2nd account

Ineedaname

If that's possible then that's a risk for all of their customers which shouldn't exist because then the bank would be forever dealing with customers ringing up complaining that although they kept a close eye on their account etc. etc.

Johnpj

Ineedaname wrote: »

If that's possible then that's a risk for all of their customers which shouldn't exist because then the bank would be forever dealing with customers ringing up complaining that although they kept a close eye on their account etc. etc.

That is really a daft answer. It is not the bank who needs to keep a record of payments in and out. Particularly when the bank provides to regular customers a VISA card which can be used offline, and where those transactions takes time to reach the bank. Further, the bank has no idea the value of direct debits or cheques coming throught the system.

It is up to to the customer to manage their finances, and to ensure the value of credits and debits gong through the account keep you within the facilities made available to you.

The "statement" either paper or online, should never be relied on as an accurate reflection of their available balance.

People do actually phone up banks with exactly this daft point, and quite rightly they are told to keep their own records.

For bankrupts, it is even more important that the bank ensures, wherever possible, that the bankrupt does not get themselves into further debt.

THis just shows that every time I post you, and certain others, are compelled to try and discredit me.


This time your answer is as daft as it can get.

debtinfo

Ineedaname wrote: »

Dojo - I did think after that its' weird they won't allow a BR to click on a link but are happy for their sales team to ring a BR up and offer products... Had a sales call the other day.:rotfl: Wish I'd remembered that during the call as the disparity would have been something else for her to 'pass on to the boss'.

its the same with other companies that say well we have to charge you the cost if you want paper statements, but send out advertisements for the products at no extra costs, just stick the statements in the same envelope

alastairq

For bankrupts, it is even more important that the bank ensures, wherever possible, that the bankrupt does not get themselves into further debt.

Now that's strange.....?


I was under the distinct impression that someone who was bankrupt had no debt at all.

I also get the impression that some people would like bankrupts to be considered as still in debt, even after the Court. and the Law has deemed otherwise?

Johnpj

alastairq wrote: »

Now that's strange.....?


I was under the distinct impression that someone who was bankrupt had no debt at all.

I also get the impression that some people would like bankrupts to be considered as still in debt, even after the Court. and the Law has deemed otherwise?

If one had no debt at all, one could have the BK annulled.

The law/court removes the burden of debt, and allows the bankrupt to start their financial life afresh. One still defaulted, and still morally owes the money, albeit not legally.

I feel that I will always have that debt for the rest of my life, it is a social responsibility thing. If I won the lottery I would go back and pay each of my creditors; or if not allowed for legal reasons, I would give the money to a charity that my creditors chose.

To attempt to argue that a bankrupt has no "debt" is to add moral bankruptcy to the financial bankruptcy.

I too am bankrupt, so nobody can acuse me of taking the moral high ground because I have never been in debt and bankruptcy.

FuzzyCub

Johnpj wrote: »

If one had no debt at all, one could have the BK annulled.

The law/court removes the burden of debt, and allows the bankrupt to start their financial life afresh. One still defaulted, and still morally owes the money, albeit not legally.

I feel that I will always have that debt for the rest of my life, it is a social responsibility thing. If I won the lottery I would go back and pay each of my creditors; or if not allowed for legal reasons, I would give the money to a charity that my creditors chose.

To attempt to argue that a bankrupt has no "debt" is to add moral bankruptcy to the financial bankruptcy.

I too am bankrupt, so nobody can acuse me of taking the moral high ground because I have never been in debt and bankruptcy.

An outlandish and absurd post. BR has nothing to do with morality. Factually a BR has no debt, I find your attempt to argue otherwise immoral. That's the thing with morals you see... It's quite subjective.

I anticipated that padlock symbol anytime now, another result of your provocative bordering argumentative posting style.

alastairq

To attempt to argue that a bankrupt has no "debt" is to add moral bankruptcy to the financial bankruptcy.

quite the opposite, in fact.

It is morally wrong to attempt to give BR's and ex-BRs a guilt complex as well.

No BR should feel any moral obligation with regards to debts included in the bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy itself lasts from petition until discharge.

Whilst undischarged, all creditors [that can be identified] are dealt with equitably.

The Law sees to that.

Following Discharge, the restrictions that applied to BR are removed....


the ex-BR no longer has debts..they have been dealt with....by the realisation of the BR's assets.

Anybody who still considers an ex-BR retains any debts is subject to wishful thinking.

The Courts acknowledge that fact as well.

You mention the Court 'removing the burden of debt?'

This is not quite correct.....by granting the petition, the Court hands over responsibility for your financial affairs to the Official Receiver.

Who then deals with creditors, identifies and realises one's assets, ensuring the BR retains enough income for 'reasonable living expenses.'

The law compels creditors to accept the status quo.... the debts then no longer exist.

The nett effect to the BR is, agreed, removal of the debt burden.....but at a cost .

I am discharged as a BR...I have no debts.....no one can make any claim against me...moral or otherwise.

And I will encourage others in the same financial boat, to see the positive side of BR.......and to resist feeling ashamed of having to undergo the process.

There, I've beaten the padlock for once!

FuzzyCub

Maybe discussion of morality should be taken here.

freddy911

Johnpj wrote: »

Personally, for the purposes of improving your credit rating and reducing the risk of bank policy changes, it would still be a good idea to have accounts with more than one bank.

A current account will not show on your credit report unless it has an overdraft hence will do nothing for your credit score, regardless of how many you have!

freddy911

notsoninja wrote: »

Barclays no longer restrict internet banking if you are bankrupt. You can also have a Visa Debit with Barclays now, the same as with a Coop account.

Hope that helps

Not true, I've just had phone, Internet and even access to the in branch statement machine restricted. Was sent a letter within days of going br stating this is barclays policy for br's