Bank taken too much, help with DD guarantee

John1993_2

vassa wrote: »

I as if money is some tangible real thing, when we both know it's not, it's numbers.

Oh, !!!!!!. I've some real money in my pocket right now.

I give up on you, you post too much !!!! like the above, without contributing anything of value.

Money's not real, Jesus...

vassa

John1993 wrote: »

Oh, !!!!!!. I've some real money in my pocket right now.

I give up on you, you post too much !!!! like the above, without contributing anything of value.

Money's not real, Jesus...

Well explain your points then?

So you give up on me? So you're saying that when a bank loans money it loans actual physical money? Or do they just put numbers into computers?

Feel free to try and belittle me because you realise you're wrong.

matttye

vassa wrote: »

Taking money you're not owed and then refusing to give it back right away is civilised? Ok.

I'm not talking about that. Your posts have gone far past that now...

You're talking about judges upholding laws made by corrupt politicians and a load of other claptrap. That's the society you live in. Feel free to go and make camp in the Amazon Jungle if you don't like it.

For the record, I agree it is not fair to withhold money that shouldn't have been taken.

tell_it_how_it_is

I suspect that after reading many of the bizarre replies on here, the OP realises that her issue is small fry and insignificant compared to the 'issues' clearly suffered by some of these other poor individuals!

vassa

matttye wrote: »

I'm not talking about that. Your posts have gone far past that now...

You're talking about judges upholding laws made by corrupt politicians and a load of other claptrap. That's the society you live in. Feel free to go and make camp in the Amazon Jungle if you don't like it.

For the record, I agree it is not fair to withhold money that shouldn't have been taken.

It was only in response to people claiming it is fair because the law says it's fair. The law isn't fair, that's what i was getting at. And then when you say that someone says 'take it to a judge and see if they think it's fair' like they're at all impartial seeing as they work to the exact same laws. I was trying to put right basic misunderstanding of how things actually work, it's not conspiracy talk or anything, just trying to educate people mate.

Someone has to stand up for the little person against people like those who've responded in here - OP has been basically told to man up and one person even made out like them not having loads of money saved up (without knowing their financial situation) for a rainy day was the reason this has happened. Totally out of order, but then this is a forum, these people wouldn't say that to someone who complained about this to them face to face because that's also how the world works, and they'd have no friends at all if they did that.

matttye

vassa wrote: »

It was only in response to people claiming it is fair because the law says it's fair. The law isn't fair, that's what i was getting at. And then when you say that someone says 'take it to a judge and see if they think it's fair' like they're at all impartial seeing as they work to the exact same laws. I was trying to put right basic misunderstanding of how things actually work, it's not conspiracy talk or anything, just trying to educate people mate.

Someone has to stand up for the little person against people like those who've responded in here - OP has been basically told to man up and one person even made out like them not having loads of money saved up (without knowing their financial situation) for a rainy day was the reason this has happened. Totally out of order, but then this is a forum, these people wouldn't say that to someone who complained about this to them face to face because that's also how the world works, and they'd have no friends at all if they did that.

Not all laws are going to be 'fair' but they're made for a reason.

I have no idea whether there's a law saying they can't give her money back straight away; I'm just talking generally.

Dovah_diva

As a complete outsider, who has just read the whole thread, I am sorry to report that vassa does indeed come across as a tad loopy. His/her points may be valid but unfortunately the semi-hysterical, rather unpleasant way they are written detracts from any sense that might be contained therein.

stclair

Did the OP make a manual payment to the account prior to the DD being collected.

If this is the case then if the payment was made prior to the DD collection the DD was already in the system for the said amount, therefore the payment would have still been collected.

bigadaj

vassa wrote: »

It was only in response to people claiming it is fair because the law says it's fair. The law isn't fair, that's what i was getting at. And then when you say that someone says 'take it to a judge and see if they think it's fair' like they're at all impartial seeing as they work to the exact same laws. I was trying to put right basic misunderstanding of how things actually work, it's not conspiracy talk or anything, just trying to educate people mate.

Someone has to stand up for the little person against people like those who've responded in here - OP has been basically told to man up and one person even made out like them not having loads of money saved up (without knowing their financial situation) for a rainy day was the reason this has happened. Totally out of order, but then this is a forum, these people wouldn't say that to someone who complained about this to them face to face because that's also how the world works, and they'd have no friends at all if they did that.

The problem here is that your responses haven't be proportionate. The bank is in the wrong but is putting things right, and this is all about a reasoanble timeframe to do so. The OP should make a complaint and presumably be offered a nominal payment, how much would he be out of pocket for a few days?

We live on the uk where 60 or 90 day payment terms are
Commonplace so it's a question of reasonableness. If someone said this to em at work or elsewhere my response wouldn't differ, I'd sympathise but say what's the problem in the scheme of things.

vassa

bigadaj wrote: »

The problem here is that your responses haven't be proportionate. The bank is in the wrong but is putting things right, and this is all about a reasoanble timeframe to do so. The OP should make a complaint and presumably be offered a nominal payment, how much would he be out of pocket for a few days?

We live on the uk where 60 or 90 day payment terms are
Commonplace so it's a question of reasonableness. If someone said this to em at work or elsewhere my response wouldn't differ, I'd sympathise but say what's the problem in the scheme of things.

'reasonableness' as you put it is dictated by the banks. Taking someone's last £300 quid when you shouldn't have done, and then refusing to give it back until you decide is not okay.

Also it's easy for you to say 'what's the problem' in the scheme of things - how do you know the OP doesn't do their DD's on the 5th of every month and now they're stuffed with getting bills or rent paid? How do you know it's not put them over an unauthorised overdraft? How do you know it's not the difference between feeding the kids and not this week? But even so, if any of those are the case, it's fine because parliament (funded by banks) say it's fine? It's fine because it's less than 30 days? Please.