Nobody incl. the Santander branch manager knows how to stop the charges. CAN YOU ?

IrishGypsy

YES of course they can stupid (and pray tell how)

lanza wrote: »

Why ? because one of them actually programs the systems for the banks and the other one has to helps the santander staff themselves with this problem.

Just a point of clarification I feel is needed, I don't help the staff with this, it's just knowledge I've personally picked up over time. All of what I have described - on how the charges are calculated - are available in the terms and conditions (although where exactly in the T's and C's I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, it's been a long time since I've needed to look at them) and in conjunction with reading the monthly statements produced.

I feel that I've helped you enough (in helping you understand how the charges work and are calculated) and I appreciate your acknowledgement of that help. Obviously if you are going to court then it's in my own interests to bow out now as is.

Oh, and your topic title is factually incorrect now

lanza

NO (the correct answer)

iesous23 wrote: »

You really cant grasp that the customer can be wrong, then when you dont read what you like, as with most uneducated people these days they instantly blame the other party and also by seemingly throwing insults left right and center.

Good luck on any future endeavors, seriously though, get a life other than trying to get major reactions from people online, keyboard warriors are pathetic nowadays. Im done with this joke

More idiocy. I dont care about peoples reactions in so much as i dont want to have to deal with stupid ones.

i.e. being a sheep, its all ok just follow the rules crap a great deal of people spout here.

As we can see its a complete lie, mostly to themselves i suspect.

WE have clear evidence of this delusion which you would rather walk of after all that trouble of creating an account to make this pathetic statement here to answer.

THE question was. CAN their charges be understood, then state how.

LET us recap for the terminally stupid here only two people made what appears like an interesting answer that can even attempt to answer this question. Whether it can has still to be tested, but at least they seem like interesting input.

1. A programmer for the banking systems themselves gave some details in this and threads to me how the algorithms work. I am an ex student of computational sciences myself, including some very advanced programming. I do understand what he was saying, however it has still to be determined which value has to be plugged into which algorithm first, transcribe the banks literature and determine if algorithms can described from that. Hopefully these are just going to be basic routines for compounding interest, but we will see. All a bit far fetched for the average consumer trying to pay groceries and way too hassle much by standards of banking code law.

2. An employee of Santander themselves who is an ex manager that if you dig through his posts described how fed up he is with the environment there to be a manager. They even shafted him for travel expenses, but still he thinks its all ok in there. He tells me that jiggery pokery is required by the staff to get this system to work, and the statement dates require to be renewed by them before they can even query the system. IS that in the handbooks for the accounts ? NO it is not is the correct answer.

THAT IS 8 liars (and/or deluded idiots lying to themselves) now who voted YES out of 10.

A. NO they did not describe how to fix this problem as is required by the poll.

B. With the information currently available it has still to be determine that these suggestions actually work.

That means by my requirements (which are actually logical by the way) that until these methods are carried out and tested the outcome cannot actually be tested.

THAT is logic, while the people who voted yes are suffering from DELUSIONS.

Why do i use this text style ? because as you can see many people here are !!!!!! and cannot use their brain to its minimal capacity.

dixon-bainbridge

lanza wrote: »

More idiocy. I dont care about peoples reactions in so much as i dont want to have to deal with stupid ones.

i.e. being a sheep, its all ok just follow the rules crap a great deal of people spout here.

As we can see its a complete lie, mostly to themselves i suspect.

WE have clear evidence of this delusion which you would rather walk of after all that trouble of creating an account to make this pathetic statement here to answer.

THE question was. CAN their charges be understood, then state how.

LET us recap for the terminally stupid here only two people made what appears like an interesting answer that can even attempt to answer this question. Whether it can has still to be tested, but at least they seem like interesting input.

1. A programmer for the banking systems themselves gave some details in this and threads to me how the algorithms work. I am an ex student of computational sciences myself, including some very advanced programming. I do understand what he was saying, however it has still to be determined which value has to be plugged into which algorithm first, transcribe the banks literature and determine if algorithms can described from that. Hopefully these are just going to be basic routines for compounding interest, but we will see. All a bit far fetched for the average consumer trying to pay groceries and way too hassle much by standards of banking code law.

