Cash machines stop working - bank apologises

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6714857.stm

Is an apology good enough?

Should people send an official letter to their banks, including a charge - say £30 - to compensate for the inconvenience, hardship and trauma suffered in not having access to their hardearned money?

I'm sure the banks would be sympathetic, as they do the same thing on a regular basis if you go 1 pence or more overdrawn.
 
#2
frenchperson said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6714857.stm

Is an apology good enough?

Should people send an official letter to their banks, including a charge - say £30 - to compensate for the inconvenience, hardship and trauma suffered in not having access to their hardearned money?

I'm sure the banks would be sympathetic, as they do the same thing on a regular basis if you go 1 pence or more overdrawn.
Can't make the connection myself. Contract quite clearly lays out the charges for going overdrawn. Don't see anything in there about access being guaranteed 24/7/365.
 
#3
Maybe. But banks are true, unadulterated, devious, theiving, corrupt, money grubbing, protectionist, profiteering capitalist swine - and they owe us.
 
#4
frenchperson said:
Maybe. But banks are true, unadulterated, devious, theiving, corrupt, money grubbing, protectionist, profiteering capitalist swine - and they owe us.
...........and also create the wealth that keeps the socially inept and educationally and morally bankrupt elements of the great unwashed in benefits clover.
 
#5
Would these elements also include the disabled, poverty-stricken, sufferers of long-term mental or physical ill health, etc? If so, then society has an obligation to put a safety net there. I don't see many banks pushing such credentials, they being self-interested and not exactly charitable in their intentions. Most small businesses in fact would tell you that banks are not there to help, but to feather their own nests and give help only with 'strings attached'. That's partly how they make their disgusting profits.

There may be some incidental, distantly related benefit to the man in the street of HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) making £12 billion profit in a year, but I can't say it exactly strikes me between the eyes. In fact TB is on the increase (not Tony Blair) and people still sleep on the streets. But I suppose they must be morally bankrupt, and have chosen to, eh?
 
#6
If there is anything in the papwork gumph about always being able to access your money, then they have breached the contract and you could try to fine them.

There used to be a funny letter to the bank, stating all of a customers charges. It included reading their junk mail for $1 a sheet or similar.
 
#7
frenchperson said:
Would these elements also include the disabled, poverty-stricken, sufferers of long-term mental or physical ill health, etc? .
Don't think I mentioned them, but now you have yes there should be a safety net. Government can't provide this net as it has no resources - it comes from the taxation levied on these disgusting profits. It's actually very simple - the more profit, the more tax to spend on those who genuinely need assistance plus the feckless.

In addition, the tax on the 'oh so terrible' bonuses that the creative amongst society earn creates the headroom to employ yet more useless public servants, thereby keeping them off either the dole or SS.
 
#8
If only 'twere so simple. I wonder how many 'feckless souls' have been saved from homelessness as a direct result of the Corporation Taxes imposed on say, News International?

Probably not many, cause the Aussie cnut's company's avoided paying it for the last decade and counting, but still gets his unsold copies of The Sun, Times and NOTW taken away for recycling... for nothing.
 
#9
That happened to me & my bank (Abbey) about a month ago.Went to the bank pay day,no money! Work said I had been paid & after 45min on hold,I found out the was a fault & non of their customers could withdraw any money or do anything else at any cash machines!!
 
#10
frenchperson said:
I'm sure the banks would be sympathetic, as they do the same thing on a regular basis if you go 1 pence or more overdrawn.
They signed the contract. If they aren't able to manage their own financial affairs without going into the red or going into the red more than they've agreed on, then they're going to get hit with the penalty. Plain as that.

frenchperson said:
Maybe. But banks are true, unadulterated, devious, theiving, corrupt, money grubbing, protectionist, profiteering capitalist swine - and they owe us.
Okay I'll bite. How exactly do banks 'owe' us, the general public?

frenchperson said:
I don't see many banks pushing such credentials, they being self-interested and not exactly charitable in their intentions. Most small businesses in fact would tell you that banks are not there to help, but to feather their own nests and give help only with 'strings attached'. That's partly how they make their disgusting profits.
And? Banks are a business. Their whole point in life is to make a profit with which to pay their shareholders a divident at the end of the year or whenever they do so. They might be offering a service to the public, but it's a service that they're charging for to make a profit off of. They've absolutely bugger all to do with charity. You want charity, go look up a few in the Charity Commission's books.

If I've invested in a bank or any other publically listed company then I want them out there making me a good return on my investment. That is their legal obligation. That's not to say they have to be absolute bastards about it but if I find out they've been fannying about with charitable stuff and squandering commercial opportunities then I'm going to be getting rather annoyed and wondering how I can possible help vote these people out of office and get someone a bit more focused on the job.
 
