree with them that shouldn't be infered that you undestand and or agree with them. furthermore 10/10 times IF you dont agree these T&C, " the hiden bank loop holes" your claim and or other dealings with the bank stop............bandits the lot of them

Their abusive power and positions should be challenged in a court of law........just like the illegal bank charges they have robbed us for over years (and still continue to do)......despite court rulings.........the law says one thing......the finacial institutions take little notice and please themselves.

and we thought most criminals were in jail.....as if ..............they run banks!!!

Ta Pete

ShelfStacker_3

all banks finacial institutions have T&C.............they are personal get out clauses and used to intimidate and threaten ppl................and just because you signed to agree with them that shouldn't be infered that you undestand and or agree with them

You do realise that if you say that signing terms and conditions doesn't mean you necessarily agree to them, or even understand them, you've essentially made every single contract ever completely worthless? Why should you not be held to the terms of a contract which you signed?

I would point out, also, that you are under no requirement to sign away anything. Bank terms and conditions are what are known as contracts of adhesion (i.e. you can take it or leave it). If you don't want to sign, don't bloody sign.

Justamum

It does seem that the banks are trying to cover up their complete incompetence and greed over the past few years by penalising those who are really struggling.

pedro123456

Stacker......"You do realise that if you say that signing terms and conditions doesn't mean you necessarily agree to them, or even understand them, you've essentially made every single contract ever completely worthless"....I wish........

No what I believe is the Banks/insurance companies use terms and conditions as an weapon to intimidate and to gain finacial power over the paying and often gullible/ vulnerable customer, and in doing so....make loads of money to employ barristers and the like to close ever loop hole possible.

With these profits the Finacial Institues make from the public they also pay individuals who profess to care, when in actual fact these individuals are ofter highly paid bank staff (occasionally well educated, but not always)

By the way..........you never did say how you became a ShelfStacker for the bank.

ps........stop swearing it's very un proffesional, you work for a bank, swearing shopuld be illegal, just like them bank charges you are still charging....

take a seat......and knock if you cant go.

Ta Pete

*MF*

*MF* wrote:

What is responsible lending - according to the Banks themselves?

Extract from Banking Code:

Responsible lending is providing credit, based on background checks and professional judgement, to people who can accommodate regular repayments without getting into financial difficulty.

Does the demand for the immediate repayment of an overdraft match the Banks' own code?

- in that it is open to the Bank to request that the overdraft is repaid by regular payments which can be accomodated without getting into financial difficulty

- the very basis upon which they claim responsible lending should be based.

It would assist in the development of any comments I may wish to put forward, if either you quoted me in full, or indicated that you had chosen to edit my comments - many thanks!

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Well considering an overdraft should be viewed as short term (i.e. less than a month) lending, rather than something that's used 30+ days out of every 31, then either the bank has been negligent in giving excessive credit that cannot be repaid in such a short term, or they should be offering a longer term loan with the removal of the overdraft.

Again, I would quote from the Banking Code:

The advantages of an overdraft facility includes:

An overdraft is a simple and flexible way of financing changing cashflow requirements

You only pay interest on the amount you are overdrawn each day

The disadvantages of an overdraft facility includes:

In principle, the bank can demand repayment at any time, although some banks do offer 'committed' facilities. Committed overdrafts provide more peace of mind over the standard overdraft as they are overdrafts the bank cannot demand back at any time.

My point remains - the Banks either believe in responsible lending, as they claim, or they do not?

Their criteria for such, was in my first post, thus why I wish it to appear unedited. It clearly states that :

Responsible lending is providing credit, based on background checks and professional judgement, to people who can accommodate regular repayments without getting into financial difficulty.

Am I wrong in questioning therefore, that the granting of an "overdraft" as the form of credit - precisely because of its very nature, namely the immediate repayment on demand- fails that test of responsible lendng - not in my words, but in the words of the Banks themselves?

Should credit be offered to anyone, credit for which an immediate demand for repayment can be made, unless it is clear that those to whom such credit is given are able to meet that criteria at all and any time?

If that criteria cannot be met at all times, then you are correct - the bank have entered into the granting of a facility which is not in anyone's interest, theirs or the customers.

That then begs the question as to who might bear the heavier responsibility for that being the case, and for it being as widespread as I suspect it may be across the UK.

pedro123456

oh.......and while im on one ............T&C............please please point to any part of any banks T&C that in any way help and protect the purchaser, there isnt one.

Fact 1......T&C are a loop hole to by used by the IC's as and when it see's fit.

Fact 2 the T&C (although agreed by both parties seller and purchaser) are not worded to help and or protect the buyer, they are in favour and heavily weighted to look after the interest of the sellers (Robbing Bank of Scotland etc).....my opinion of course.

If T&C were set down and discused and arrived at by independent relevent bodies then fair enough they would form a part of a contract, both fairly and legally.

However they dont T&C are whatever the banks wish to make them.............they ought to be called Loopholes and Hurdles not T&C.

Mind you my experience is even when bodies meet and agree guidelines the Finacial institutes ignore them and please themselves.

ta again.Pete.

*MF*

ShelfStacker wrote: »

You do realise that if you say that signing terms and conditions doesn't mean you necessarily agree to them, or even understand them, you've essentially made every single contract ever completely worthless? Why should you not be held to the terms of a contract which you signed?

I would point out, also, that you are under no requirement to sign away anything. Bank terms and conditions are what are known as contracts of adhesion (i.e. you can take it or leave it). If you don't want to sign, don't bloody sign.

Were that entirely true, (ie., were the T&C's not only of Banks, but other financial intitutions) not subject to any form of challenge - then we should disband the FSA, the FOS and the OFT ... they can be not only questioned, but challenged, and are being.