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
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,108 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    server down wrote: »
    Nope. Looked up the regulations on this and at least in the UK the bank has to inform you if it closing your account by giving you specific notice - 30 days unless the account has restricted access in which case you need to give more.

    Otherwise the bank is responsible for your financial losses in that period.

    And what part of the UK is this ?


  • Options
    #63
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    server down wrote: »
    Nope. Looked up the regulations on this and at least in the UK the bank has to inform you if it closing your account by giving you specific notice - 30 days unless the account has restricted access in which case you need to give more.

    Otherwise the bank is responsible for your financial losses in that period.

    Was your account closed or frozen?


  • Options
    #64
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    And what part of the UK is this ?

    I know that genius. That’s what came up but do your own searching. It’s hardly going to be that different.


  • Options
    #65
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    Was your account closed or frozen?

    Neither. Nothing happened to my account.


  • Options
    #66
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    bajer101 wrote: »
    No. The teller got the assistant manager and he told me that he was not authorised to give me my money as my account had been passed on to what is obviously the debt arm of the bank. He initially said that he couldn't contact them as they seemed to be off that day due to Ophelia. I asked him to try again as he was refusing me access to my money which was in a separate account. He came back two minutes later and approved the withdrawal. I don't think he got through to the debt team, I think he just made a call.

    Did they give you the whole amount - did they take out some to cover missed payments or what?

    To clarify my own position - I'm with you insofar as banks are not nice people - globally they are certainly led by sociopathic thieving bastards of the highest order. But I still can't see your point - you took their money, didn't pay it back (presumably because you didn't have it at the time, which it's hard to do anything about in fairness) but then when you did get the means to pay it back, you didn't - your first thought was a spending spree.

    If you had loaned me money, and I behaved that way - would you think that was perfectly fine?

    I'd fully expect a kick in the nuts for doing that, which is what I'd give you if you done it to me!

    Why exactly do you think you don't have to pay back the money you've borrowed?

    I know you don't want to - I don't want to pay back my loans either, but I also don't get on my high horse about them taking back money I agreed to give them.

    I honestly can't understand why you are?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It should also be remembered that at common law, even with nothing specified, lenders have the right to set off accounts against each other, though it must be the same borrower and afaik the same type account. But usually terms and conditions extend this right across more facilities. I think the borrower would have to at least analyse the terms and conditions of the overdraft, and then the requirements of the Central Bank and notification.


  • Options
    #68
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    Until either a) The banks are hammered with monstrous fines by the regulator for sharp practice or b) A class action suit is taken and won against one of the major banks (cough AIB) for overcharging or other sharp practice and they are also hit with monstrous settlements or c) everyone moves their money out of Banks and into bitcoin or cryptocurrencies (which will not happen) then sharp practices will continue.

    And even if they have to pay out huge sums in fines, guess who will be paying for it in increased charges...

    As George Carlin so eloquently put it.

    "They got you by the balls!"

    When everyone moves to bitcoin and what have you, will people no longer have to repay loans at the agreed schedule of repayment?


  • Options
    #69
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    I used to work for a bank. I despised working there due to management and some customers. People like the OP were the worst to deal with. No concept of personal responsibility at all. I also don’t believe that there was no correspondence.


  • Options
    #70
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    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...

    That was one of the things that annoyed me in the aftermath of the Celtic Tiger. People who had taken out massive loans or lived on credit so that they could have six holidays a year, designer handbags, top of the range cars and whatever else was necessary to keep up with the Joneses were trying to put themselves in the same bracket as people struggling to pay mortgages on ordinary houses in ordinary areas.
    And now that the economy is improving you can just sense these same people, back on the blocks waiting to take off and start overspending right, left and centre on non essentials and strutting around as if they're millionaires.


  • Options
    #71
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,431 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »
    That was one of the things that annoyed me in the aftermath of the Celtic Tiger. People who had taken out massive loans or lived on credit so that they could have six holidays a year, designer handbags, top of the range cars and whatever else was necessary to keep up with the Joneses were trying to put themselves in the same bracket as people struggling to pay mortgages on ordinary houses in ordinary areas.
    And now that the economy is improving you can just sense these same people, back on the blocks waiting to take off and start overspending right, left and centre on non essentials and strutting around as if they're millionaires.

