nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

server down wrote: »

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.

But as other have said there is likely more too it than the OP is telling us

I'd be slow to take the "lack of notification" story at face value.

[Deleted User]

Ubbquittious wrote: »

People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

It's hardly defending the banks showing where the OP is being unreasonable. If anything the OPs attitude is more an indication of the Tiger being back.

bajer101

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.

OP here. I haven't had a chance to read all replies yet, but this one stands out so far as it is germane to my main problem with this. I did not receive any notification. No letter, email, text message or in app message. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account cancelled with absolutely no notification. They have since said that I was sent a letter at the end of Sept informing me of this, but I most definitely did not receive any such communication. They still managed to accept a deposit of a couple of grand into the account though.

bajer101

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.

Eh, no I didn't. That's my point. I received two notifications advising that my loan was in arrears. I did not receive any communication stating that my current account or overdraft was in danger or even linked to my loan account. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account and debit card cancelled with absolutely no warning. I had actually been on the phone to them a couple of times enquiring why my overdraft facility was removed and they still didn't tell me that my whole account and card were cancelled. It took a visit to a restaurant in Liffey Valley to discover that;

[Deleted User]

bajer101 wrote: »

I did not receive any notification. No letter, email, text message or in app message. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account cancelled with absolutely no notification.

bajer101 wrote: »

Eh, no I didn't. That's my point. I received two notifications advising that my loan was in arrears. I did not receive any communication stating that my current account or overdraft was in danger or even linked to my loan account.

So you did receive notification about your loan arrears...but you wanted them to specify the implications for other credit facilities?

Presumably that's in the terms and conditions of the overdraft facility, which may simply provide that where other accounts are in arrears they have the right to suspend all credit facilities. Think you should go back and check that. If that's what you signed up to, that's kinda the end of it.

bajer101

fxotoole wrote: »

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.

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.

STB.

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.

That sounds very like Anglo Irish Bank you are describing Conor. The taxpayer will be paying for generations to come.

Sounds like in the OPs case, that the bank have limited his access to banking facilities such as cards and o/d as the loan account has went into arrears. It also sounds like they did not follow the correct procedures before taking that option, otherwise he would have not been allowed withdraw a balance on his current account.

Make no mistake, bankers are not nice people. The lessons of the past have quite clearly not been learned. As long as we have a regulator with no clout, we will continue to see sharp practice like the current debacle of illegaly moving people off tracker mortgages to further the profits of the bank and then owning up to it, without any obvious penalties and without anyone going to jail. They can pay the money back, their can be minimalistic penalties, but those that took that stress to the grave with them can never be repaid.

Ulysses Gaze

STB. wrote: »

That sounds very like Anglo Irish Bank you are describing Conor. The taxpayer will be paying for generations to come.

Sounds like in the OPs case, that the bank have limited his access to banking facilities such as cards and o/d as the loan account has went into arrears. It also sounds like they did not follow the correct procedures before taking that option, otherwise he would have not been allowed withdraw a balance on his current account.

Make no mistake, bankers are not nice people. The lessons of the past have quite clearly not been learned. As long as we have a regulator with no clout, we will continue to see sharp practice like the current debacle of illegaly moving people off tracker mortgages to further the profits of the bank and then owning up to it, without any obvious penalties and without anyone going to jail. They can pay the money back, their can be minimalistic penalties, but those that took that stress to the grave with them can never be repaid.

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!"

Geuze

bajer101 wrote: »

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

Similar to how you didn't give them back their money.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you did receive notification about your loan arrears...but you wanted them to specify the implications for other credit facilities?

Presumably that's in the terms and conditions of the overdraft facility, which may simply provide that where other accounts are in arrears they have the right to suspend all credit facilities. Think you should go back and check that. If that's what you signed up to, that's kinda the end of it.

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.