Bankers May Not Be Nice People

bajer101

A major Irish bank decided to deactivate my current account without informing me. I first noticed it when my direct debits started failing and then noticed that my overdraft facility seemed to have been removed. Phoned them and they said that it was due to my car loan which was in arrears. Ok, but it would have been nice to be have been told about this. Losing your overdraft facility with no notice is challenging, but it's ok. I'm getting hammered on those overdraft rates anyway and I have a deposit coming in which will cover all that. Grand.

I get the lodgement into the account, nothing major, just a few grand of a tax rebate. Go shopping with the daughter and the card gets rejected. Try the ATM, rejected. Call the card service and am told the card has been cancelled. Go home annoyed.

Yesterday morning, go to local bank branch and they refused to give me my money saying that it was tied up with my loan account. Got my money out in the end.

Akrasia

A ludicrous amount of a bank's profit is made up of fees and charges. (up to 40% )

It used to be that people got paid for services they provide. Now banks get rich from creaming charges and penalties off the top of people trying to make ends meet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/21/the-crazy-growth-of-bank-fees.html

bajer101

There was a moment there in the branch, where the assistant manager was refusing to give me my money.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

ArchXStanton

bajer101 wrote: »

There was a moment there in the branch, where the assistant manager was refusing to give me my money.

You don't work for them,I can kinda see the appeal of crypto currency judging by the banks behaviour the last few years

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

A major Irish bank decided to deactivate my current account without informing me. I first noticed it when my direct debits started failing and then noticed that my overdraft facility seemed to have been removed. Phoned them and they said that it was due to my car loan which was in arrears. Ok, but it would have been nice to be have been told about this.l.

You're annoyed because they stopped giving you credit facilities when you defaulted on a loan?

Check the terms and conditions of your overdraft facility. If it's allowed, then not sure what the problem is. Its not for them to beg you to comply with your car loan arrangement.

There are problems in Irish banking. One of them is banks behaving outrageously, like the tracker cases. One of them is customers defaulting on loans.

"Bankers May Not Be Nice People"

Kinda misleading. People working in Banks are just doing a job. Following some very strict procedures for dealing with customers, and frankly, based on your description you would already be marked as a risk. Stands to reason they would be cautious of sticking their necks out for you.

The issue is with the bank and their procedures. Honestly, I was appalled when I returned to Ireland and saw the 4 euro a month charge simply for owning an account. But I wouldn't go calling bankers bad people because of it. I would consider Irish banks to be a load of thieves, and generally untrustworthy regarding my savings/mortgage, but I've known that since the banking 'crash'.

Jayop

Bankers are inherently bad people. I'm not talking about the lesser spotted teller or the guys on 6 month rolling contracts trying to sell products the banks don't really want to sell. I'm talking about the utter scum at the top. Ireland's worst people by miles. **** them.

piplip87

You defaulted on a car loan, the bank has every right to close your account. You are extremely lucky to have got any money back as they can take it and notify you in writing of this.

Loans that have being defaulted on make up a big part of why the crash happened.

Just stick to you payment arrangement.

I would also argue that people who don't pay their bills are inherently worse people than bankers because when a loan/utility bill etc goes unpaid the bank/company just increases the prices on those who pay

Kermit.de.frog

piplip87 wrote: »

You defaulted on a car loan, the bank has every right to close your account. You are extremely lucky to have got any money back as they can take it and notify you in writing of this.

Loans that have being defaulted on make up a big part of why the crash happened.

Just stick to you payment arrangement.

I would also argue that people who don't pay their bills are inherently worse people than bankers because when a loan/utility bill etc goes unpaid the bank/company just increases the prices on those who pay

Ah come on, you are speaking surely to "burn the bondholders" people who are not that sensible or nuanced.

Don't bother.

Jayop

piplip87 wrote: »

You defaulted on a car loan, the bank has every right to close your account. You are extremely lucky to have got any money back as they can take it and notify you in writing of this.

Loans that have being defaulted on make up a big part of why the crash happened.

Just stick to you payment arrangement.

I would also argue that people who don't pay their bills are inherently worse people than bankers because when a loan/utility bill etc goes unpaid the bank/company just increases the prices on those who pay

Your last paragraph is absolutely the biggest puke posted here in ages.

