Charges reversed - but

richard_3095

What shocks me here is how much on the side of banks people are. After all they have done. Crickey!

[Deleted User]

richard_3095 wrote: »

Making those changes, etc, amounted to bullying. A large organisation throwing it's weight about.

There was no "bullying".
You failed to pay.
The Bank charged you for it.
You appealed.
You won.
The end.

Thomas_Hardy

richard_3095 wrote: »

Do you understand that for one lousy mistake the public don't expect a bank to remove the 0% interest? Budgeting was predicated on there being 0% interest. So, it's a very serious issue to have removed that 0% interest level.

Heck, the bank was up on it's collections, I was paying twice the minimum amount.This makes all the difference in the world. It does to those who understand that it's not all about the letter of the law.

I understand that both sides of a contract need to fulfil what they agreed to. The lending of money is a legal matter, and if you do not wish to be bound by the law, you should not be borrowing money.

When the banks did not fulfil their obligations to "the letter of the law", people went after them and claimed thousands back. Why do you expect them to show empathy, when they were penalised so heavily for their mistakes?

richard_3095

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

They haven't actually penalised your "one lousy mistake", so what exactly are you complaining about?
What has the "public" to do with your personal finances?

If I had not complained about the £22.30, they would have taken it.

You obviously think that would have been just.

[Deleted User]

richard_3095 wrote: »

If I had not complained about the £22.30, they would have taken it.

You obviously think that would have been just.

It will certainly be "just" if you fail to pay again.
They have obviously only reversed the decision to penalise you because it was the first time you haven't paid.
Do it again and you won't be so fortunate.

richard_3095

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

I understand that both sides of a contract need to fulfil what they agreed to. The lending of money is a legal matter, and if you do not wish to be bound by the law, you should not be borrowing money.

When the banks did not fulfil their obligations to "the letter of the law", people went after them and claimed thousands back. Why do you expect them to show empathy, when they were penalised so heavily for their mistakes?

You just don't get it at all.

Who said I don't want to be bound by the law?

The issue here is what is just.

One a first accidental default, it is unjust to remove that 0% interest. I don't care about what the law says so much in this case, I care about what is just.

If the banks concerned themselves with what is just rather than what is the law, we would not be in the mess we are,and much heartache and trouble avoided.

Gosh, if money people don't think that what is just has got anything to do money matters - God help us all.

[Deleted User]

richard_3095 wrote: »

You just don't get it at all.

I'd say that was a more accurate description of yourself.
I'll leave you to debate it with others though....:p

richard_3095

It would be unjust to have kept that £22.30, IMO. Which they were going to do. That is what I think. But, the banks make their money on peoples mistakes and misfortunes.

Thomas_Hardy

richard_3095 wrote: »

You just don't get it at all.

Who said I don't want to be bound by the law?

The issue here is what is just.

One a first accidental default, it is unjust to remove that 0% interest. I don't care about what the law says so much in this case, I care about what is just.

If the banks concerned themselves with what is just rather than what is the law, we would not be in the mess we are,and much heartache and trouble avoided.

Gosh, if money people don't think that what is just has got anything to do money matters - God help us all.

You have said you do not care what the law says, which would imply that you do not wish to be bound by it!

If you did not believe the contractual terms to be just, why did you sign them in the first place?

Thomas_Hardy

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'd say that was a more accurate description of yourself.
I'll leave you to debate it with others though....:p

Don't leave me!