We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

MSE News: Number 10 to stop banks dipping into your account?

Options
135

Comments

  • MarkyMarkD
    Options
    No, actually you'll find the bank make the decision to make you overdrawn. Its the same if they refuse it.

    Ok, i'll put it to you in an 'honest joe' way for ease: I change from Virgin Media to BT. I instruct my bank to cancel the Virgin DD. I then set-up the BT DD. I only use this account for the one DD and so transfer enough in each month without looking at the account.

    I forget about things....... a year later I get a letter saying i'm £2580 o/d - why? Impossible, I did not have an overdraft. I question this. The bank, in their wisdom tell me that they paid a Virgin DD as well a BT one, I cancelled that DD so why? The bank 'thought' they were doing me a favour - they weren't.

    As a result the bank incorrectly made me go overdrawn, they then charged me for the privilege of their generosity and before you know it, i've got a default, they have nicked my savings and left me to fight something a year old.....

    makes sense right? Fair yea? The banks are right yea? Come on mate, smell the coffee :D:D

    edit; not having a dig, just saying you've missed the point slightly :D

    I don't understand the relevance of your example. In that case, you gave a clear instruction to the bank and they ignored it. That is a mistake, not a case where they have made a judgement that it is doing you a favour to have paid the DD.

    In those circumstances, though, Virgin would also be at fault for collecting money when your agreement with them had ended, but in no circumstance can I see what that has to do with banks deducting charges - or offsetting debts - against your account.
  • never-in-doubt
    Options
    MarkyMarkD wrote: »
    I don't understand the relevance of your example. In that case, you gave a clear instruction to the bank and they ignored it. That is a mistake, not a case where they have made a judgement that it is doing you a favour to have paid the DD.

    In those circumstances, though, Virgin would also be at fault for collecting money when your agreement with them had ended, but in no circumstance can I see what that has to do with banks deducting charges - or offsetting debts - against your account.

    Try reading again mate, the context cannot be specific cos i'm generalising so of course the relevance will seem odd but the principles remain in place that the bank is dipping in without the facts, i.e. they have the facility to do it! Thats what I am saying is wrong :confused:
    :o 2010 - year of the troll :o

    Niddy - Over & Out :wave:
  • MarkyMarkD
    Options
    No bank would intentionally do what you are saying. That is why your comparison is irrelevant.
  • never-in-doubt
    Options
    MarkyMarkD wrote: »
    No bank would intentionally do what you are saying. That is why your comparison is irrelevant.

    But they do, have and I have proof therefore I used that exact notion! :confused:

    I did say i'm not trying to pick fault with your opinion, but for the same respect you're missing what i'm trying to say mate.....
    :o 2010 - year of the troll :o

    Niddy - Over & Out :wave:
  • Nathan_Spleen
    Options
    I think the issue is a competition issue.

    In the loan business banks have a very real advantage over stand-alone loan companies. To a large extent the price of loans are based on the element of risk and unlike loan companies, banks often lend to consumers who have other products which are used to mitigate that risk by having access to current accounts and the right of set off. And this skews the market to the benefit of banks and to detriment of loan companies and therefore consumers.
  • MarkyMarkD
    MarkyMarkD Posts: 9,912 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    But they do, have and I have proof therefore I used that exact notion! :confused:

    I did say i'm not trying to pick fault with your opinion, but for the same respect you're missing what i'm trying to say mate.....
    Just because they made a mistake in your case doesn't mean that banks intentionally, as a matter of course, do what you are suggesting.
  • never-in-doubt
    Options
    MarkyMarkD wrote: »
    Just because they made a mistake in your case doesn't mean that banks intentionally, as a matter of course, do what you are suggesting.

    Its widespread lol.... you're rather blinkered at the mo mate :confused:

    Do us a favour and look through google for a bit.... But I used that as an example and you're clinging to it, open your mind and amend the context to suit your own needs, the banks are wrong - accept it!
    :o 2010 - year of the troll :o

    Niddy - Over & Out :wave:
  • Sol00
    Sol00 Posts: 1,230 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    jambosans wrote: »
    I agree fully with the sentiments that disputed debts, priority debts, etc should not be ignored by the banks and therefore tighter controls should be put in place.

    My comment was more aimed towards a genuine debt. In those circumstances I see no reason why a bank cannot offset the funds within their own business to pay off the debt. As I've previously commented, offsetting isn't the first thing a bank will do when arrears have begun. If the customer makes no attempt to arrange repayment or get in contact with the bank I do not see an issue with offsetting credit funds to pay a debit balance.

    I agree, but the point is the bank should notify the customer beforehand to give them a chance to sort their finances out. Simply because the bank own the account and the customers' money is in there does not give them the authority to dip into the account as and when suits them.
  • Nathan_Spleen
    Options
    MarkyMarkD wrote: »
    No bank would intentionally do what you are saying. That is why your comparison is irrelevant.

    But he didn't say they would do it intentionally and as such doesn't invalidate his example.

    It is this kind of transparent misrepresentation that is responsible for the current social status of banks in humanity that currently hovers somewhere between bottom-feeding fish and syphilitic spotted hyenas.
  • never-in-doubt
    Options
    I'll add another example, to highlight the problem in a neutral context.... to satisfy the needs of others (mentioning no names lol)...

    I have a Tesco CC, I run up £20k of debt and then stop paying. However, I still shop at Tesco and spend quite a lot (I work in catering). I therefore go to my Tesco Local (i.e. limited local staff who know me) and do my shop as usual. Clubcard statement arrives and says I have £30 in vouchers, but they were taken to repay my CC debt.

    Is this right? Is it utilising RoSo rules (or is it theft?)

    or

    Same as above, but when I go to pay for my shopping the staff add more to my card, so say I spent £100, they run £300 through my card and take the £200 to pay my last months CC arrears.

    Is this right? Is it utilising RoSo rules (or is it theft?)

    I think you can see no matter what context this is put in, it will always flash bright red as being wrong!
    :o 2010 - year of the troll :o

    Niddy - Over & Out :wave:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 344.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 610.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.8K Life & Family
  • 249.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards