800,000% overdrafts

lanza

ILW wrote: »

So, is your complaint about the interest rate, or the fact that their system screwed up?

A lot of things, but mostly that the whole thing is a scam basically. Put it together.

1. They could verify you have enough balance, as we see the prepaid cards are able to. Notice how even if you have no overdraft at all (and ask for none), the banks will still allow you to get into the red for a tenner, or the like. Purely to leverage you into the scam.

2. Since the OFT case that the judge had to let them off with grudgingly over their clever technicalities, the banks have now put in place with more confidence this ratchet loan shark scam. Why, because now we are going to have problems reclaiming their charges, so they can pile on up to 1 million APR and get away with it. Any problem in their system you end up paying hundreds or more. As is my case. I will get my charges refunded. As my conversation with marc gander what we all agree on is the immorality of the system. It hits the poorest who do not have reserves to cover these errors and cant afford the ratchet, so a few quid winds up costing them a thousand over a year. its in the banks interest (from a sociopathic view) to fix problems, hence Santander now have no phone customer service that works.

Some people have a disdain of the poor, we will see a lot of them on these BB rubbing salt in their wounds. Of course they need people to be poor, so they can use them. There are too many of these types of people in the world allowed to gain status, and thats the primary problem the wall street revolution (which will grow next year, and the next) is all about.

Cleaning pure investor mindsets out the hierarchy. It is a social revolution similar in style to the french one, although it wont be public beheadings. It will getting these peoples personal details and smearing them all over the internet. their may be personal attacks on their homes and material property, cyber crime to delete their bank balances. Its likely some pretty obviously nasty offenders may be run out of town by organized internet campaigns.

Just what i am hearing round the rumour mill. I certainly dont want kangaroo justice, but the justice system has been tied up these people, so if this is the result they have only themselves to blame for their lack of baseline morality.

lanza

tagq2 wrote: »

I recall once sitting in a room full of people cheerleading someone who had made a fairly serious allegation. It turned into receiving about an hour's worth of personal and aggressive criticism. I stood through it, listened and offered my side, and at no point did I feel any anger or desire to hurt anyone. To whack anyone would, I guess, have been the worst possible thing I could have done. As it turned out, the other party's true behaviour was revealed within a few months and I was fine. This was an important early lesson in my adult life.

I suggest, if you get angry quickly and feel the desire to lash out, that you work on that. Any good point you have - and you do have some - will otherwise be drowned in the way you express your anger and you'll completely lose all credibility.

Not everybody has the balls to just bypass a system that stacked against them and relies on their fear of being banged up for a night. These managers go into work in their open plan offices with their sociopathic attitudes smug in their laid back positions precisely because they think everybody is too scared to whack them. Its not my style, but it will be from now on, because i dont think some of these people should feel secure in going to work.

Can you please be clear on whether Santander debited more from your account than you instructed it to by using the card?

I don't understand what the fault is which you are describing. Is it merely the delay before some displayed balance changes which is worrying you? Or were debits being taken twice or of the wrong amount? Can you provide any links to information?

Their online payment system had a fault. It rejected my password for a mobile broadband topup and i was never topped up. Hence it said they payment was rejected. But i found it later it was not. At this time my debit card devloped a chip fault and i could not check my available balance.

No internet to go online, plus no card that works, cant take a day of work to go into bank, no phone system that works = no way to check available balance.

I have never been in the red once in all my time with them (6 years). I know how to manage money and maintain affairs. I have four accounts, emergency funds for various things, all types of insurance and most importantly i never take on debt ever.

I paid off this scam, and will get my fees back due to their errors, but it could have ruined others. After winning a case against the abbey years ago, i thought the OFT had stopped all this nonsense. No, now its gone into criminal level. I am outraged and am signing up for activism.

You just dont want to see this for what it is. Now ask yourself why that is ?

lanza

basically its a very simple solution and we all know it. If you dont have the balance the bank refuses the payment. End of story. They like the little errors so they can leverage you. Know we see that since the OFT ruling they have gone to town on people in a manner which is exactly like a loan shark who is just looking for every opportunity for you to mess up so they can destroy you.

The technology can do it because the prepaid debit cards refuse anything if it goes even a penny over. Remember all these merchant systems in petrol stations, shops etc are not specifically owned by a bank. Hence we have these new prepaid systems operating in it that hey, you never go into the red, magically ! How did they pull of such an amazing feat with low resources we all wonder.

As the OP says quite rightly these are supposed to be respectable institutions that now have a system setup to trap people and destroy them over trivializes. Mostly the poor who cant afford the ratchet scam.

Anybody here that agrees or tries to justify the banks actions is agreeing to institutionalized criminal style behavior and really shows their true colours.

tagq2

lanza wrote: »

These managers go into work in their open plan offices with their sociopathic attitudes smug in their laid back positions

However you see the people who run the bank, they are not working in individual branches and you will not communicate with them in your day-to-day dealings as a personal customer. A modern "bank manager" is an experienced customer assistant who has an additional administrative role (e.g. staffing) at the branch - she may indeed be highly skilled and have the potential to take on much more responsibility but she does not manage the bank.

Its not my style, but it will be from now on, because i dont think some of these people should feel secure in going to work.