    I don't know never meet anyone who went mad during the Celtic tiger the closes was a someone I use to work with who had the BMW and the sister of someone I knew however both of them seemed to have issue about their background. The vast majority did not and do not go mad its just that people behaving normally doesn't make headline....people got mortgage, paid mortgage, and now have house just isn't exiting enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    I regularly had the bank ringing me to ask me if I'd like a loan of a few thousand to buy myself something nice like a car or a holiday. I had the sense to say 'no', but an awful lot of people didn't and then blamed the bank for giving them the loan in the first place. Yes, it was irresponsible of the banks but no one was forcing anyone to take a loan that they didn't need.

    And I knew people who were up to their neck in credit, and who were living a high life eating out in fancy restaurants, going off on holidays, getting the house done up etc etc

    Some people really did go a bit mad and were then shocked and bewildered when it all came crashing down and they realised they actually had to pay all the money back.


  • Options
    #73
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,930 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    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.

    **** 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.

    You shouldn't accept a loan of half a million if a bank throws it at you


  • Options
    #74
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »
    I regularly had the bank ringing me to ask me if I'd like a loan of a few thousand to buy myself something nice like a car or a holiday. I had the sense to say 'no', but an awful lot of people didn't and then blamed the bank for giving them the loan in the first place. Yes, it was irresponsible of the banks but no one was forcing anyone to take a loan that they didn't need.
    .

    I was actually refused a car loan once because I wanted to borrow 8 grand I think it was and the bank wanted me to take 15.
    I went to a different bank and got the 8 - why the hell would I want to borrow 7 grand I don't need!


  • Options
    #75
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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

    You do realise that the feea and charges are the banks way of getting paid for the services they provide right?


  • Options
    #76
    GrumpyMe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭GrumpyMe


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    - why the hell would I want to borrow 7 grand I don't need!

    So the "seller"would hit his/her target for that day, week, month, QTR, year...


  • Options
    #77
    tara73
    Registered Users Posts: 2,341 ✭✭✭tara73


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

    was this on purpose or ...not..?? It's so funny, it made my evening. the omnibusman..:pac::pac::pac::pac:


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    You shouldn't accept a loan of half a million if a bank throws it at you

    The bank should have looked at the financial state of the customer first and if their ability to repay a loan was in question no such offer should have been made.


  • Options
    #79
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The bank should have looked at the financial state of the customer first and if their ability to repay a loan was in question no such offer should have been made.

    Correct, and I know of some loans which were made where the bank knew well the repayments could and would not be paid back as the repayments exceeded the borrowers income, once a short "interest only" period expired.

    People have killed themselves after banks lent them money they should not have. Yet one banker walker away with a 20 million euro pension. The lowest of the low.


  • Options
    #80
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,108 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    maryishere wrote: »
    Correct, and I know of some loans which were made where the bank knew well the repayments could and would not be paid back as the repayments exceeded the borrowers income, once a short "interest only" period expired.

    People have killed themselves after banks lent them money they should not have.     Yet one banker walker away with a 20 million euro pension. The lowest of the low.

    People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

    What is it with people and the aversion to individual responsibility.


  • Options
    #81
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

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

    Do we have to pick a side? I think most people would agree that the banks have done some shocking things, but that doesn't give people like the OP a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to paying his debts.

    I think the bank were right to pursue their money as the OP wasn't paying it back, do I have to become a Bertie supporter now? I guess its nice when everyone is in neat, easy to understand boxes


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

    But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.


  • Options
    #83
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    GrumpyMe wrote: »
    So the "seller"would hit his/her target for that day, week, month, QTR, year...

    I understand that - but you also have to look out for yourself. A lot of salesmen in all fields work on commission - you have to always be dubious of the advice given to you, when the person giving that advice stands to make money off your decision.
    Too many people these days just cede responsibility for their wellbeing to complete strangers, and then are somehow shocked to find out that those strangers actually cared more about themselves. It's the real life equivalent of clicking the terms and conditions without reading them.
    maryishere wrote: »
    But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.


    The tracker thing is completely different - it's organised crime plain and simple, a cartel agreement to defraud thousands of people out of hundreds of millions of euros. It's mafia shít - people should be doing 20 year stretches for this. What will actually happen is someone will get a slap on the wrist and a huge payoff to go quietly.


