Mint Direct Debit Scam

exel1966

SteveEast9 wrote: »

1. The use of the word 'scam' was intended merely to generically highlight a practice that is anti-consumer friendliness. Another term would have been better maybe.

The use of the word 'scam' was intended merely to generically highlight a practice that this consumer doesn't understand nor took the time to find out what Mint's policy is on DD/outstanding payments even though he's been kind enough to point out personally that he has 18 years banking experience and knows more about finance than the rest of us. Such a shame he doesn't know what's relevant and what's not !!

Another term would have been better perhaps !!

egamar

I get just too vicious when I detect an idiot: I try to avoid allowing my twàt detector to come into operation too soon these days. I think your timing was perfect ....

SteveEast9

egamar wrote: »

I normally find a freepost address for the institution and that saves me the cost of a stamp!

Very dangerous. The post is now so unreliable that anything less than Recorded (signed for) Delivery post is not advisable.
I have assisted two family members and a friend, each of whom sent letters of complaint to one of these companies: BT, Talk Talk and Tiscali. Apparently none of their normal post letters were received. Within three to six days of writing again by Recorded Delivery they received either phone calls or emails in acknowledgement.

egamar wrote: »

I guess you'll just have to accept that unfortunately you have no legal or moral case to complain

Legal no, moral - well that's your very strange personal opinion.

SteveEast9

exel1966 wrote: »

The use of the word 'scam' was intended merely to generically highlight a practice that this consumer doesn't understand nor took the time to find out what Mint's policy is on DD/outstanding payments even though he's been kind enough to point out personally that he has 18 years banking experience and knows more about finance than the rest of us. Such a shame he doesn't know what's relevant and what's not !!

Another term would have been better perhaps !!

I cannot believe that so many nasty little people exist on a forum such as this. You should keep your mouth shut if you have no helpful advice - which you haven't as a different poster pointed out to you earlier in this thread.

And that goes to the '!!!! ' name calling egamar above too. :money:

SteveEast9

Chris2000 wrote: »

On my Co-op Bank statement it says: "THE FULL BALANCE OUTSTANDING WILL BE COLLECTED BY DIRECT DEBIT REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER PAYMENTS MADE"

Either the statement message or the call centre employee is wrong.

That does not relate to a minimum payment Direct Debit.

egamar

SteveEast9 wrote: »

Legal no, moral - well that's your very strange personal opinion.

If something is written into an agreement and is not manifestly unfair - when it would be struck down by the Unfair Contract Terms Act - and where it is a practice shared by other reputable institutions, where another poster has made a very cogent post about how no one solution can be right in all circumstances, then how can it be immoral?

You may not like it, you may wish it were otherwise, you may be kicking yourself for not reading the small-print or not understanding it.

You show no signs that I can detect of having read, understood or acknowledged anything anyone has written here which contradicts your rather extreme and inflammatory position, and that leads me to conclude that you are indeed feeling an awful tw*t for not having read and understood the small-print. Of course, I may be wrong, and you might just be trolling for an argument. In either event, I've said my piece.

My recommendation would be to accept that you've dropped a b*llock - get over it, and move on.

SteveEast9

egamar wrote: »

If something is written into an agreement and is not manifestly unfair - when it would be struck down by the Unfair Contract Terms Act - and where it is a practice shared by other reputable institutions, where another poster has made a very cogent post about how no one solution can be right in all circumstances, then how can it be immoral?

You may not like it, you may wish it were otherwise, you may be kicking yourself for not reading the small-print or not understanding it.

You've dropped a b*llock - get over it, and move on.

Well for someone name-calling posters twxats you are a very big one yourself.

exel1966

SteveEast9 wrote: »

I cannot believe that so many nasty little people exist on a forum such as this. You should keep your mouth shut if you have no helpful advice - which you haven't as a different poster pointed out to you earlier in this thread.

Those comments just go to prove that you cannot read or comprehend the english language as no poster has referred to my earlier comments!
Truth hurts doesn't it ! You screwed up, yet everyone else must take the blame for your errors and to cap it all you rant and rant and rant, yet have absolutely nothing of substance to say:rotfl: .
It's quite true to say that those who shout the loudest (YOU) are never heard and are not man enough to admit their own mistakes !! Adios Mr Banker with 18 years experience !!!! ROFL :rotfl: :rotfl:

SteveEast9

exel1966 wrote: »

Those comments just go to prove that you cannot read or comprehend the english language as no poster has referred to my earlier comments!
Truth hurts doesn't it ! You screwed up, yet everyone else must take the blame for your errors and to cap it all you rant and rant and rant, yet have absolutely nothing of substance to say:rotfl: .
It's quite true to say that those who shout the loudest (YOU) are never heard and are not man enough to admit their own mistakes !! Adios Mr Banker with 18 years experience !!!! ROFL :rotfl: :rotfl:

excel1966 = Forum Junkie = someone who sits in front of a screen with no motivation to help anyone nor even with any primary or secondary interest in the subject of the forum itself but merely to assuage some other issue they cannot/wont deal with by some other method. Usually a member of many forums. Probably single or in an unsatisfactory relationship. Also have a tendency to like to play with icons and use brainless abbreviations.

rugbymum

SteveEast9 wrote: »

excel1966 = Forum Junkie = someone who sits in front of a screen with no motivation to help anyone nor even with any primary or secondary interest in the subject of the forum itself but merely to assuage some other issue they cannot/wont deal with by some other method. Usually a member of many forums. Probably single or in an unsatisfactory relationship. Also have a tendency to like to play with icons and use brainless abbreviations.

I understand that you're annoyed by the way you have been treated by Mint.
I work for a "well-known high street bank", and i can tell you that hardly anyone has the authority to refund charges these days except specific staff in specific centres. It is unlikely that the "manager" you spoke to was in the select few.
Putting your complaint in writing is the only way forward (that is true for most situations).
I've read the posts with interest. People here are trying to help. You've done nothing but be patronising, sarcastic and nasty.
This is a lovely online community for people who are trying to help each other out. If you don't want to join in with that then perhaps it would be best for you to stay away.