800,000% overdrafts

Lokolo

lanza

tagq2 wrote: »

I gave an example of a circumstance where it would be inappropriate to allow the account to continue being operated. It seemed relevant because you mentioned that you had health difficulties around the time of finding out about some charges. Do you disagree with the notion of protection from snowballing for people who are experiencing such hardship?

Nice one, bring in that labelling and then try to nail me on an emotional blackmail trip when caught. You for sure are somebody who is not trustworthy. I thanked your post, so you can keep playing please and everybody can see what other tricks you have up your sleeve. I presume you have no conscience about any of this shallow behaviour so none of my accusations will bother you in the slightest.

By selling them a service which confirms to a set of laws and regulations formed by a democratically elected legislature or those appointed by it. If you think that society would be improved through better protections then you need to convince everyone rather than fighting everyone.

What absolute crap. We all know the banks beat what the public wanted with the OFT supreme court case by having massive teams of clever lawyers beat it on loopholes. Even the judge was forced against his will by this and has made statments to that effect.

I am forceful and articulate but this doesn't mean I'm taking sides for or against you. I acknowledge several of your points and the only spanner I'm administering is one which turns your "burn 'em all!" into a suggestion that you calmly consider why things are as they are.

.

Read my posts. Its not destroy the system. Its reform it with moral guidelines that are deeply engrained in a constitution like manner that financial insitutions teams of lawyers will find it impossible to alter no matter how much pressure is put on them. Sociopathy is very well studies. Its bascially unbeatable by normal appeal and reason, as there is a lack of common decency, replace by a facade that can play on normal human instincts. If that were not the case, i would say retrain these people with a new system. Unfortunately ... the evidence shows that is not possible from many levels.

1. Neuropsychology: Sociopaths have to be sacked. They never alter their basic approach.

2. Bankers bailouts: A load of lies told about what would happen to the money, most of which dissapeared and did not help mortgage payers.

3. The 7 year UK supreme court campaign with the OFT. What the people want. Our democracy and judiciary beaten down by clever bank lawyers. Result. Rampage on loan sharking as shown by the OP of this thread.

4. Basic human instinct and morality that the 99% possess. People detect this lack of moral fiber in others, and that is why we are now having social revolution. i.e Wall street protest. No demands to law or politics, because all demands are manipulated. Its simply get-out we dont believe anything thats told to us. Heads have to roll.

Thats how all revolution has worked throughout history. Sociopathy went too far, started destroying the majority. It will be interesting to see what happens..

A test on our systems. How robust are they against corruption. Can they cleanse it without the bulk of it being destroyed in the process.

Use this information to help yourself and possibly others

I would probably get banned for what i was say to such condescending ££££££. If somebody said that to me IRL regarding this context I would whack them one. And i think right now most people feel the same.

help yourself first, but not financially because you do not seem to comprehend why this feeling exists. I presume you get by just fine.Help yourself in trying to understand what moral fiber is. I think that would be a full time job for you to even comprehend a fraction of such concepts.

IrishGypsy

lanza wrote: »

I point you in this direction (see link below) and bow out of this super-trolling 'discussion'. It appears this uber-troll has been reading the internet way to debate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_limit

For someone accusing me of having no brains, you seem to be lacking some education in the real world.

Good luck with your crusade Mr. Jones, I hope you succeed (before you whack someone in the face with your leather whip).

pinkteapot

lanza

Lokolo wrote: »

lanza

IrishGypsy wrote: »

I point you in this direction (see link below) and bow out of this super-trolling 'discussion'. It appears this uber-troll has been reading the internet way to debate...


For someone accusing me of having no brains, you seem to be lacking some education in the real world.

Good luck with your crusade Mr. Jones, I hope you succeed (before you whack someone in the face with your leather whip).

You can quote wikipedia all you like. I have been using prepaid debit cards for nearly 5 years and they never ever allow you to utilize a floor limit.

Out, because you dont have a leg left to stand on, you mean.

meer53

Irish Gypsy is correct. ALL retailers have floor limits. I can't believe you haven't done your research on this already. Some transactions (those below floor limits) are allowed to be authorised without contact with the card issuer. Get your facts straight.

tagq2

Isn't the applicable limit the lower of a value set on the card and another set by the retailer's system? So a card could be set up to force authorisation for all transactions.

lanza

meer53 wrote: »

Irish Gypsy is correct. ALL retailers have floor limits. I can't believe you haven't done your research on this already. Some transactions (those below floor limits) are allowed to be authorised without contact with the card issuer. Get your facts straight.

I have done my research. Instead of reading a lot of junk online i used several prepaid debit cards for 5 years.

Never once did i use a floor limit, macdonalds, fuel...whatever. the prepaid debit cards reject it because they cannot reclaim floor limit losses, and so neither can the retailer.

The floor limit is an agreement between the card issuer and the retailer that is an overdraft imposed upon you without you even knowing about it. That in itself has to be dubious for a non overdraft card, but no doubt it was buried in the book of small print i didnt have a spare week and a lawyer to help me wade through.

JuicyJesus

tagq2 wrote: »

Isn't the applicable limit the lower of a value set on the card and another set by the retailer's system? So a card could be set up to force authorisation for all transactions.

Exactly. Visa debit cards which require authorisation exist, and are usually given to people who can't be trusted with a full one.

However it should be noted that "authorisation" against the bank's systems does not necessarily mean a check for available funds. It doesn't ask "does this person have the money?", it asks "will you authorise this transaction?" and then gets a simple yea or nay back (a reason is not returned - it's either a yes, a no or - exceptionally - retain card).

The bank can, at its discretion, approve a transaction where the customer has no funds, be that a debit card purchase or a Direct Debit. This is covered in the terms of virtually every current account except for basic bank accounts. The approval and the type of card one has are separate.

As ever, the solution is not to try to spend money when you don't have the funds. You can argue until you're blue in the face that "the bank shouldn't have approved it" however it's worth pointing out now that the customer is the one who requests it for items that the customer has then purchased and had the benefit of, and banks are entitled to treat a request for funds in excess of what one actually has as a request to borrow that money.

The reason you can't do so with a prepaid card is because the card company decline it; a bank may well not do so.