Co-Op getting annoyed with refunds...?

kenshaz

CopperPlate wrote:

But then should a business continue to 'support' someone who is taking the proverbial by claiming back their money, only to continue breaching the terms again and again? Where do they draw the line?

They behave in a fair and reasonable manner and do not target those who have had refunds ,each case should be treated on it's merits in respect to the breach of terms and conditions not in respect to refunds they have received for unlawful punitive charges that should not enter into the equation

We cannot have a society whereby those who seek lawful refunds are penalized .

Hereward

kenshaz wrote:

We cannot have a society whereby those who seek lawful refunds are penalized .

The OP is not being penalised for seeking a refund on their charges. They have had their banking services withdrawn for continually flouting the rules after they had received the refund.

kenshaz

Hereward wrote:

The OP is not being penalised for seeking a refund on their charges. They have had their banking services withdrawn for continually flouting the rules after they had received the refund.

If that is the case fine ,but the original poster made reference to the fact that the bank kept referring to the refunds,the refunds should not factor into this ,but I note you make reference to them.
They must be taken out of the equation for absolute fairness ,and that is how institutions should operate,and I believe that they do ,perhaps this is individuals at branch level ,unauthorized actions ,which should be challenged

Anwen_2

I should think that they were probably saying 'look, mate, you've already done this a hundred times before, hence why you got such a huge refund cheque. so don't try and act all innocent, you clearly know you aren't meant to go over your limit.'

oldwiring

kenshaz wrote:

We cannot have a society whereby those who seek lawful refunds are penalized .

Correct, but what if the charges, unlawful or not, have been as a result of the misbehaviour of the person charged? TBH it strikes me as rank cheek ( perhaps hypocracy is the more apt word) of such to say 'naughty bank' or worse, when in truth it is his/her behaviour that is the real reason for the breakdown of the relationship with the bank. Straws and camels backs come very readily to mind. I wonder now, if the banks regret not having closed some of the accounts sooner.

Perhaps HSBC's unilateral weeding out of accounts, as mentioned in an earlier thread, will be taken up by others.

kenshaz

If they commence weeding on the basis of those who claimed refunds ,it will leak out and then watch the fireworks.

CopperPlate_2

Yes, but surely they only want the customers who are a) profitable but at the same time won't cost them money in the long term by claiming back fees. I'm thinking of customers who buy insurances or loans/mortgages, etc from them whilst holding a current account; or b) customers who only have savings or current accounts but run them within the limits at all times. Okay they might make some cash out of the savings which offset the cost of operating the current accounts, but not great mega bucks.

The others, i.e. those who neither have other products nor run their accounts within the terms, well, I have to say I don't blame a bank for taking the hard line with these individuals. At the end of the day, as we've read on many other threads, these banks are not charities and can pick and choose who they deal with. Hard fact, and perhaps not a pleasant thought for the individuals who have found themselves in a dreadful position through no fault of their own, but a fact nevertheless.

Anwen_2

I doubt they'd be that daft when they can just close any account which has incurred more than a certain number of charges (i.e. broken the t&cs) in a specified time, even if the charges werent reclaimed.

kenshaz

Anwen wrote:

I doubt they'd be that daft when they can just close any account which has incurred more than a certain number of charges (i.e. broken the t&cs) in a specified time, even if the charges werent reclaimed.

OK just as long as their intentions and correct,but actually the customers you describe make them the most money.My bank makes nothing out of me ,I have claimed no refund's ,in fact I have never paid a single charge.But that does not stop me believing that unlawful charges are wrong and banks showing bias is injustice.

MarkyMarkD

dchurch24 wrote:

Personally, I think it's time that we went back to the situation where banks don't take the risks - at least that way (and I don't mean to be alarmist), we'll see less debt-related suicides.

I really think that you don't have a clue in suggesting this, dchurch.

People who are poor and can't live on their income (or, more often, choose not to live on their income - but that's a different debate) are going to borrow money from somewhere.

If the banks don't lend it to marginal customers - albeit at higher rates of interest - such customers will borrow outside the mainstream, from second-tier or backstreet lenders whose rates of interest are far higher and whose recovery methods leave a lot to be desired.

If you think this will make poorer people better off, I think you are deluded.