Bankers May Not Be Nice People

BillyBobBS

server down wrote: »

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Wanderer78

BillyBobBS wrote:

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

What would the alternatives be like in power?

server down

server down wrote: »

A far bigger problem is elites not taking responsibility. And getting off scott free.

I mean this tracker issue would be a criminal offence in many countries. It’s theft. It’s breach of contract. It’s being in arrears

But the tracker mortgage scandal and your point about elites and society have nothing to do with the OP's issue which is that he defaulted on a loan, other facilities were withdrawn, and he believes the effect of his breach of contract should have been explained to him.

You might as well say the war in Syria is a bigger problem.

BillyBobBS

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

No elected representative forced the OP to default on his loan. None of them withdrew the overdraft facility.

SEPT 23 1989

They could pay back what they stole by close of business tomorrow if they really wanted to but we are dealing with sociopaths here,they want to drag the pain out a little longer sure whats a few months more destroying lives when they have done so for the last decade?

CruelCoin

server down wrote: »

The plebs should know their place. No eating until the arrears are paid. The banking managers who went into meeting rooms to deliberately break contracts and thus put themselves in arrears with their customers should be eating out instead. On bonuses.

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

CruelCoin

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The elites are protected by our elected representives. Keep electing the same people and nothing will change.

Wake up!








*amidoinitrite?*

Wanderer78

CruelCoin wrote: »

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

why should banks have the ability to create money freely and not the general population?

CruelCoin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

why should banks have the ability to create money freely and not the general population?

They don't

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

They don't

Banks in fact do create money. the principal way money is created is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. That, provided it is regulated, is not a bad system.

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

Did I say no eating?

There is a big difference between eating affordably and eating out on someone else's dime at a restaurant.

If i was in arrears, i'd eat beans on toast until I had it cleared.
It's not free money, and I'd never take the position that it was.

The rest of your post is populist guff.

Can you explain what is precisely populist about it? Populist is a term not synonymous with wrong as it happens although I think you are using it in that context and incorrectly.

Wanderer78

CruelCoin wrote: »

They don't

server down wrote: »

Banks in fact do create money. the principal way money is created is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. That, provided it is regulated, is not a bad system.

correct, this has been extensively written about and recently acknowledged by the bank of england and the bundesbank.

server down

Wanderer78 wrote: »

correct, this has been extensively written about and recently acknowledged by the bank of england and the bundesbank.

In fact my post is largely taken from the BOE paper. Well, the synopsis.

Wanderer78

server down wrote: »

In fact my post is largely taken from the BOE paper. Well, the synopsis.

can you link that paper, ive been aware of it since its release but have never actually read it. thank you.

server down

Wanderer78 wrote: »

can you link that paper, ive been aware of it since its release but have never actually read it. thank you.

Here’s the highly populist paper from the Bank of England explaining how money (technically broad money but that’s most of it) is created.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

I posted the bold bit in the synopsis

server down

It might seem off topic to post about bank’s malfeasance (or link to populist radicals like the BOE) but I would argue that we are discussing the thread title as well as the op’s post.

And in the tracker scandal the banks, in some cases, did tell people in the contract that at the end of the fixed term they would revert to non tracker mortgages but it either wasn’t emphasised or was in the fine print.

Therefore where and how the Op was warned about having his account seized matters and relates. And that was his major concern.

lawred2

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.

sounds like you were defaulting on a loan that they provided you...

those terms and conditions can be a b!tch alright

server down

lawred2 wrote: »

sounds like you were defaulting on a loan that they provided you...

those terms and conditions can be a b!tch alright

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

weldoninhio

server down wrote: »

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

He’s already stated that he was notified in July.

server down

weldoninhio wrote: »

He’s already stated that he was notified in July.

Small print. Look he may be unreliable (but I’m assuming he is telling the truth for now) but in fact companies have to be upfront about major consequences of default.

server down

server down wrote: »

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

Aren't they legal if he was 'of sound mind', and agreed to them? I'm assuming the agreement he signed had all the usual legal contract requirements. banks tend to be very thorough in having a contract conform to legal standards and not allowing any loop-holes.

I was a credit controller for just over a decade, and the most recurrent problem was that most people who defaulted hadn't fully read the contract before agreeing to it. They just assumed a lot of the contract requirements and were shocked when the rules for defaulting came into effect.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aren't they legal if he was 'of sound mind', and agreed to them? I'm assuming the agreement he signed had all the usual legal contract requirements. banks tend to be very thorough in having a contract conform to legal standards and not allowing any loop-holes.

