Lloyds TSB: Another Victory for the Whingers

westernpromise

alexjohnson wrote:

And this is supposed to be a good thing? Makes my blood boil.

I don't see why...many posters to these threads have argued in effect that any charging structure is acceptable to them, provided it is stated in advance. In some cases people have explicitly said that they don't pay charges themselves so any charge is OK because it will only evr be levied on other people.

How is this any different? You bank has told you that it intends to make the service worse for you by making its money out of you in future instead of other people. You should be fine with that. If you can't handle money properly...don't deserve a bank account...they should all go to jail...etc....

Sorry but I have exactly as much sympathy as the self-righteous brigade have for other people.

westernpromise

bargains83 wrote:

Without wanting to sound repetitive, you have to remember when you opened that account you would have recieved a booklet which said if you overdraw you would be charged £30 a day. When you signed the agreement and subsequently credited the account you agreed to these terms.

Which are unenforceable at common law. If you agreed to supply me with children and I agreed to supply you with hard drugs, if I then broke my side of the bargain, you'd have no remedy in law because our agreement is fundamentally unenforceable.

These charges are not in place for a laugh, they are fines

That's exactly what makes them unenforceable. They are indeed fines, far in excess of what the breach of contract actually costs. They thus provide a profit stream, which is used by the bank to cross-subsidise you. That cross-subsidy is being withdrawn, and as a result, your bank is going to start charging you what your bank usage actually costs you.

What people don't realise is the money to pay for things like this doesn't come out of some magic pot, its a major contributer to rises in prices/interest/charges.

What people apparently don't realise is that the money to pay these illegal fines in the first place doesn't come out of any magic pot either.

dchurch24

The_Boss wrote:

I personally dont have a problem with a bank. It seems that the only people that do are the ones that cant be arsed with terms and conditions. Suddenly, because THEY are to blame for bad account management, the banks become evil nasty people. Yet us guys dont have a problem. Funny that.

I think you'll find that it's the banks that "cant be arsed" with terms and conditions. If they had been 'arsed' in the first place then they would have been informed by their lawyers that punitive measures for breach of contracts are unlawful. If they were made aware and continued anyway, then they have commited theft. Pure and simple. To condone theft, simply because you have avoided being the victim of such theft is very '1984' of you. Now be a good citizen and go and grass someone up for smoking in a public place (The 0800 number to do this with is due to appear on the Govt.'s govdirect website when the smoking ban comes in, I'm sure you'll be very happy to learn).

By your token, Rumpelstiltskin was an OK kind of guy, because he had a contract in place to take the queens first born. Because it didn't happen to you, you don't have a problem with children being taken from their rightful mother??

Sadly, and no offence meant, but I doubt if you will be able to comprehend the analogy if you can't grasp the fact and reasons as to why what the banks are doing is outside of the law.

Today it has been reported that a 21 year old has hung himself because of a £1200 debt that was caused entirely by charges. That's ok is it? Do you not think that if he had the £1200 he would have paid it?

I'm not trying to put too much of a meloncholy taint on it, but do you really think that the banks doing what they are doing, despite it's unlawfulness, is ok, just because YOU have never had a problem?

What about the fact that banks are charging small business a fortune (more than any other country in the EU) - this makes a lot of them fold within a year. How could we compete with Euro business? But, presumably, if you don't run a small business, then you don't get charged, so therefore, that, again, is ok.

Or the fact that the banks charge a small fortune for insurances - a lot of the time without even informing you (despite getting wrapped on the knuckles, they ARE STILL doing this) - that will never pay out. I suppose that by the same token, you have never fallen ill or become redundent and tried to claim on the insurance that you have paid for - therefore not finding out what a con it was - therefore, it's probably ok for them to do this?

Wake up. Stop being brainwashed.

So, just to sum up.


We have people who have committed suicide because of what the banks have done.

We have people eating nothing but dry breakfast cereal for 2 weeks because of the unlawful activities of banks.

We have banks who have lent over £120k to a man on £15k p/a - who ultimately took his clothes off and parked his car on a railway line. The ccards he had had been increases WITHOUT his prior agreement - and yes, while he had the choice not to spend it - the banks know that not that many people are that strong in a society where 'must have it now' is actively promoted and encouraged by our own govt.

We have banks that are knowingly and actively stiffling UK small business, at a cost to us all.


All of this is ok is it? - it doesn't affect you directly, so I can only assume that you condone the whole shebang.

If, as the banks say, the charges are a 'deterrent' (and if they have admitted that, then why have they not been prosectuted?) - then they would be happy that no-one is incurring charges surely?

Why is it then that the few (and realistically, it IS a FEW), people that have had their money back is a cause for them to put up interest rates? Surely, this is what they wanted in the first place?

dchurch24

...and say hello to the nanny state.

Personal responsibility has been eroded by the govt.

From next year, I won't have the responisility of deciding if it's ok to smoke in a public place. Or if my child is actually secure enough in the event of an accident in a car. Or what I can or can't watch on a tv. or...or..or...the list is endless.

Why, when faced with that, should ANY responsibility be ours anymore?

dchurch24

mlmoneysaver wrote:

Say goodbye to the idea of 'personal responsibility' in our society...

