TSB planned outage

Cotta

To be fair this is one of the few instances in which TSB have paid out compensation/goodwill, I have read very little elsewhere to suggest that huge payments are being made.

Mchambers

ValiantSon wrote: »

No, it isn't right. Moral relativism is a flawed argument. By the logic you present there should be no such thing as crime, because it's just life that people will seek to satisfy their own desires, but humans have eschewed such selfish behaviour in recognition that there are greater goods and that we are stronger as a species if we form a society. Societies need rules.

Your view is immoral.

Who cares ?:rotfl::rotfl:

beefturnmail

ValiantSon wrote: »

No, it isn't right. Moral relativism is a flawed argument. By the logic you present there should be no such thing as crime, because it's just life that people will seek to satisfy their own desires, but humans have eschewed such selfish behaviour in recognition that there are greater goods and that we are stronger as a species if we form a society. Societies need rules.

Your view is immoral.

Oh get off your high horse! Do you really think financial institutions operate in this way? No, they exist to make a profit, and will not hesitate to make money off the consumer when they make a minor mistake (think late payment fees etc.). So why shouldn't we make a bit back, when they make a catastrophic mistake. They should have invested the money up front and done some proper testing.

eskbanker

Uxb wrote: »

On the contrary - if everyone complains and then rejects the derisory offer it it goes to the F.O scheme.
That will cost TSB £500 in F.O fees for each complaint.

nic_c wrote: »

AirlieBird wrote: »

No it won't. High Street banks pay a group fee to the FOS. The case fee applies to small businesses.

Yes it will. High Street banks pay a fee and so they get a quota of fee-free complaints, they pay for any extra complaints over the quota

These misconceptions get repeated regularly on here, so anyone suffering from a delusion that they have some sort of leverage by threatening to take complaints to the ombudsman would do well to read through http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG1.pdf which confirms that

• Less than a sixth of issues referred to FOS actually become chargeable anyway
• All firms have the quota of 25 free referrals that would otherwise be chargeable
• Major players pay a group fee rather than a case by case one

eskbanker

PROLIANT wrote: »

But many of the sheeple on here would throw themselves in front of a train if Martin told them too, we live in a society ruled by delusions of entitlement and victim hood.

I have yet to see a post relating to requests for compensation that are honest and valid, so far all I have read is a bunch of socialists out to get free money and put the boot into the system - I hope one day when they mess up the bank does not reciprocate with such treatment.

While I'd agree with the general thrust of your comments, how on earth do you divine that such actions are indicative of specific political beliefs?! Or are you just using 'socialist' in the Daily Mail sense as a generic derogatory term perhaps?

ValiantSon

Mchambers wrote: »

Who cares ?:rotfl::rotfl:

Those of us who have a moral compass.

ValiantSon

beefturnmail wrote: »

Oh get off your high horse! Do you really think financial institutions operate in this way? No, they exist to make a profit, and will not hesitate to make money off the consumer when they make a minor mistake (think late payment fees etc.). So why shouldn't we make a bit back, when they make a catastrophic mistake. They should have invested the money up front and done some proper testing.

Oh, I do beg your pardon for having morals!

You are conflating appropriate charges (as outlined in advance) for a customer failing to meet their obligations, with a situation where people are grabbing money when they have suffered no loss. If you can't understand the difference then that is your failing.

This is greed, pure and simple.

paragon909

Anyone would think ValiantSon works for TSB or is a banker. Remember the banking scandals in the UK, Where the bankers i.e. TSB etc all ripped off the taxpayers. Well TSB naively thought they could change systems in a weekend i.e. 5 million customers. After a full week it's still not back to full operational use.

For me £37 isn't a matter of morality. It's a matter of getting compensation for their sorry state of affairs. Plus I was inconvenienced not being able to access funds sent by a friend who mistakenly sent to TSB rather than my Santander, Making me wait till the following monday to access, And in doing so, Had to borrow money.

As others have said, Get off your high horse and stop playing god almighty, Like your something! The CEO said were entitled to compensation, So I took him up on his offer, TSB could have refused. They didn't! Deal with it.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

veryintrigued

ValiantSon wrote: »

Oh, I do beg your pardon for having morals!

You are conflating appropriate charges (as outlined in advance) for a customer failing to meet their obligations, with a situation where people are grabbing money when they have suffered no loss. If you can't understand the difference then that is your failing.

This is greed, pure and simple.

These people are among us...

It's a worry isn't it?

soulsaver

ValiantSon wrote: »

Oh, I do beg your pardon for having morals!

You are conflating appropriate charges (as outlined in advance) for a customer failing to meet their obligations, with a situation where people are grabbing money when they have suffered no loss. If you can't understand the difference then that is your failing.

This is greed, pure and simple.

veryintrigued wrote: »

These people are among us...

It's a worry isn't it?

Verbose pontificators?