People should pay their bills but if you can't differentiate between someone who loses their job and can't pay a mortgage that they only got because the bank threw it at them and a rich banker who invents a ponzi scheme or acts like our banks acted in the boom years, or acts with the utter callousness of our banks screwing people who signed up to one loan and forcing them to a variable and then hang themselves.

**** them. Scum. Someone missing a loan repayment isn't even in the same category, but you're that brainwashed by your right wing leaders you think they're worse. Wake up.

Jayop

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ah come on, you are speaking surely to "burn the bondholders" people who are not that sensible or nuanced.

Don't bother.

Yep your dead right. A guy missing a car loan repayment is a bigger bastard than the scum at Anglo Irish.

Nuanced. What a ****ing joke.

Kermit.de.frog

Jayop wrote: »

People should pay their bills but if you can't differentiate between someone who loses their job and can't pay a mortgage...

That is everyone's fault why?

Ever heard of personal responsibility?

Kermit.de.frog

Jayop wrote: »

Yep your dead right. A guy missing a car loan repayment is a bigger bastard than the scum at Anglo Irish.

One and the same.

uck51js9zml2yt

Jayop wrote: »

Your last paragraph is absolutely the biggest puke posted here in ages.

People should pay their bills but if you can't differentiate between someone who loses their job and can't pay a mortgage that they only got because the bank threw it at them and a rich banker who invents a ponzi scheme or acts like our banks acted in the boom years, or acts with the utter callousness of our banks screwing people who signed up to one loan and forcing them to a variable and then hang themselves.
.

Yes the banks threw money at people and made them sign loan forms.....will you grow up?
People made choices, some of them bad ones...but they have a personal responsibility.

GingerLily

The bank sent you letters, did you ignore them?

I also got stung in a similar fashion many moons ago, never thought to blame the bank for the situation! How stupid of me.

Canis Lupus

GingerLily wrote: »

The bank sent you letters, did you ignore them?

I also got stung in a similar fashion many moons ago, never thought to blame the bank for the situation! How stupid of me.

It's always easier if it's someone else's fault.

GrumpyMe

piplip87 wrote: »

You defaulted on a car loan, the bank has every right to close your account. You are extremely lucky to have got any money back as they can take it and notify you in writing of this.

Loans that have being defaulted on make up a big part of why the crash happened.

Just stick to you payment arrangement.

I would also argue that people who don't pay their bills are inherently worse people than bankers because when a loan/utility bill etc goes unpaid the bank/company just increases the prices on those who pay

You are 100% right about the underlined text above!
However I think you must have been asleep when we had to bail out the big defaulters, the banks, to the tune of +/- €60 billion.

A Battered Mars Bar

Ah the good old Celtic Tiger. Sure it's all the banks fault I can't pay for all these loans I took out. I just want to go on a shopping spree with my daughter...

Hard to decide if the post is a joke or if the OP is one of those people who need to be saved from themselves.

Also posting in AH knowing the type of replies they will get is a bit odd do they want to be castigated for their mistakes by AH.

DeanAustin

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Ah the good old Celtic Tiger. Sure it's all the banks fault I can't pay for all these loans I took out. I just want to go on a shopping spree with my daughter...

Read his post. His problem is the fact that the didn't notify him. He's okay with his account being closed/overdraft being withdrawn, he'd just like to have been notified. The OP is 100% right.

I'm all for personal responsibility but I'm always surprised by the amount of callous pontificating that goes on in threads like this. Some hard, heartless bastards in this country.

GingerLily

DeanAustin wrote: »

Read his post. His problem is the fact that the didn't notify him. He's okay with his account being closed/overdraft being withdrawn, he'd just like to have been notified. The OP is 100% right.
.

I don't believe the OP wasn't informed, if he wasn't he may have a case for the omnibusman.

By going into arrears he had no right to keep his overdraft, but he should have been informed.

It was probably stated in the arrears letters he received but didn't read.

server down

Noel Narrow Tenor wrote: »

Yes the banks threw money at people and made them sign loan forms.....will you grow up?
People made choices, some of them bad ones...but they have a personal responsibility.