It's just not the done thing anymore is it? :rolleyes:

So because some people have allowed themselves to become sucked in by media hype, it's ok for them to commit suicide, so long as it's their own fault and the banks continue to make more money from this country alone PA than all but 3 of the countries in the G8?

..and for banks to flog businesses into the ground for a fast buck rather than allow them to flourish long term?

Wake up. Orwell's book was a warning - not a bloody manual on how a country should be run.

If you cannot seriously see how brainwashed everyone has become then I honestly pity you.

If any other company than a bank acted in the way they do, you would move on. In this country we do not have the choice to move on, as the responsibility for choosing how I get paid (as an employee) was relieved of me in 1986, when it was deemed that I coulnd't be trusted to choose one of the Govt.s friends to look after it for me of my own accord.

dchurch24

mlmoneysaver wrote:

that was successfully achieved in 97 when Labour won the election...

Ok, probably my fault for adding bits into my posts - sorry for that, I honestly thought of things to add while reading it back.

What was acceived in 97?

Tootsie_Roll

dchurch24 wrote:

I think you'll find that it's the banks that "cant be arsed" with terms and conditions. If they had been 'arsed' in the first place then they would have been informed by their lawyers that punitive measures for breach of contracts are unlawful. If they were made aware and continued anyway, then they have commited theft. Pure and simple. To condone theft, simply because you have avoided being the victim of such theft is very '1984' of you. Now be a good citizen and go and grass someone up for smoking in a public place (The 0800 number to do this with is due to appear on the Govt.'s govdirect website when the smoking ban comes in, I'm sure you'll be very happy to learn).

By your token, Rumpelstiltskin was an OK kind of guy, because he had a contract in place to take the queens first born. Because it didn't happen to you, you don't have a problem with children being taken from their rightful mother??

Sadly, and no offence meant, but I doubt if you will be able to comprehend the analogy if you can't grasp the fact and reasons as to why what the banks are doing is outside of the law.

Today it has been reported that a 21 year old has hung himself because of a £1200 debt that was caused entirely by charges. That's ok is it? Do you not think that if he had the £1200 he would have paid it?

I'm not trying to put too much of a meloncholy taint on it, but do you really think that the banks doing what they are doing, despite it's unlawfulness, is ok, just because YOU have never had a problem?

What about the fact that banks are charging small business a fortune (more than any other country in the EU) - this makes a lot of them fold within a year. How could we compete with Euro business? But, presumably, if you don't run a small business, then you don't get charged, so therefore, that, again, is ok.

Or the fact that the banks charge a small fortune for insurances - a lot of the time without even informing you (despite getting wrapped on the knuckles, they ARE STILL doing this) - that will never pay out. I suppose that by the same token, you have never fallen ill or become redundent and tried to claim on the insurance that you have paid for - therefore not finding out what a con it was - therefore, it's probably ok for them to do this?

Wake up. Stop being brainwashed.

So, just to sum up.


We have people who have committed suicide because of what the banks have done.

We have people eating nothing but dry breakfast cereal for 2 weeks because of the unlawful activities of banks.

We have banks who have lent over £120k to a man on £15k p/a - who ultimately took his clothes off and parked his car on a railway line. The ccards he had had been increases WITHOUT his prior agreement - and yes, while he had the choice not to spend it - the banks know that not that many people are that strong in a society where 'must have it now' is actively promoted and encouraged by our own govt.

We have banks that are knowingly and actively stiffling UK small business, at a cost to us all.


All of this is ok is it? - it doesn't affect you directly, so I can only assume that you condone the whole shebang.

If, as the banks say, the charges are a 'deterrent' (and if they have admitted that, then why have they not been prosectuted?) - then they would be happy that no-one is incurring charges surely?

Why is it then that the few (and realistically, it IS a FEW), people that have had their money back is a cause for them to put up interest rates? Surely, this is what they wanted in the first place?

If I had the time and energy I would respond to this ridiculously inaccurate post.

I think you are the one that needs to wake up and stop from brainwashing yourself.

You actually believe your own PR - amazing.

dchurch24

If you could understand it you mean.

dchurch24

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

If I had the time and energy I would respond to this ridiculously inaccurate post.

I think you are the one that needs to wake up and stop from brainwashing yourself.

You actually believe your own PR - amazing.

I fail to see what is inaccurate about it - everything quoted in that post can be verified.

Paul_Herring

dchurch24 wrote:

I fail to see what is inaccurate about it - everything quoted in that post can be verified.

I doubt that...

We have people who have committed suicide because of what the banks have done.

You imply that the only party 100% complicit with this suicide is the bank. Solely because of the fees the bank charged.

We have people eating nothing but dry breakfast cereal for 2 weeks because of the unlawful activities of banks.

You imply that solely because of banks activities <unnamed persons> are eating dry breakfast cereal and nothing else.

We have banks who have lent over £120k to a man on £15k p/a - who ultimately took his clothes off and parked his car on a railway line.

You imply that the only reason this man did this is because the banks lent him more money.

Can we have citations for these three, which place the sole blame on the banks, since you claim they can be verified?

Yes the banks are partly to blame. But not totally - which is what your rhetoric is trying to imply. I await your URLs.