Charges reversed - but

richard_3095

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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

What I don't get is this: You have been thanked 3150 times and you have had nothing better in my case than to come down in the banks favour!

Like if the bank had removed the 0% rate I had, you would be saying that is okay, it's the law! Sheesh!

richard_3095

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

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?

Of course I care about the law, but what I mean is that what is just in this case, and others, is not determined by an appeal to the law, or the contract.

antrobus

richard_3095 wrote: »

.....This March I honestly erroniously forgot to pay the minimum charge. And this is what Santander did...I've managed to have MBNA (Virgin) reverse their actions....

I'm a bit confused. How did you manage to get MBNA to reverse something that Santander did?

richard_3095

antrobus wrote: »

I'm a bit confused. How did you manage to get MBNA to reverse something that Santander did?

I made a mistake in my original post. I mentioned Santander, but the problem was with MBNA.

richard_3095

Some people here seem to think what is right is contained in contracts. How wrong can that be? Very. IMHO.

antrobus

richard_3095 wrote: »

I made a mistake in my original post. I mentioned Santander, but the problem was with MBNA.

I know what you mean; Santander, MNBA. They're so easy to confuse aren't they, a bit like 'market' and 'meerkat' n'cest pas.

Thomas_Hardy

richard_3095 wrote: »

Of course I care about the law, but what I mean is that what is just in this case, and others, is not determined by an appeal to the law, or the contract.

This is where your argument is falling down. When you borrow money from a bank you are entering into a legal agreement, and it is your choice to do so. That is what is just - you had free will to decide whether to be bound by the agreement or not. You decided that you did.

Once the contract comes into effect, your concept of "just" does not come into it. You cannot choose to ignore or vary legal agreements simply because you think a different set of rules should apply!

Thomas_Hardy

richard_3095 wrote: »

Some people here seem to think what is right is contained in contracts. How wrong can that be? Very. IMHO.

If I choose to agree to a contract, I will ensure that I feel the terms are "just" to me before signing. It seems you did not do this?

GhIFA

richard_3095 wrote: »

Some people here seem to think what is right is contained in contracts. How wrong can that be? Very. IMHO.

You broke the contract you agreed to.

They invoked the charges as set out in the contract you agreed to.

If those terms are so "unjust" you shouldn't have signed it.

If the situation were reversed and you were at an advantage because of a mistake they made, would you be so keen to act in a "just" manner.

richard_3095

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

If I choose to agree to a contract, I will ensure that I feel the terms are "just" to me before signing. It seems you did not do this?

Does everbody always look at every term before making a balance transfer?

No.

What you are actually doing is making the wrong argument. You are taking the wrong side. You are hitching yourself to the bankers side of the argument. Doing so makes it look like established MoneySavingtExpert commentators are rather on the side of the banking industry. Which is something the public would never expect.

I know that I signed a contract. I know that it has a clause related to what charges the bank can make on a late payment. And that the bank, in contract, could ( I assume) take away the 0% interest rate, take £22.30 in interest charges, and £12 late payment fee.

So, to find out what is just then, all we need do is look at the contract? How many situations would doing that be innaproriate? Very many. Because the terms are often unfair/unjust.

Of course, a bank will always tend to make harsh contracts from the public's point of view, because then it can cover all options. It can strictly enforce, or appear magnanemous by not enforcing it's rights.

In my case, the bank, after my complaint, decided to appear magnanemous. And doing so, it brought justice to the situation. But, it could have strictly enforced it's contract, and then be unjust. But, it only acted justly in response to my complaint.

Now, if you had been the bank, you would have acted according to contract. And therefore brought about injustice.