We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
|
By:
I love this line of reasoning. The notion that you shouldn't borrow more than you can afford to pay off, suddenly seems as bewildering as a Stephen Hawking lecture delivered in hieroglyphs.
The complete unwillingness of people to take responsibility (and to be fair, it seems to extend to every aspect of modern life) is nauseating. |
|
By:
orioles, the banks make more money from those who get into trouble. Right enough, the bank doesn't owe their prospective customers a duty of care, they borrowed the money happily enough.
But I have seen banks operate practises no better than some of those quoted on the news when an individual money lender gets convicted in court. They abuse their position, they have vastly more resources than an individual and are quite prepared to use them when necessary. |
|
By:
This country has become a nation of moaners. If it isnt the blacks it's the chavs, if it isn't the banks it's tescos.
Britain in general needs a kick up the backside. |
|
By:
circumstances orioles, not everyone can be as perfect as you.
once your in debt, its tough to get out of.. believe me, no one would want this kind of stress, if i could start again obviously i would and would never get in debt again, but i cant do anything about that now.. charge high interest rates.. fair enough... but unfair(and unlawful) charges are not fair enough |
|
By:
Orioles, its also about proportionality. If I introduced the death penalty for parking illegally, most would regard it a bit harsh. However, I could simply say "I find it nausiating to hear people complain, after all, they could just park somewhere else in the first place".
|
|
By:
Why don't you people get it?
It's the exorbitance of the fine charged for the amount ( for sometimes pennies ) that enrages everyone. Should we give the banks carte blanche to charge what they like? What do you suggest is a fair figure ? £100 ,£200, £300 . How about taking your car. |
|
By:
Andy Murray 25 Nov 12:33
I have debt equal to my annual salary, that isn't responsible lending, sure it's my fault for spending it :^0 Yes, it's your fault. Your fault. Not the banks' fault. Your fault. By the way, it's your fault. |
|
By:
Again ^^^^
|
|
By:
If the cost of being overdrawn costs the bank a pound ,give em a fiver, no farkin more.
|
|
By:
sunquizlive.co.uk is starting now..
im off to win back some cash to pay these thieves |
|
By:
if it costs em a pound, give em a pound imo
|
|
By:
Sib, there is truth in what you say, and whilst it would appear my heartless denunciation applies only to the chap above, it wasn't meant to. I have a problem with this idiot consumerism and see it as symptomatic of what is actually a deeply decadent society.
It is true that banks are wont to be unsympathetic, but surely that can't be used to absolve us all from the consequences of our own greed. |
|
By:
Every facker is greedy. It's inherent. It's about just not allowing some cheeker basturts being ridiculous about it.
|
|
By:
lol charge me for typos, poor sentence structure..the lot ^^ :D
|
|
By:
What sib says.
Charging 30 quid for going 5 pounds overdrawn is just ridiculous. |
|
By:
Well, there are limits. Sib will advise!
|
|
By:
You know the rules.
|
|
By:
Of course I agree with that as well. But I have had a bit of experience with the banks recently (not with my own affairs, i hasten to add) which have left me with a sour taste in the mouth.
One case, LPA receivers seeking to recover £25,000 in rents, the banks legal costs were quoted in court as £400,000 - £500,000. Alright, there was a bigger fight behind it, but nevertheless. And the idea was for it to go unmentioned, so the sums would simply be added to the mortgatge as per the contract. On a much smaller scale, a credit card dispute, one of these CCA disputes. A good case, probably going to win. A solicitor writes saying the matter is in dispute, please send correspondence to us. The bank phones the client every day for over a month, up to eight times a day. When in court, under the Protection from Harrassment Act, the banks answer was (and it was a serious answer), "our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme". I have seen this more than once. Well thats alright then. If it were Mad Nick, the local friendly money lender, his feet would not have touched the floor. The banks behaviour is out of control in my opinion, and I am sad that this opportunity to give them a kicking didn't come off. Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now. |
|
By:
^ That's wrong but also irrelevant to today's ruling.
|
|
By:
Orioles, what about the consequences of NOT borrowing, and NOT being overdrawn, but being charged a fortune for 'asking'?
|
|
By:
It is irrelevant, I know. But let me make two points. One, it would have been nice to see the banks get their wings clipped.