#11
You also failed to mention that banks are greedy cnuts as are estate agents, lawyers and Ronald fecking McMongald. Oh and Politicians complete cnuts!
 
#12
frenchperson said:
Would these elements also include the disabled, poverty-stricken, sufferers of long-term mental or physical ill health, etc? If so, then society has an obligation to put a safety net there. I don't see many banks pushing such credentials, they being self-interested and not exactly charitable in their intentions. Most small businesses in fact would tell you that banks are not there to help, but to feather their own nests and give help only with 'strings attached'. That's partly how they make their disgusting profits.

There may be some incidental, distantly related benefit to the man in the street of HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) making £12 billion profit in a year, but I can't say it exactly strikes me between the eyes. In fact TB is on the increase (not Tony Blair) and people still sleep on the streets. But I suppose they must be morally bankrupt, and have chosen to, eh?
What a load of bollocks, Frenchperson. People no longer sleep on the streets on TB's Britain; they sleep 12 to a hut in a garden without water or a toilet!

Slaves R Us - Britain under New Labour

What is the Government doing about this form of slavery? Answer: employing a few more in order to try and keep down the cost of one's home in Islington!

Litotes
 
#13
Brick said:
They signed the contract. If they aren't able to manage their own financial affairs without going into the red or going into the red more than they've agreed on, then they're going to get hit with the penalty. Plain as that.
No. Not plain. Unless plain means charging a hugely inflated rate / service charge for the privilege of going 1p or more overdrawn / over your overdraft. That's scandalous and illegal, as will be proven very shortly when a true test case goes through the courts.

Brick said:
Okay I'll bite. How exactly do banks 'owe' us, the general public?
See above answer...

Brick said:
And? Banks are a business. Their whole point in life is to make a profit with which to pay their shareholders a divident at the end of the year or whenever they do so. They might be offering a service to the public, but it's a service that they're charging for to make a profit off of. They've absolutely bugger all to do with charity. You want charity, go look up a few in the Charity Commission's books.
Dear oh dear. Read my post again. I know they're not a charity. Although their window dressing and publicity suggests otherwise, and that they're somehow existing only to help Joe Public, which is rather offensive and untrue.

Brick said:
If I've invested in a bank or any other publically listed company then I want them out there making me a good return on my investment. That is their legal obligation. That's not to say they have to be absolute bastards about it but if I find out they've been fannying about with charitable stuff and squandering commercial opportunities then I'm going to be getting rather annoyed and wondering how I can possible help vote these people out of office and get someone a bit more focused on the job.
Obviously, if you've invested in these scoundrels' illegal activities, then you'll agree that a £39 charge to recover 1p is fine, moral, upstanding and responsible behaviour - as long as you're getting your pound of flesh.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 28 days' time, when I should pick up £670, plus £80 court costs, representing the last 6 years illegal bank charges plus interest. I may donate this to a deserving charity such as MAP or I may have a holiday, but I sure as hell won't be placing it into a High Street bank account. They and their miserable tw@tfaced shareholders can fcuk right off.
 
#14
frenchperson said:
Personally, I'm looking forward to 28 days' time, when I should pick up £670, plus £80 court costs, representing the last 6 years illegal bank charges plus interest. I may donate this to a deserving charity such as MAP or I may have a holiday, but I sure as hell won't be placing it into a High Street bank account. They and their miserable tw@tfaced shareholders can fcuk right off.
My my FP, your finances really were sh1te were they not?
 
#16
"And? Banks are a business. Their whole point in life is to make a profit with which to pay their shareholders a divident at the end of the year or whenever they do so. They might be offering a service to the public, but it's a service that they're charging for to make a profit off of. They've absolutely bugger all to do with charity. You want charity, go look up a few in the Charity Commission's books."

We are not talking Tesco v Asda here, where price wars are used to attract customers, the banks act between themselves as a huge co-operative, neither wanting to cut charges or interest rates too far as to embarrass the others, as this is counterproductive. In the real world this is known as a monopoly, hence the recent bank charges debacle.
Remember, bank charges and interest rates do not account for a great deal of the profits, they want your money to gamble on stocks, shares etc, but the investor (bank account holder, not shareholder) will not reap the benefits, only the shareholder.
The government of the time (whoever it may be) will not do anything to stop this as they are likely to be funded by shareholders, (major one's not the likes of you and me who may make a few hundred or thousands of pounds in share's as this is insignificant to them).
 
#17
Oh FCUK, I'm agreeing with Frenchperson again!