  • Options
    #84
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    maryishere wrote: »
    But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.

    Definitely the banks behaved irresponsibly and bear a lot of the blame for the debts people ran up during the economic boom. But personal responsibility also enters into it. People who borrowed large amounts of money for non essentials, and lived a high life simply because no one was saying 'no', are not in the same category as those who took out mortgages and then found property prices crashing all around them.

    But a lot of people seem to think that the bank is like your parents or teachers. As long as they say it's okay to do something, then you're absolved of all responsibility. These numpties will be at it again in a couple of years, if our economy continues to grow. Boasting about their multiple holidays, changing the car every year, treating themselves to this, that and the other, all on credit or by spending every penny as soon as they get it and saving nothing for a rainy day, and then whinging and whining when it all comes tumbling down around them.


  • Options
    #85
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

    What is it with people and the aversion to individual responsibility.

    The banks should be the experts though, right? If they are giving 400K loans to people on 40K its not surprising that people fail, and of course there was a general expert consensus amongst most economists, politicians and the great and good that property never falls, or is due at worst a soft landing.


  • Options
    #86
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,108 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »
    Definitely the banks behaved irresponsibly and bear a lot of the blame for the debts people ran up during the economic boom. But personal responsibility also enters into it. People who borrowed large amounts of money for non essentials, and lived a high life simply because no one was saying 'no', are not in the same category as those who took out mortgages and then found property prices crashing all around them.

    But a lot of people seem to think that the bank is like your parents or teachers. As long as they say it's okay to do something, then you're absolved of all responsibility. These numpties will be at it again in a couple of years, if our economy continues to grow. Boasting about their multiple holidays, changing the car every year, treating themselves to this, that and the other, all on credit or by spending every penny as soon as they get it and saving nothing for a rainy day, and then whinging and whining when it all comes tumbling down around them.

    I remember seeing an TV show during the crash about people in financial problems.

    One case was a family in the midlands living in a 3 bed room semi who owned €60,000 in non mortgage debt.

    That's crazy.


  • Options
    #87
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,108 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    server down wrote: »
    The banks should be the experts though, right? If they are giving 400K loans to people on 40K its not surprising that people fail, and of course there was a general expert consensus amongst most economists, politicians and the great and good that property never falls, or is due at worst a soft landing.


    Property is different, we all felt the pressure to get on the property ladder.

    My wife and I bought a house that is now worth half what we paid for it, but it's our house, we are paying it off and one day it will be ours for ourselves and to hand on to our kids.

    But it's the non mortgage stuff, the cars, the holidays, the high interest credit cards etc.

    That's the problem, people did not have to take out those loads.

    In the OPs case it's a car loan he/she is not paying off.


  • Options
    #88
    how.gareth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭how.gareth


    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. 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.

    Not being smart but why not use the few grand tax rebate to pay off your arrears on your loan?


  • Options
    #89
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Property is different, we all felt the pressure to get on the property ladder.

    My wife and I bought a house that is now worth half what we paid for it, but it's our house, we are paying it off and one day it will be ours for ourselves and to hand on to our kids.

    But it's the non mortgage stuff, the cars, the holidays, the high interest credit cards etc.

    That's the problem, people did not have to take out those loads.

    In the OPs case it's a car loan he/she is not paying off.

    People did not have to take out mortgages either.
    Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.


  • Options
    #90
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,108 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    People did not have to take out mortgages either.
    Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.

    Yes and people did not have to specutavely buy multiple properties in multiple countries either, or properties as lavish as some were.

    But the purchase of a family home is far more of an investment decision than taking out loan after loan on unnecessary items.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    c68zapdsm5i1ru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    People did not have to take out mortgages either.
    Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.

    No, but buying a house will always involve a loan. And putting a roof over your head, particularly in a country where the rental market is uncertain and provides the renter with little security, is seen as essential.

    It is very different from getting into debt in order to build up a lifestyle that you simply cannot afford. It is now seen as quite normal to borrow large amounts of money, or run up debt on credit cards, for holidays, expensive clothes, a great social life etc. These things used to be considered luxuries, that you saved up for or did without. Nowadays people act as if they're essentials that warrant getting into debt for.


Advertisement