And two, and not everyone agrees with me on this but plenty do, the higher courts do get influenced by wider policy implications beyond the law. I strongly suspect that the amount of money getting taken from the banks at the moment, with mis-selling claims and consumer credit claims, had an influence, together with the wider problems the banks are having. They should not have been relevant and won't be in any judgment, but I bet they came into the thinking. |
|
By:
But those costs wouldn't be maintained, or that conduct pass unpunished, surely. I never worked in this area "I just 'it 'im, Mr Orioles after he 'it me" but I have dealt with banks in business. I always took the view that everything was negotiable ... and it was!
|
|
By:
I suspect the policy implications of the judgment are of most relevance.
|
|
By:
Again, well saidSib
|
|
By:
sib - On a much smaller scale, a credit card dispute, one of these CCA disputes. A good case, probably going to win. A solicitor writes saying the matter is in dispute, please send correspondence to us.
The bank phones the client every day for over a month, up to eight times a day. When in court, under the Protection from Harrassment Act, the banks answer was (and it was a serious answer), "our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme". I have seen this more than once. Well thats alright then. If it were Mad Nick, the local friendly money lender, his feet would not have touched the floor. The banks behaviour is out of control in my opinion, and I am sad that this opportunity to give them a kicking didn't come off. Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now. -------------- ah yes, telephone harrassment by banks. how ironic that when i complained about unsolicited calls from foreign call centres, the gentleman at HSBC said in his letter 'i have no wish to speak u at all and would request that u respect my wishes'. but i cant stop harrassment from the bank? (btw, apparently my comment that i do not want to speak to non-english people was racist, according to the bank - which is why he didnt want to speak to me). ------------ sib - Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now. one of the posts of the yr, imo. |
|
By:
"our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme"
sib, was that accepted by the court as a reasonable defence? Who exactly is ultimately responsible for the bank's systems? I work in banking software and if our software isn't regulation-compliant then the investment banks just refuse to buy it or buy on condition that they will not go live (which is the point at which we start realising the revenue) until we have resolved the problem. In short, that strikes me as a very suspect defence. |
|
By:
Given that we the taxpayer actually own most of these banks this really does take the píss!
|
|
By:
I agree, Lix. It takes the píss that banks were threatening to charge taxpayers for for using cashpoints if they lost this case.
|
|
By:
It wasn't Pool on this occassion, and there is a recent British Gas case where it was explicitely said not to be a defence. But the courts gave them time, on a promise to sort it out, to take Mrs. Bloggs out of their system. Whether they did or not I don't know. But if you or I were up there, and we had mde those calls, we would certainly have been fined and possibly imprisoned. There would have been no sympathy whatsoever.
And bear in mind, Mrs Bloggs was one person who took it all the way. Behind her are the silent thousands who suffer these practises day in day out. |
|
By:
Pool, you don't know of Rule Financial do you?
|
|
By:
Is that "Give 'em an inch....." ?
|
|
By:
Glad to hear that "our systems are sh1te" isn't a valid defence :)
In general the financials get plenty of notice of changes in regulation/laws affecting them to give them plenty of time to adapt their systems and procedures. It would have been shocking and disgraceful if the court had accepted that as a defence in a harrassment case. It's pretty shocking the bank were given more time, as I'm sure they already knew their systems weren't compliant with the relevant laws. |
|
By:
that christmas, when i was charged 185 quid, halifax rang me on sunday morning, 24th dec at 815 am. and the asain lady, ringing from the leicester call centre, said, when i asked if she would be working on christmas day said ' if i could, i would. i dont celebrate christmas, so why should i not be able to ring u lot up?'
when she said 'u lot', i took it that she meant customers...... |
|
By:
^ more irrelevance
|
|
By:
No sib, I don't. Just googling them now :)
Looks to me like they're primarily a bespoke operation - we write and sell software as product, which the banks can then configure for different behaviour as they see fit. |
|
By:
EGG, I know my discussion with sib is irrelevant to the charges debate, it was just that I was interested in what happened in that case :)
|
|
By:
I see, I think I understand.
|
|
By:
Not so much irrelevant as pure fantasy, EGG!
|
|
By:
EGG, it is irrelevant purely looked at. But you have two lawyers on here agreeing it would have affected the Court's thinking.
|
|
By:
I was referring to wolsey's irrelevance, Pool. Please carry on with yours. :)
|