Still I can console myself with the red wine I'm currently imbibing (sh1t it's French) and the cigars I'm smoking (not French). :wink:
 
#18
EX_REME said:
frenchperson said:
Personally, I'm looking forward to 28 days' time, when I should pick up £670, plus £80 court costs, representing the last 6 years illegal bank charges plus interest. I may donate this to a deserving charity such as MAP or I may have a holiday, but I sure as hell won't be placing it into a High Street bank account. They and their miserable tw@tfaced shareholders can fcuk right off.
My my FP, your finances really were sh1te were they not?
FP,

From the above statement I assume you've now closed down your bank account, and have deposited your wealth with the local 'not for profit' Social Martyrs co-operative where you can be assured that it is not invested anywhere where those capatalist swine can increase it's value.

Instead the marginal return it makes on it's investment can be used to fund the:

Northern Tykes Miners brass ensemble (all 3 of 'em); or the Islington Knitting Co-operative, who using only the finest organic wool sourced from some remote corner of the Atacama Desert, and carbon footprint neutral production methods such as knitting needles (themselves manufactured in a remote corner of Wales by a wig-wam based native language speaker community from recycled materials), still manage to make a financial loss each year, but console themselves with the thought that moral riches far outweigh financial before going cap in hand to the local authority to plead for yet more subsidy.

Alternatively, you could actually re-open your bank account, manage it properly, and concentrate on managing your own personal affairs rather that positioning yourself as a kind of Tony Blair figure - always the big picture but never the detail.

Rgds

PAW
 
#19
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
frenchperson said:
Personally, I'm looking forward to 28 days' time, when I should pick up £670, plus £80 court costs, representing the last 6 years' illegal bank charges plus interest. I may donate this to a deserving charity such as MAP or I may have a holiday, but I sure as hell won't be placing it into a High Street bank account. They and their miserable tw@tfaced shareholders can fcuk right off.
FP,

From the above statement I assume you've now closed down your bank account, and have deposited your wealth with the local 'not for profit' Social Martyrs co-operative where you can be assured that it is not invested anywhere where those capatalist swine can increase it's value.

Instead the marginal return it makes on it's investment can be used to fund the:

Northern Tykes Miners brass ensemble (all 3 of 'em); or the Islington Knitting Co-operative, who using only the finest organic wool sourced from some remote corner of the Atacama Desert, and carbon footprint neutral production methods such as knitting needles (themselves manufactured in a remote corner of Wales by a wig-wam based native language speaker community from recycled materials), still manage to make a financial loss each year, but console themselves with the thought that moral riches far outweigh financial before going cap in hand to the local authority to plead for yet more subsidy.
That's worryingly close to what I actually did. I shouldn't really tell you this on an open forum, but it's now in a shoebox buried in a hole underneath the floorboards in the garden shed.

Of course, I'll have to get by without the generous 0.000034 monthly interest from Fleece, Grabbit and Runne's banking institution, but it's a small price to pay for the extra security, absence of legalised bandit 'charges', and all the associated junk mail that was arriving through the post and filling up my email inbox (I really do miss that).

Not to say the peace of mind I'm enjoying engendered by not allowing F G & R to pour my cash into (admittedly, the most reputable) Zionist Protection and Expansion companies.

While I'm on, the term it's is always a contraction of the phrases it is or less commonly, it has. The apostrophe replaces the omitted letters, you see.

So when you say 'Capitalist swine can increase it is value', it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Apart from that, full marks for invention and all round creativity, but your missives would carry greater authority if you concentrated on punctuating with greater care.

And try not to be offended. If you were walking along the road and about to fall down a hole and I stopped you with some friendly advice, avoiding injury to your good self, you'd thank me wouldn't you? Right. Off you go now. There's a good chap.
 
#20
frenchperson said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
frenchperson said:
Personally, I'm looking forward to 28 days' time, when I should pick up £670, plus £80 court costs, representing the last 6 years' illegal bank charges plus interest. I may donate this to a deserving charity such as MAP or I may have a holiday, but I sure as hell won't be placing it into a High Street bank account. They and their miserable tw@tfaced shareholders can fcuk right off.
FP,

From the above statement I assume you've now closed down your bank account, and have deposited your wealth with the local 'not for profit' Social Martyrs co-operative where you can be assured that it is not invested anywhere where those capatalist swine can increase it's value.

Instead the marginal return it makes on it's investment can be used to fund the:

Northern Tykes Miners brass ensemble (all 3 of 'em); or the Islington Knitting Co-operative, who using only the finest organic wool sourced from some remote corner of the Atacama Desert, and carbon footprint neutral production methods such as knitting needles (themselves manufactured in a remote corner of Wales by a wig-wam based native language speaker community from recycled materials), still manage to make a financial loss each year, but console themselves with the thought that moral riches far outweigh financial before going cap in hand to the local authority to plead for yet more subsidy.



While I'm on, the term it's is always a contraction of the phrases it is or less commonly, it has. The apostrophe replaces the omitted letters, you see.
FP,

Result. You've heeded my advice already, and started to concentrate on the detail. Is this not so much easier and rewarding than your eternal struggle with the big picture?

Rgds

PAW
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads