Unbelievable phone calls from mbna

meer53

[Deleted User] wrote:

The harassment by phone seems over the top.

What harrassment ?

If someone doesn't answer calls, you keep trying, the OP's husband has spoken to them twice, the OP ignored , or missed the calls on her mobile. Why would they not keep trying to contact her when she owes them money ? I wouldn't call that harrassment.

anna_grant

[Deleted User] wrote:

The harassment by phone seems over the top.

It's not harassment - it's trying to get in touch with the customer. Their system won't know the difference in a £3.75 short payment or a £375 shortage - it will still make the phone calls until you take the call.

Agree with most of the posts - contact MBNA and say that you're sorry that you have inadvertantly paid short, pay the difference immediately over the phone (if you haven't already), say you've set up a DD to ensure this doesn't happen again and ask if, considering your history, that the £12 can be waived.

eschaton

briankelleher wrote: »

A DD would be for the minimum payment and the OP stated she always pays this.

Seriously though, I don't see MBNA as having done anything wrong here. They gave you a statement of charges when you took out the card (which you obviously didn't read) they gave you three or four months notice that your minimum payment was going up (which you didn't read), they then sent you an itemised bill last month listing what your minimum payment would need to be (which you didn't read) and when you paid less than they had asked, they called you several times, which you ignored.

Now who exactly is in the wrong here? Answer is pretty obvious to me.

MBNA obviously, never the OP.....

chattychappy

anna_grant wrote: »

It's not harassment - it's trying to get in touch with the customer. Their system won't know the difference in a £3.75 short payment or a £375 shortage - it will still make the phone calls until you take the call.

I'm sure a system can distinguish between £375 and £3.75 and decide whether it's worth repeated calls. Even HMRC's systems do that!

(Actually it was £2.75!)

LovelyLeeds

Anacrusis wrote: »

They might refund the £12 charge .

The £12 charge is the least of the OP's worries.
Some of us know that when we receive these computer type generic letters, we don't take a lot of notice. It's wrong footed a lot of people, I hope the OP gets it sorted.

triciaP1

Yes. I do know what a direct debit is Thank you, I chose not to have one.
A lot of people here are assuming I'm complaining about the £12 late payment charge, but if you read my post you'll see I admit it was my own fault because I didn't check. I got a slap and will pay for it, But, I do think I have the right to complain about the phone calls.
For the people who assumed I ignored them, the phone calls to my house were when I was actually in work, and I don't know about other peoples jobs, but in mine, we are not allowed to take our mobile phones into the workplace, they have to be placed in lockers with personal items, bags etc.
Considering the amount sent in was only £2.75pence short. I really think over 12 phone calls in 2 days is way over the top, in fact, bordering on the bloody ridiculous.

emma+_6

well i'm guessing you've phoned them, and sorted it by now so what did thay say about all the calls?

triciaP1

No. I rang them this morning as it is my day off and they are not open until Monday. So I'll ring them in the morning.

chattychappy

triciaP1 wrote: »

Considering the amount sent in was only £2.75pence short. I really think over 12 phone calls in 2 days is way over the top, in fact, bordering on the bloody ridiculous.

I agree! I wouldn't say they don't have the right to try and speak to you, just seems they are not behaving very sensibly.

oscar52

chattychappy wrote: »

I agree! I wouldn't say they don't have the right to try and speak to you, just seems they are not behaving very sensibly.

I have seen the same scenario for less than £1! - wasnt me that was calling though!