What! can they do that?

boo_star

thebritishbloke wrote: »

It would actually take even longer than 100 months, as you're paying 1% of the balance for that month, not 1% of the original balance every month.

A lot more from memory. But it doesn't matter really, it's certainly going to cost a lot more paying the bare minimum than say, 10% a month.

It's a shame the bank didn't stand their ground, I guess £50 to shut the OP up is better than >£500 if the OP took it to the Ombudsman.

YorkshireBoy

boo_star wrote: »

It's a shame the bank didn't stand their ground, I guess £50 to shut the OP up is better than >£500 if the OP took it to the Ombudsman.

It wouldn't get as far as an adjudicator, so no £550 fee would be chargeable.

It'd be laughed out of court handled by their frontline staff.

YorkshireBoy

"Just recently my bank keeps sending me letters to tell me that if I only pay minimum payments on my credit cards each month it will take longer to pay off the balance..."

And the reason they've done this is because for several years you've been ignoring (or appearing to the bank to be ignoring) the self same message that's been put on each and every one of your monthly statements.

The reason for the dedicated letter is to comply with a regulatory requirement. Welcome to the nanny state!

boo_star

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

It wouldn't get as far as an adjudicator, so no £550 fee would be chargeable.

It'd be laughed out of court handled by their frontline staff.

I'd hope they wouldn't be charged, the OPs complaint is laughable. I suppose they offered the OP £50 because the cost of the manhours would be above £50. That and it frees up employee time for actual complaints.

YorkshireBoy

boo_star wrote: »

I suppose they offered the OP £50 because the cost of the manhours would be above £50. That and it frees up employee time for actual complaints.

Sadly, I think you're correct.

Armorica

I'm equally amazed you got anything.

Sending those letters is a regulatory requirement.

It shouldn't really need explaining at the state to anyone who is financially literate and understands the concept of interest rates

If they are the same company, there is no problem. If it's different subsidiaries of the same company it's almost certainly covered in your terms and conditions that information may be shared with other parts of the group.

weatherlobe

Never trust a goose!

Why cant geese be trusted?

101problems

£50 seems to be the standard shut up I don't want to deal with you anymore go away money.
however the skeptical dog in me is skeptical take your 50 and ask for a copy of your consumer credit agreement, the skeptical part of me says they know the credit debt is unenforceable! Now I may be wrong but hey what do you have to lose if it turns out your agreement is unenforceable you are quids in!!
Morally yes it is wrong but ask yourself just how easy did they offer you the 50notes?
Worst case scenario you owe them what you owe ans are in a position to pay so pay it!

PeacefulWaters

101problems wrote: »

£50 seems to be the standard shut up I don't want to deal with you anymore go away money.
however the skeptical dog in me is skeptical take your 50 and ask for a copy of your consumer credit agreement, the skeptical part of me says they know the credit debt is unenforceable! Now I may be wrong but hey what do you have to lose if it turns out your agreement is unenforceable you are quids in!!
Morally yes it is wrong but ask yourself just how easy did they offer you the 50notes?
Worst case scenario you owe them what you owe ans are in a position to pay so pay it!

Complete nonsense.

[Deleted User]

101problems wrote: »

Now I may be wrong

I disagree.

You are definitely, totally, 100% wrong.