2. An employee of Santander themselves who is an ex manager that if you dig through his posts described how fed up he is with the environment there to be a manager. They even shafted him for travel expenses, but still he thinks its all ok in there. He tells me that jiggery pokery is required by the staff to get this system to work, and the statement dates require to be renewed by them before they can even query the system. IS that in the handbooks for the accounts ? NO it is not is the correct answer.

THAT IS 8 liars (and/or deluded idiots lying to themselves) now who voted YES out of 10.

A. NO they did not describe how to fix this problem as is required by the poll.

B. With the information currently available it has still to be determine that these suggestions actually work.

That means by my requirements (which are actually logical by the way) that until these methods are carried out and tested the outcome cannot actually be tested.

THAT is logic, while the people who voted yes are suffering from DELUSIONS.

Why do i use this text style ? because as you can see many people here are !!!!!! and cannot use their brain to its minimal capacity.

You are extremely rude and I have no idea why people are continuing in trying to help you. Instead of worrying about how Santander act why don't you take a look at yourself and spend your time learning how to be polite to people and less of a moron.

lanza

NO (the correct answer)

IrishGypsy wrote: »

Just a point of clarification I feel is needed, I don't help the staff with this, it's just knowledge I've personally picked up over time. All of what I have described - on how the charges are calculated - are available in the terms and conditions (although where exactly in the T's and C's I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, it's been a long time since I've needed to look at them) and in conjunction with reading the monthly statements produced.

I feel that I've helped you enough (in helping you understand how the charges work and are calculated) and I appreciate your acknowledgement of that help. Obviously if you are going to court then it's in my own interests to bow out now as is.

Oh, and your topic title is factually incorrect now

So you are saying you cannot even be sure yourself now. That means the poll is not incorrect until all this is tested.

However at least you provided an interesting insight into the system for which i am thankful. You were one of the 2 out of 8 who or is it 10 now that voted yes, who actually used their brain before answering the question.

dixon-bainbridge

noizeuk wrote: »

To be fair, a full statement would not be required. A statement of transactions for two charging periods prior to the alledged withdrawal would suffice. This way we can check if there are any 'rolling fees' which are only applicable 21 days (ish) after a statement (print date) is issued.

Your poll is pointless unless you provide the background information that has been asked for on more than one occasion (quoted above). However I get the impression you don't really want an answer you just would prefer to ramble on and insult people.

Anyway I am certainly not going to waste anymore of my time on this thread because it's clear you are just trying to rile people so I'm out.

pmduk

Some people just create polls to try and prove the point they originally want to make,

Personally I loathe Santander, however I prefer to use facts and the evidence of their own ineptitude to bring them down. There are many individuals within the organisation that work hard (against major obstacles) to provide a decent service to customers.

DevCoder

If it helps, I didn't vote in your poll so I am not one of the 10. Although I assume one of the 2

Mrs_Ryan

Ive had nearly a grands worth of Santander charges written off over 2 accounts so yes it is possible.

And Dixon bainbridge I love your sig

callum9999

lanza wrote: »

So you are saying you cannot even be sure yourself now. That means the poll is not incorrect until all this is tested.

However at least you provided an interesting insight into the system for which i am thankful. You were one of the 2 out of 8 who or is it 10 now that voted yes, who actually used their brain before answering the question.

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way - it is GENUINELY just some "friendly advice".

No-one on here is paid to help you. As you are a PHD student, I assume you've had a lot of experience writing prose before? In which case, surely you can recognise that the posts you were making (particularly at the start) were incredibly disjointed, rambly and difficult to read (there is a reason why text is normally kept to a standard size and in black). They also completely lacked all information anyone would need to do what you are asking them to do (i.e. work out why you're being charged).

Again, no-one is paid a penny to help you. You should be doing your best to make it as simple as possible for them to help. Instead of writing a long story about the incident, give a brief summary of what you want to find out, and then post the statements (with your personal information blanked out of course) which feature those charges, and a couple from before it started.

If you are still interested in finding out the exact reason, I suggest you do that now. I'm no expert on the matter but I've yet to see a charge I haven't understood, so I would have been interested in trying to figure it out for you (and probably still would be if the insults stop...).

dixon-bainbridge

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

And Dixon bainbridge I love your sig

Thank you very much