Suggesting that people break the law in this way will very quickly harm you and your cause. Your language is almost a caricature of the provocateur, but maybe you're serious. (Regardless, it's Sunday so a bit of discussion is fun.) Once you have a clear position you feel is worth fighting for, why not spend some time learning about the freedoms the law entitles you to and finding out how to unite and campaign for it? Recall that society is as it is because the majority of people consent to it, either actively or passively.

Their online payment system had a fault. It rejected my password for a mobile broadband topup and i was never topped up. Hence it said they payment was rejected. But i found it later it was not.

This sounds like a fairly specific problem with the merchant debiting money while indicating to you that it had not.

• Begin by requesting that the merchant write a letter explaining what happened (which you can present to the bank if forthcoming) and provide a refund of their excessive debit;
• Compose a written complaint so labelled to the bank describing what happened and listing the charges which resulted from the debit which you believed had not occurred;
• In the meanwhile, make any possible effort to return your account back to credit. Inappropriate charges aren't more likely to be refunded just because you've allowed more of them to accrue.

No internet to go online, plus no card that works, cant take a day of work to go into bank, no phone system that works = no way to check available balance.

For the future, note that Lycamobile give 10MB free non-expiring mobile Internet access per day after the first top-up (good in a spare mobile) and that many libraries offer free Internet access. But this might not have solved your problem because you appear to be describing a debit which you didn't even expect.

lanza

just received this link. An insiders story of the high level corruption in finance.

new user so cant post. Google this phrase

"Shocking story of former super political lobbyist Jack Abramoff in which he explains how he influenced Congress for years; was caught breaking the law and sent to federal prison. He shares many of the dirty secrets that he and other lobbyists use to steal the government away from you. Since he already served prison time for this, he can’t go back to jail for what he reveals"

But of course he only tells after he get jailed.

meer53

lanza wrote: »

I am hardly ignorant. Im a published Neuroscientist. Dont try this on me. One of my research jobs was in psychology. Most of my family are in this field. I have seen every trick in the book, and now the human psyche pretty much inside out. Ill will eat you here online if you want to persist with this.

If sociopathic types are setting up an immoral system that depends on people not being violent and destroys them through this, then people have the right to use violence. Why do you think our government helped in libya or all these other conflicts.

Think it cant happen here ?

think again.

Wow, you're a pretty bitter person aren't you ? I don't really give a stuff what you do for a job or have had published, you have a choice to use either a prepaid card or a debit card, you obviously know how both of them work, i'd say you need to cut your bank a bit of slack, no-one is perfect (except you) they made a mistake, you say you're getting your charges back, whats the problem ? The majority of people who have bank accounts seem quite happy with the situation as it is now. Why shouldn't i persist with this ? I have just as much right to air my opinions as you do, who do you think you are ?

lanza

tagq2 wrote: »

However you see the people who run the bank, they are not working in individual branches and you will not communicate with them in your day-to-day dealings as a personal customer. A modern "bank manager" is an experienced customer assistant who has an additional administrative role (e.g. staffing) at the branch - she may indeed be highly skilled and have the potential to take on much more responsibility but she does not manage the bank.

Suggesting that people break the law in this way will very quickly harm you and your cause.

High level first, i agree, but commanders who willfully obey orders when they dont have to can be taken out. I didnt have a problem with the staff. I could see they thought it was a scam. The manager (who had the power to return the charges) is a different case.

1. Refused to look at the evidence for their mistakes
2. Sat and told me a series of blatant lies (not very intelligent)
3. Was quite smug and happy about it.

Yes this type deserves a good whacking.

lanza

meer53 wrote: »

The majority of people who have bank accounts seem quite happy with the situation as it is now. Why shouldn't i persist with this ?

Do they, where is the evidence for that ?

I have just as much right to air my opinions as you do, who do you think you are ?

you have the right to express it. whether its an opinion that is worthy of having a right to expression is another matter.

tagq2

lanza wrote: »

High level first, i agree,

I don't think we "agree" because I don't think anyone should get "a whacking", whatever their position.

I was reading this morning around the tradition in Parliament that no matter how much you dislike a decision made by a judge, you avoid attacking the judge himself - only the principle he has used. No matter the great power that judge has, he must have the freedom to perform his appointed role without fear of personal attack. Otherwise he becomes subservient to the most threatening special interest keen to jump on him and he biases his decisions to appease that interest.

I assume you don't want that sort of environment, so why do you want to be today's threat? Any man full of bluster can think he is the mightiest today but he will not remain so for very long. Tomorrow someone else will be the stronger threat and they won't necessarily agree with you.

So you must focus on the idea - whether that's a principle, a law, a regulation or an interpretation of it.

1. Refused to look at the evidence for their mistakes
2. Sat and told me a series of blatant lies (not very intelligent

Present your argument per previous post. A good organisation removes sufficiently dishonest workers and your evidence may be of use. But it's not your job to effect the procedure.

jonnyd281

Lanza, I don't know why you have thanked me or are giving me advice, I don't need a prepaid card because I manage my account properly, I check my account at least once a week, and, if I am making a large purchase make sure I have the funds available. I don't want to be charged for direct debits and the like, and if what you are trying comes off (ie people who can't be arsed to manage thier accounts properly not having to pay) I'm going to be more than a tad upset.