MBNA policy

jb478914

plus one of the reasons that MSEers are able to stooze using the banks money is because this loss to the banks is offset by income from 'sharp' practices.

that is why you may have had unsympathetic responses.

Use this occurence as a motivational tool to stooze every possible penny from the banks to make your money back!

best wishes

klondyke

peawack wrote:

I was about to explain that sympathy was the last thing I was wanting or expecting, and that if someone else benefitted from our experience with MBNA, it was worth it. A couple of the contributions gave me the creeps, and while I'm no friend of the banks, I get the impression that they are easier to deal with and have more compassion than some people (on this board) who are supposed to be on our side.
These people,who relish other's mis-fortune, would prove difficult in any facet of life.

I do indeed have sympathy, compassion, whatever, when I see some of the harrowing situations peope are in (see, for instance, Debt-free wannabe threads). What I really have no sympathy for is the subject heading - "MBNA and sharp practice", when the problem which arose is simply that MBNA applied their rules and even waived half the fee. We are not all perfect and it is quite easy to accidentally overlook something and resent being charged for our error, however slight that error may appear to be - but as others have said, if this thread helps others to learn from this mistake, then I would reiterate the need for learners, beginners, old hands (we've all been there) that Rule no 1 is to read and comply with all the rules you have signed up to.

Believe me, if I had done the same as your wife, I would be kicking myself and asking MBNA please to reconsider as I have always been a model customer etc (as you have done...)

But once I have reached the end of pleading, however cross I might be about the situation, I would not accuse them publicly of sharp practice.

No, I don't work for them and I don't like them very much as they are known to jump quite quickly on errors - but that is their prerogative. Still, I have quite a lot of their money stuffed in a savings account, so I will try to ensure I stick to the rules, to the letter.

Creepy as it may be, I probably would have more sympathy if the heading were different.

GIRLPOWER_2

The problem as I see it is No sympathy comments put off newcomers from posting..

MarkyMarkD

phil-99 wrote:

Eh? It's all automated. If they wanted to, they could easily decline all transactions tat (sic) took you over your credit limit.

No, they COULD NOT because not all transactions are online verified by the merchant. Once the merchant has accepted the card in payment, it's guaranteed for them and the card company can't decline it irrespective of the state of the account.

Whilst some merchants on principle verify every transaction, others don't bother for smaller amounts, both because of the telephony costs (although these are not much any more) and more importantly because of the delay in processing, particularly for merchants with dial-up verification still.

klondyke

GIRLPOWER wrote:

The problem as I see it is No sympathy comments put off newcomers from posting..

Depends on the context - I think all peeps who post on any fora, whether oldcomers or newcomers should be careful about potentially libellous headings (or content come to that ......"MBNA are scoundrels and should be investigated", ......"rogues").

To be honest, when I saw that heading, as a customer of MBNA, I felt a slight sense of panic in case they really were up to any sharp practice which might affect me (selfish) or any others who, following correct procedures, might somehow be conned (unselfish).

I am all for newcomers or anyone posting their experiences 'for the benefit of others'' and to seek advice and support for themselves. MSErs are normally a particularly supportive group where there is a need. But just occasionally, after one has seen the same kind of thing over and over again - "I clanged and got charged", one hopes that newcomers will indeed benefit from reading these and realise the importance of small print, summary boxes etc. But they don't, or they wouldn't need to make the next similar post.

Anyway, sorry if I upset OP for expressing myself on this occasion. I shall remain quietly uncompassionate on this particular issue.

phoebe03cat

Have just got Virgin card and transfered our debts for 0% interest offer. All seems logical. Now I have got it fixed in my brain that I shouldn't spend on this account from Martin's article - and I won't, but have to admit to not really understanding why. I think this is the trouble when you half understand something...would anyone be kind enough to explain in simple terms please...

miller

MarkyMarkD wrote:

No, they COULD NOT because not all transactions are online verified by the merchant. Once the merchant has accepted the card in payment, it's guaranteed for them and the card company can't decline it irrespective of the state of the account.

Last week, I signed on a slip from a "zip-zap". Thought the only place I was going to see one of those again was on the Antiques Roadshow. In the old days I expect more people were going overlimit with these around.

xela_17

phoebe03cat wrote:

Have just got Virgin card and transfered our debts for 0% interest offer. All seems logical. Now I have got it fixed in my brain that I shouldn't spend on this account from Martin's article - and I won't, but have to admit to not really understanding why. I think this is the trouble when you half understand something...would anyone be kind enough to explain in simple terms please...

Simply, any purchases you make on the card will attract interest (as it's 0% for BTs ONLY). Then, subsequent payments you make to the card will be applied to the cheap debt first (i.e your 0% BT), leaving the purchases on the card attracting interest.

hth.

Stonk

I see no "sharp practice" here; everything that happened is written clearly in the rules. Much as I dislike any CC company, the original post is out-and-out libel against MBNA.

Yes, it is harsh to be charged so much for such a minor transgression. Those, however, are the rules you agreed to play by. If you didn't like them then you didn't have to play. If you choose to play, you don't have to break them. When you do break them, and you get penalised perfectly legitimately according to the rules - (a) learn a lesson; (b) don't whinge about it.

THE_ROCK84

Stonk wrote:

I see no "sharp practice" here; everything that happened is written clearly in the rules. Much as I dislike any CC company, the original post is out-and-out libel against MBNA.

Yes, it is harsh to be charged so much for such a minor transgression. Those, however, are the rules you agreed to play by. If you didn't like them then you didn't have to play. If you choose to play, you don't have to break them. When you do break them, and you get penalised perfectly legitimately according to the rules - (a) learn a lesson; (b) don't whinge about it.

What a great poster!