Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bankers May Not Be Nice People

Options
1…4567810»

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You should. Judges need a laugh too!

    Can you imagine the cross exam..."so Mr. Bajer, you reneged on a loan, expected the bank to still extend a facility to you, got the letter, but had you been a vulnerable person, which you are not, you might have missed that they wrote some of it on the back of the sheet you received?".

    I don't think McMahon and Binchy will be adding a chapter on the new ground broken in that case!

    Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.


  • Options
    #273
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.

    No no, you see...you're allowed to ask more than one question.

    The next one would be "And you think your grumble, your whine, about not receiving a letter (which is not admitted by the bank) telling you about all the possible effects of your own admitted breach of contract amounts in turn to a tort or a breach of contract?"

    That'd be when the Judge keels over!

    I had my credit card declined once. Rang bank in outrage. They pointed out that it was because I hadn't used it in over a year. Didn't recall getting any letters but what they said was essentially correct. I was mildly irritated, a bit like you. Where we differ was I never dreamed of taking a case, because a grumble about not being saved from my ignorance of the terms and conditions is not really the basis for litigation.


  • Options
    #274
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

    or we'd be sent into guffaws as your case is ripped to shreds. Or we wouldn't react in the slightest.

    People are generally biased towards themselves, and I'm 95% sure that there are details to this case that you haven't told us which the banks could use for a defense.
    bajer101 wrote: »
    Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.

    The signed agreement/contract is the core element of the case. You can accuse the bank of whatever you wish, but the judge will ask you if you signed an agreement, whether the terms are binding, and whether you broke any of those terms. The banks will use the contract as a stick to beat you around the court. Simple.

    And then he'll kick you out on your ass, and perhaps fine you for wasting the time of the court.


  • Options
    #275
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    bajer101 wrote: »
    OP here. That is not my main beef at all. My main beef is that they cancelled my account without adequately informing me. It has been established that the only notification that they sent me was in early July stating that my accounts may be cancelled. There were no more notifications, emails, phone calls, texts, or in-app messages letting me know that this actually happened. I discovered it when my card got declined. A card for an account that had adequate funds.

    I believe they just messed up. When I initially queried how this happened without more notification, I was told that I was sent a letter in September stating this action was imminent. I never received this letter and when I asked them to investigate, they have admitted it was never sent.

    Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

    You offered to send a scan of the letter received. I’d love to see it


  • Options
    #276
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ah, the Nuremberg Defence...


    Ah, the Godwin gambit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

    Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

    You sound like someone spinning PR for the banking industry.

    "Your" fees paying to offset the loss making tracker mortgages and boost the profits of Banking instiutions made me laugh. Its the least of your worries.

    It WILL take generations for the irish taxpayer to pay back the 64 BILLION bailout it gave the BANKS.

    The same poor banks just trying to make an honest living. Nope. Tell that to the 30,000 people (some are now dead) that were illegaly taken off tracker mortages. That was no mistake. That was simple fraud.

    Bankers, silent W.


  • Options
    #278
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    STB. wrote: »
    .

    It WILL take generations for the irish taxpayer to pay back the 64 BILLION bailout it gave the BANKS.

    They are almost repaid. We would have been in a far, far worse situation if the banks had been allowed to sink. It wasn't the best option, it was the least worst option. Also the banks weren't solely responsible for the crisis. The government, regulators, rating agencies, lenders, borrowers, buyers and sellers all had a part to play.


  • Options
    #279
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    I posted a piece from The Times UK in the soccer forum about a scheme concocted by banks and a movie studio to allow wealthy individuals to "invest" in media productions which was ruled by the supreme court in England to be a tax avoidance scheme.They are now about to be sued by many of these individuals who face financial ruin on the back of this ruling. Guess who one of the 3 banks are? Our very own Bank of Ireland.


  • Options
    #280
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Cantona's Collars wrote: »
    I posted a piece from The Times UK in the soccer forum about a scheme concocted by banks and a movie studio to allow wealthy individuals to "invest" in media productions which was ruled by the supreme court in England to be a tax avoidance scheme.They are now about to be sued by many of these individuals who face financial ruin on the back of this ruling. Guess who one of the 3 banks are? Our very own Bank of Ireland.

    Considered quite shady over there. They also had a tracker scandal over in the UK ( where BOI gave out BTL loans mostly, and interest only at that). A few years back they pushed their customers on trackers onto much higher rates -- as in from 0.5% above BOE to 3%+ above BOE. Turns out they could do that but it was considered a sneaky move.


  • Options
    #281
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They are almost repaid. We would have been in a far, far worse situation if the banks had been allowed to sink. It wasn't the best option, it was the least worst option. Also the banks weren't solely responsible for the crisis. The government, regulators, rating agencies, lenders, borrowers, buyers and sellers all had a part to play.

    Repaid by whom. Dont talk nonsense.

    The banks had to be bailed out. It set this country back years.

    Prestige and power eh. Amirable traits of bankers, until the **** hits the fan and the citizens are left with the remnants. We could have spent those billions on much better things, ya know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    STB. wrote: »
    Repaid by whom. Dont talk nonsense.

    The banks had to be bailed out. It set this country back years.

    Prestige and power eh. Amirable traits of bankers, until the **** hits the fan and the citizens are left with the remnants. We could have spent those billions on much better things, ya know.

    The bulk of the bailouts we received have been repaid. By us the taxpayer. So your point of it taking generations to pay back is not correct.

    If we would have let the banks fail we would have been set back decades. Savings would have been wiped out overnight. Financial infrastructure gone. International credit gone. Catastrophic for business, foreign companies and foreign investment. Iceland was small enough to scrape though, we would have been decimated. Instead we're sitting here with 7% unemployment.


  • Options
    #283
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    You offered to send a scan of the letter received. I’d love to see it

    Still waiting.


  • Options
    #284
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Still waiting.

    He misread or mislaid you earlier post.


  • Options
    #285
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The bulk of the bailouts we received have been repaid. By us the taxpayer. So your point of it taking generations to pay back is not correct.

    The taxpayers paid the taxpayers back?

    If we would have let the banks fail we would have been set back decades. Savings would have been wiped out overnight. Financial infrastructure gone. International credit gone. Catastrophic for business, foreign companies and foreign investment. Iceland was small enough to scrape though, we would have been decimated. Instead we're sitting here with 7% unemployment.

    It could have gone either way, a boom in IT seems to have helped us through. Anyway, its not much of a defence of capitalism there is it?


  • Options
    #286
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Kolton Fluffy Suburb wrote: »
    He misread or mislaid you earlier post.

    Maybe my post was on the back of the webpage. :D


  • Options
    #287
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    server down wrote: »
    The taxpayers paid the taxpayers back?

    ?? We covered the cost of the bank bailouts
    It could have gone either way, a boom in IT seems to have helped us through. Anyway, its not much of a defence of capitalism there is it?

    It wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a banking sector or financial infrastructure. Likewise, in the US, allowing the banks fail would have been far worse than bailing them out.


Advertisement