Bank taken too much, help with DD guarantee

somethingcorporate

vassa wrote: »

Nothing you've said there has any relevance. Legislation, guidelines etc mean squat when this has real world implications to a persons well being.

Comparing business transactions has nothing to do with people dealing with corporations.

Taking someone's money, when you shouldn't have, and then telling them to wait whatever number of days you tell them before getting it back, is fundamentally wrong. Doesn't matter whether it's backed by law, legislation, guidelines, parliament, the government, business....there's a basic common sense that tells you it's wrong. The sad part is that people are so indoctrinated that they've taken to siding with registered VAT numbers instead of living breathing people.

I suggest she sues and see whether a judge thinks waiting a week for a payment is unreasonable or not if you think 8 days wait is totally unacceptable.

The DSRs are between retailers and individuals and it gives a company 30 days to pay back a customer when they have instructed them they want to return an item.

I did mention they are not direct analogies but did give an indication as to what is a reasonable timescale. If they face such hardship due to missing £300 for a week they should spend some more time on MSE learning how to budget and provide some savings for such an occasion.

jonesMUFCforever

Indeed if they did not have internet banking they would have been none the wiser that the last payment would have been too much.

vassa

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I suggest she sues and see whether a judge thinks waiting a week for a payment is unreasonable or not if you think 8 days wait is totally unacceptable.

The DSRs are between retailers and individuals and it gives a company 30 days to pay back a customer when they have instructed them they want to return an item.

I did mention they are not direct analogies but did give an indication as to what is a reasonable timescale. If they face such hardship due to missing £300 for a week they should spend some more time on MSE learning how to budget and provide some savings for such an occasion.

Again, who cares what a judge thinks? Is a judge following bent legislation which heavily favours corporate entities over human beings the marker that something is reasonable and fair? Look up 'societal Stockholm syndrome', because you're badly suffering from it.

When you have X amount of money, and they take a proportion of it that you NEED, that is wrong no matter what some judge who is working under legislation which is made to favour business thinks or decides. Saying they're in the right because some act of parliament says they're right, despite the fact that it directly harms a real life human being, and that the human being should simply budget better is disgusting and reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourself really.

Apples2

Is this thread edging ever closer to the freeman on the land nonsense?

vassa

Apples2 wrote: »

Is this thread edging ever closer to the freeman on the land nonsense?

What....for believing that human beings should show compassion to human beings and not to big businesses?

If she took a loan out, told them to swivel and then came moaning about fraudulent mortgage contracts or whatever, i wouldn't have much sympathy. Clearing off a debt in good faith and being treated like that is wrong, whether or not the law says it's ok.

They're a collection of people in suits, looking at numbers in the profit and loss columns on spreadsheets, they get paid whether the bank makes money or not. It is zero skin off their nose to instantly refund (which the can do) a customer who is in dire need of that money.

It's a difference in thinking, it's nothing to do with 'freeman on the land'.

matttye

vassa wrote: »

Again, who cares what a judge thinks? Is a judge following bent legislation which heavily favours corporate entities over human beings the marker that something is reasonable and fair? Look up 'societal Stockholm syndrome', because you're badly suffering from it.

When you have X amount of money, and they take a proportion of it that you NEED, that is wrong no matter what some judge who is working under legislation which is made to favour business thinks or decides. Saying they're in the right because some act of parliament says they're right, despite the fact that it directly harms a real life human being, and that the human being should simply budget better is disgusting and reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourself really.

"Who cares what a judge thinks?"

You lost any credibility you had when you said that.

andyuk01

The monthly payments were £358 which suggests either a large loan, or a short time frame and there is no indication that the OP has struggled to make these payments up until now

I'm curious how £300 for 10ish days could really cause that much hardship to someone who recently found enough cash to settle a large loan or had enough disposable income to take a loan over a very short time frame

To me this is a complete non issue, put the shopping or whatever on a credit card for a week, pay it off when the money is back and save the worry. Put a complaint in and take the £25ish they offer as compensation for the inconvenience and buy something nice

DCFC79

Apples2 wrote: »

Is this thread edging ever closer to the freeman on the land nonsense?

Yes I somewhat agree, wouldnt say its edging closer its tipped over the edge. The OP had an answer within the first couple of replies and it downhill.

meer53

In my experience, loan payments are usually made by standing order, not direct debit. I wonder if they said it may take "up to 8 days" to refund ?

jonesMUFCforever

meer53 wrote: »

In my experience, loan payments are usually made by standing order, not direct debit. I wonder if they said it may take "up to 8 days" to refund ?

Sorry but Lloyds take payment by D/D.

As I have said previously the Personal loan service centre in Peterlee is an outside company working on behalf of Lloyds - this is why overpayments are not paid back same or next day.