Nationwide Overdraft Scam

zerog

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

My theory is that they've called the debt in because the OP racked up a debt in no time and there's little evidence in the account behaviour of having the income to repay it.

Agreed.

I made a similar mistake to the OP several years ago.

I was using an HSBC student account, and they had reduced their savings rates to 0.00%, so I decided to open a Santander esaver. However, they offered me £50 to open a student account as well.

I got £1000 overdraft, which I instantly put into the esaver, and made no further transactions (as this was what I was doing with HSBC, which only had a DD for my CC)

3 months later Santander decided to cancel the overdraft, but instead of ranting on an internet forum about how I'd lost 3 years of "guaranteed" 0%, I decided to learn why.

BillJones

jonwest wrote: »

I have said on numerous occasions that I have not broken any t's and c's. Can you actually read? Zero debt obviously refers to my financial situation outside this issue. Again, not too difficult to understand..

So not quite the "zero debt" that you claimed, then? You seem to want people to "understand" things that are contradicted by what you write.

It's not a question of whether people can read, it's a question of why you can't simply explain the situation correctly, rather than getting angry when peope take you at your word.

If you've no money roblems, then pay them back the overdraft, and move on.

If you can't, then you are not even being straight about your current situation.

fuisdale5

Having worked for a bank only time an overdraft would be reduced was due to non funding or meeting the account T&C you have other overdrafts with other banks and not using the account as your primary account as banks like.

Also a payment plan would be in place if you can't pay back your debts. You could be declined credit as you perhaps have debts spread across several institutions and no history of decrease. ....

even I'm confused to the point of this thread.

Herbalus

fuisdale5 wrote: »

even I'm confused to the point of this thread.

Well, it was probably best to not bring it back to the top of the threads then...