The banks were the supposed experts though. It’s still amazing that they have to be reigned in. If the central bank removed its oversight banks would be back to 5 times mortgages and 100%+ credit.

server down

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Ah the good old Celtic Tiger. Sure it's all the banks fault I can't pay for all these loans I took out. I just want to go on a shopping spree with my daughter...

I think he’s complaining about being unable to access money more than anything.

DeanAustin

DeanAustin wrote: »

Read his post. His problem is the fact that the didn't notify him. He's okay with his account being closed/overdraft being withdrawn, he'd just like to have been notified. The OP is 100% right.

I'm all for personal responsibility but I'm always surprised by the amount of callous pontificating that goes on in threads like this. Some hard, heartless bastards in this country.

I find it hard to believe that someone defaulting on a car loan didn't receive one letter.

GingerLily

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that someone defaulting on a car loan didn't receive one letter.

He did, he didn't read them, and didn't read that they were revoking his overdraft which would have been in a condition of one of the contracts he signed.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that someone defaulting on a car loan didn't receive one letter.

Might be online these days.

The op says he was ok with his direct debits not working and his overdrafts being cancelled but that he had deposited money recently and was in the black. And that’s the money the bank refused to give him, to begin with because it was tied up with his loan account. Eventually they did.

What’s the legality in that?

GingerLily

GingerLily wrote: »

He did, he didn't read them, and didn't read that they were revoking his overdraft which would have been in a condition of one of the contracts he signed.

He also didn't clarify what happened to the car. Lots of young fellows with credit union loans for beemers around the country who thought nothing of defaulting on the loan...while keeping the car. In fairness, that might depend on necessity, but it's one of the questions a Court will ask when these types of cases end up before them.

DeanAustin

GingerLily wrote: »

He did, he didn't read them, and didn't read that they were revoking his overdraft which would have been in a condition of one of the contracts he signed.

I can't see that he/she has said that?

server down

DeanAustin wrote: »

I can't see that he/she has said that?

Lot of assumptions in this thread.

Sonics2k

Jayop wrote: »

Yep your dead right. A guy missing a car loan repayment is a bigger bastard than the scum at Anglo Irish.

Nuanced. What a ****ing joke.

I very much doubt the bank closed his account and held funds because he missed a single car payment. It's far more likely he missed a good few and then ignored the letters.

sbsquarepants

Op seems to be of the opinion that I owe this pile of money but I own this pile, they are separate piles of money - I want to go shopping with the money in my right hand, sure it's my left hand that owes for the car.
It just doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

Pay your bills first - bring your daughter shopping with what's left!

I'm no fan of the banks or of their disgusting behaviour recently - but you just don't fall into this category OP - You just don't want to pay back money you borrowed, even though you have the capacity to do so.
You are not a victim, you're a chancer!

seamus

This is why you never bank and loan with the same bank. Loans & mortgages with one bank, savings with another, current account with another.

server down

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Op seems to be of the opinion that I owe this pile of money but I own this pile, they are separate piles of money - I want to go shopping with the money in my right hand, sure it's my left hand that owes for the car.
It just doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

Pay your bills first - bring your daughter shopping with what's left!

I'm no fan of the banks or of their disgusting behaviour recently - but you just don't fall into this category OP - You just don't want to pay back money you borrowed, even though you have the capacity to do so.
You are not a victim, you're a chancer!

You know many countries will have laws saying that the account holder has to be left with money to live on. Even if this guys current account balance was less than the outstanding loan I don’t agree with the legality of closing an account.

Jayop

Sonics2k wrote: »

I very much doubt the bank closed his account and held funds because he missed a single car payment. It's far more likely he missed a good few and then ignored the letters.

I was replying to someone saying that Bankers behaving in the way they do is equal to someone missing repayments. I don't care if he missed one or missed ten, it's still not as bad as the banks behavior.

Sure look now news this morning that the screwed another three thousand people out of trackers. Systemic screwing of people with utter callousness.

The J Stands for Jay

The lesson to take away from this is to keep your savings and current account with s different institution to your debt.

sbsquarepants

server down wrote: »

You know many countries will have laws saying that the account holder has to be left with money to live on. Even if this guys current account balance was less than the outstanding loan I don’t agree with the legality of closing an account.