I was a credit controller for just over a decade, and the most recurrent problem was that most people who defaulted hadn't fully read the contract before agreeing to it. They just assumed a lot of the contract requirements and were shocked when the rules for defaulting came into effect.

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

server down

server down wrote: »

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

Yup. Some companies do. However, usually, they will refer to the small print and suggest that you read it yourself. Many people don't, even after that suggestion. My mortgage agreement doesn't though. It has a rather large clear section, but then, I requested that my contract be changed to highlight certain areas over others... and I read the whole thing a few times (and asked two family members to do the same).

I do wonder if the OP really read his whole contract or just assumed that he would be fine?

And seriously, don't rush into contract agreements. Companies have a lot of leeway in how they can deal with defaulters or the addition of interest.

lawred2

server down wrote: »

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

the consequences of default would usually be something along the lines of 'we will do what we can to recover any unpaid debts'

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

the consequences of default would usually be something along the lines of 'we will do what we can to recover any unpaid debts'

Yup.. and depending on the actions of the debtor, whether we destroy his credit rating and/or, demand legal punishments or offer him different products/services to keep him as a customer.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

I was a credit controller for just over a decade.

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage?
Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

Wanderer78

maryishere wrote: »

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage? Intererst only too.

Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

bill blacks work is worth checking out to see how bad banking systems can be with unethical lending practices.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage?
Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

Never worked for the banks. I worked as a contract based credit controller for private businesses in Ireland, Europe, the US, and Australia. And I saw similar kinds of contracts across all industries, with service industries easily being the worst. Businesses do seek to trap the stupid, ignorant or simply careless.

Banks are a business. People need to forget the way Banks were fifty years ago, and view them as corporations with no moral guidelines, and seeking to entrap debtors for profit.

I don't have an issue with Bankers themselves. They're just doing their job. I was hated by many as a credit controller because I would be the one enforcing the terms of the contract on them. A contract that they should have read thoroughly, and didn't. Nobody forced them to sign that contract. Keep your anger for the banks as an institution.

We live in a theoretically capitalist society, and there are other options. Shop around and find a contract that suits your needs, or better yet, negotiate your contract. All businesses (and banks) use standardized contracts, and while they will resist requests for a customised contract, such contracts are available should the bank want the customer. Negotiate... and if you find yourself in a bad agreement, well, frankly it's your own fault. Contract changes need the approval of both parties before they become enforceable... but so many people just accept the changes thinking the bank or business will never mess with them.

It's naive, and extremely foolish... and many people fall into such webs easily.

Lastly... about mortgages. I got a 265k mortgage when I was earning just over 30k. I knew it would be difficult to maintain when I got it. Anyone who went for a 600k mortgage knew what they were getting themselves into. And if they didn't, then they had no reason to be getting any kind of mortgage in the first place. Yes, the banks are corrupt. Yes, the banks are unfair. But the banks didn't force people to behave in such a short-sighted and stupid manner. The people that requested the mortgage did.

I get tired of all this passing blame on to the banks for the ignorant behavior of people. Do your research properly, determine what you can afford, decrease that further by 20%, and then get a reasonable mortgage. And do everything you can to pay it. Even if that means leaving the country and working abroad to pay for it. Stop passing the responsibility for your own choices and poor negotiation on to others.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the banks are corrupt. Yes, the banks are unfair.

Think of a time when they were worse than that, say 11 or 12 years ago.
A time which lasted for a couple of years only (the banks did not usually behave like this ). Sometimes there was a rogue banker, in pursuit of a short-sighted bonus or for whatever reason, who sold a mortgage and told a borrower he could afford it when he clearly could not eg someone on 30k getting a 600k mortgage.
Borrowers were not always 100% to blame.

Unless some rogue bankers are punished, such mistakes will happen again, and more borrowers lives destroyed. Do you know how many bankers were jailed in Iceland, a tiny country?

Wanderer78

maryishere wrote: »

Think of a time when they were worse than that, say 11 or 12 years ago.
A time which lasted for a couple of years only (the banks did not usually behave like this ). Sometimes there was a rogue banker, in pursuit of a short-sighted bonus or for whatever reason, who sold a mortgage and told a borrower he could afford it when he clearly could not eg someone on 30k getting a 600k mortgage.
Borrowers were not always 100% to blame.

Unless some rogue bankers are punished, such mistakes will happen again, and more borrowers lives destroyed. Do you know how many bankers were jailed in Iceland, a tiny country?

bill black actually played a major part in those convictions