So he borrows money for a car - doesn't pay it back.
Has no money in his account - bank covers some other bills on overdraft (presumably, he doesn't pay this back either - so the bank either removes the facility or he simply exhausts it and his bills start bouncing)
He then gets a minor windfall into his account and his first thought is - "I know what to do, why don't I just say fúck all that money I borrowed and then didn't repay, lets go shopping"
The bank, say hang on a minute - that's actually our money not yours - we've paid for the car your going shopping in and covered your bills when you were broke.

And your issue is not with him, but with the person he owes the money to? Explain your thought process there please?

server down

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So he borrows money for a car - doesn't pay it back.
Has no money in his account - bank covers some other bills on overdraft (presumably, he doesn't pay this back either - so the bank either removes the facility or he simply exhausts it and his bills start bouncing)
He then gets a minor windfall into his account and his first thought is - "I know what to do, why don't I just say fúck all that money I borrowed and then didn't repay, lets go shopping"
The bank, say hang on a minute - that's actually our money not yours - we've paid for the car your going shopping in and covered your bills when you were broke.

And your issue is not with him, but with the person he owes the money to? Explain your thought process there please?

My thought process is wondering about the legality of it. Does the bank, without recourse to the courts, get to seize that money? Can they self appoint a sherrif and seize the car? Can they grab the TV?

Closing accounts seems like a serious business to me. Also he claims no notice was given.

andekwarhola

In a way, the undeniable antics of the banks in Ireland has been a godsend as it appears to provide a cast iron excuse for everybody in the country to abdicate personal responsibility.

sbsquarepants

server down wrote: »

My thought process is wondering about the legality of it. Does the bank, without recourse to the courts, get to seize that money? Can they self appoint a sherrif and seize the car? Can they grab the TV?

Closing accounts seems like a serious business to me.

I'm not at all sure they actually closed his account - they (possibly) removed an overdraft facility and cancelled a bank card. He actually got his money after arguing a bit. I'm not sure if they deducted any to cover his debts or not - it's not too clear.

If it was you the OP owed the money to, would you be happy to let him go shopping or would you think he should pay his debts first, and only spend what was left?

seamus

server down wrote: »

My thought process is wondering about the legality of it. Does the bank, without recourse to the courts, get to seize that money?

The bank is already in possession of the money, it's not "seizing" anything.

From the bank's point of view, every account isn't a separate entity - every customer is. The purpose of the accounts is to just separate your money out into virtual buckets to manage it.

Legally though you have a single balance, which is the sum of all your accounts. The bank can move money around these accounts basically at will because they're not changing your final balance by doing so - i.e. they're actually not taking away anything from you by moving your money from a current account into a loan account. Your balance remains the same, the only difference is the funds available to you.

It's well-established law.

El Tarangu

McGaggs wrote: »

The lesson to take away from this is to keep your savings and current account with s different institution to your debt.

Yes.

That, or maybe borrowing Peter to pay Paul is a bad idea(?)

server down

seamus wrote: »

The bank is already in possession of the money, it's not "seizing" anything.

From the bank's point of view, every account isn't a separate entity - every customer is. The purpose of the accounts is to just separate your money out into virtual buckets to manage it.

Legally though you have a single balance, which is the sum of all your accounts. The bank can move money around these accounts basically at will because they're not changing your final balance by doing so - i.e. they're actually not taking away anything from you by moving your money from a current account into a loan account. Your balance remains the same, the only difference is the funds available to you.

It's well-established law.

Really. So my bank can without notice pay down my mortgage with my savings and current account? Or as much as they can?

Maybe your idea about separate banks is a good idea :-)

Ubbquittious

People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

Next we'll have people saying Varadkar and Bertie are great lads

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

Next we'll have people saying Varadkar and Bertie are great lads

People defending the attitude that one can spend spend spend other peoples money and just not pay it back, but still want to hang on to the asset they used the money on...oh and expect that they should still get access to even more credit facilities.

You could be right with the tiger thing.

ArchXStanton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People defending the attitude that one can spend spend spend other peoples money and just not pay it back, but still want to hang on to the asset they used the money on...oh and expect that they should still get access to even more credit facilities.

You could be right with the tiger thing.

I'm still waiting on that itemised invoice of my part in the crash,I can guarantee you I know the figure at the bottom of it...

Ubbquittious

Deleted User wrote: »

People defending the attitude that one can spend spend spend other peoples money and just not pay it back, but still want to hang on to the asset they used the money on...oh and expect that they should still get access to even more credit facilities.

You could be right with the tiger thing.

You might as well "go mad spending". There is no reason not to. In a few years we'll be looking at Noonan's fat slutherpus on the tellybox telling us we all partied and that it's now time to pay €2,000 a year in property tax or a new tax simply for being alive that will be used to bail out the banks again because they're too big to fail and we'll be booted out of the EU if we don't.

If you take out a loan you're not really spending someone else's money but rather brand new money that was created from scratch through fractional reserve lending on the back of the asset you're buying with the loan.

seamus

server down wrote: »

Really. So my bank can without notice pay down my mortgage with my savings and current account? Or as much as they can?

Technically, yes. If you are not keeping up with your mortgage repayments, the bank can and will dip into current and/or savings accounts to meet them. If you are meeting your repayment obligations with the mortgage they won't.

Obviously few people will have enough in the bank to cover an entire mortgage, so the banks just take the missed repayment amounts.

It's also not in their interests really to completely clear you out; that'll just make it even harder for you to meet repayments in future, and looks bad for PR. It's usually reserved for cases, such as the OP's, where the person appears to be resistant to repaying loans, so the bank start clawing back everything they can. His lodgement wasn't taken out of his account by someone sitting watching the screen, waiting for a lodgement. An automated system detected him in arrears and automatically offset the lodgement against his debts.

Yes, never take out a loan with the bank where your current account lives. Especially with modern day banking where you don't have to go near a bank from one month to the next, there's no tangible benefit in doing all your banking with one institution.

fxotoole

bajer101 wrote: »

There was a moment there in the branch, where the assistant manager was refusing to give me my money.

Definitely more to this story than you're letting on OP. Staff working in a bank, particularly assistant managers are professionals. They wouldn't just refuse a customer access to their funds without damn good reasons.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Technically, yes. If you are not keeping up with your mortgage repayments, the bank can and will dip into current and/or savings accounts to meet them. If you are meeting your repayment obligations with the mortgage they won't.

Obviously few people will have enough in the bank to cover an entire mortgage, so the banks just take the missed repayment amounts.

It's also not in their interests really to completely clear you out; that'll just make it even harder for you to meet repayments in future, and looks bad for PR. It's usually reserved for cases, such as the OP's, where the person appears to be resistant to repaying loans, so the bank start clawing back everything they can. His lodgement wasn't taken out of his account by someone sitting watching the screen, waiting for a lodgement. An automated system detected him in arrears and automatically offset the lodgement against his debts.

Yes, never take out a loan with the bank where your current account lives. Especially with modern day banking where you don't have to go near a bank from one month to the next, there's no tangible benefit in doing all your banking with one institution.

interesting. That said I read a report during the bust ( the last bust not the next one - I dont have the ability to time travel) that AIB had 2000 clients in arrears with more than the arrears in their current account. I wonder how common or acceptable it is to raid a current account. It doesnt look like AIB did.

Also most the the guys holding out seemed to be on Sorrento road. It looks to me like lots of the very rich ( aka the indebted very poor but you have to have been rich to have big debts) did not have their accounts seized.

Anyway thanks for the information on the law -- I am sure that is right in theory. I dont intend to not pay the mortgage, but thats an interesting fact.

Moar research needed I think.

server down

Deleted User wrote: »

People defending the attitude that one can spend spend spend other peoples money and just not pay it back, but still want to hang on to the asset they used the money on...oh and expect that they should still get access to even more credit facilities.

You could be right with the tiger thing.

Well the banks have my money and dont seem to be in a rush to pay it back, and when they do I expect that it won't get me a great big check, though I am told I am a shareholder in said banks.

I dont think we know enough about the OP's situation really. He was more upset so it seemed about the lack of notification, it looks like people are not taking that seriously.