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:
Which bit was fantasy, I'm lost now. I have fantasies though, and they are very much irrelevant to this discussion. Interesting though.
|
|
By:
Wolsey End's little story.
|
|
By:
egg - not really. it just shows that the banks think they are above the law and can get away with anything - whether its unfair charges, telephone harrassment or holding the govt to ransom and getting them to bail the banks out when they have made errors in their lending/borrowing.
the case today was about bank charges being unreasonable and unfair. they are effectively fines and penalties, not charges. lets break this down into simpler terms. do u honestly think its fair and reasonable for a customer to be charged 39 quid as a levy for a transcation which the bank has authorised as ok? remember that the bank have authorised this transaction. they ahve said 'yeah its ok - we'll pay it'. u dont think thats profiteering? |
|
By:
In fairness to Wolsey, leaving aside the Asian bit, the banks hit the phones very hard on the run up to Christmas, including Christmas Eve. The telophonists get commission and get skint around Christmas, just like the rest of us.
|
|
By:
Today's ruling says they are within the law with respect to the matter under discussion.
|
|
By:
orioles - u think im lying? trust me, sunday 815 on christmas eve morning. i have no need to lie. thats why i went in on the following saturday, the 30th, to the branch, to sort it out and thats when the bloke was in there with his girlfriend, and he had been charged because the cheque hadnt cleared in time because of the christmas clearing cycle.
please dont call me a liar again. |
|
By:
Its the amounts they charge that are ridiculous, in days gone by they`d send you a letter to tell you youre overdrawn and charge you 30 quid for the letter.
This can lead to a spiral of debt - as its generally the less well off who get hammered. If they cant make money out of the millions deposited they shold be ashamed they try and fleece and steal generally off the poor. ** the lot of `em. Govt should put its foot down and make the charges realistic |
|
By:
If the ruling had gone the other way I would have been owed about £200 by my bank. How much of it would I have deserved? Nothing.
In all seriousness, I have no problem with the charges providing that they are clear, transparent and easily understood. Whenever conditions change, customers should be informed with the usual leaflet type thing, plus a covering letter along the lines of... Dear Sir/Madam, Our terms and conditions are about to change. It is extremely important that you understand the changes listed in the accompanying leaflet, or you may have to pay charges you do not expect. If you do not understand any of the changes or have any questions, you can ring us free on 08003333333 and an operator will help you. Yours Sincerely, I.P.Freely The letter should be in the largest font possible, with none of the extraneous cr@p you normally see on bank letters. The FSA could easily conduct regular audits to ensure that all calls were properly answered within say 10 mins. The benefit of such a requirement is that customers would be under no illusion as to the importance of t&cs, and banks would have an incentive to make them as clear and transparent as possible, or face the cost of hiring more call centre staff. |
|
By:
Dont mind charges, its the amount thats a scandal. They operate a cartel, and extort money.
|
|
By:
They haven't had a penny out of me for years.
That's because I have taken control of my finances. Cartel? You have the choice. |
|
By:
^
the choice not to hav an account maybe |
|
By:
Egg - there is no need to be so sanctimonious and therefore patronising to people. Some people are just not in your situation currently but would love to be. Most people do not like being robbed and I'm sure you are one of those.
|
|
By:
I`m not saying they shouldnt charge - its the amount thats the issue.
EGG you are lucky that you are organised, and probably earn enough to cover everything. A car breaking down can put even the most prudent lower income family in the $hit |
|
By:
As for choice - thats a joke.
|
|
By:
I wasn't suggesting that they hadn't rung you at such an inconvenient time, WE. I was suggesting the woman in question wasn't rude to you.
As you appear to have a problem being civil to 'non-english people', it seems awfully convenient that an Asain (sic) operator is prepared to declare their rejection of Christianity and refer to customers as 'you lot'. I'm calling you something horrid as I type. Take a guess ;) |
|
By:
misogynist (NAP)
|
|
By:
I agree with Egg. Ive read this and I still cannot side with 'us' who have debt.
|
|
By:
What I am saying is you know the rules.
You know how much it will cost you if you go overdrawn UNAUTHORISED. If the ruling had gone the other way it would just make people gung ho about their finances and not take responsibility. |
|
By:
the banks wanted people to get into debt and incur charges because it boosts their profits and they are secure in the knowledge that when they feck up and lose billions these very same people will be paying to help them get out of their predicament. Fools are guided by the rules society tells them to abide by and defend organisations who blatantly rob people and heap misery on people and know whatever happens they'll be fine.
I have no debt whatsoever apart from four years left on a mortgage but during the property boom was sick to death of being constantly bombarded with pre approved loan offers for 10k and not being able to have a pi ss at a sevice station without being hassled and harassed by credit card companies offering the 'best' credit card, you couldn't even relax at a race meeting without some fecker coming to ask you to sign up for a credit card! A lot of these people probably had no intention of getting stuck under a mountain of debt, and whilst i understand people have to be responsible for their actions, but had it 'sold' to them by touts for the banks and credit card companies. Surely these establishments have to take a large proportion of the blame for overall debt and to make matters worse they now wont lend to small businesses who are capable of paying the money back unless they are prepared to borrow at an extortionate rate! |
|
By:
I would love to have enough for people o pester me. I would just say 'No thanks'. thats far less hassle than trying to find 400 quid when your car goes wrong (using example above) and not having had the nouse to save some money for measures that require quick availablity of funds
|
|
By:
^ All well and good but again irrelevant to the court case.
|
|
By:
^ to buzzer
|
|
By:
About 2 years ago I had £250000 of credit limit on over 20 cards.
Did I use it? No. (This is irrelevant as well) |
|
By:
Can you lend me a grand?
|
|
By:
No, you'd be sensible and keep the payments up. No money in that.
|
|
By:
debt was essentially forced upon people, the weak/desperate ones succumbed, banks knew a large proportion wouldn't manage with more debt and would therefore fall into their bonus bucket of incurring over the top charges. Charging fees that bore no relevance to the work they were doing and the banks knew full well that the poor, who they were tempting with this debt, would be paying more and more to them in inflated charges when the banks shouldn't have been offering this money to these people. They created a cycle for people and were robbing them in more ways than one by offering money then, through an outdated banking system i.e cheque clearing, charging a rip off fee for going over their lmit for a couple of £ for a few hours! It has a huge relevance to the case
|
|
By:
Everybody on here has money to gamble - its easy for us to say they should have the nous to save for the car going wrong - some ppl dont have the luxury to do that
|
|
By:
Hold up, Im being as honest as I can. I am in debt through various reasons, mainly catching up with soem years of foolhardiness, but I still cant see the side that most want tp take. I earn (t) enough to live a respectable existance but wanted more. Had I not, I would be absolutely fine now. Most are like that, they dont look at their past for reasons why they are in the current state. banks, as most good businesses, exploit the oppertunity that is out there.
Ask Costa Coffe why it costs over 2 quid for a cup of hot water and a sprinking of spacedust? Cos you lot will buy it. Put it up to 3 quid, they still do. thats the way it is, dont buy it, they dont make, they dont exist. |
|
By:
Why is credit given? Why not pay for it all when you have saved up? Why not be happy with the car you have, you dont need a new one? Why do businesses offer 30 day or longer credit to other companies? What a stupid idea, probably invented by the banks.
|
|
By:
and when the banks were in danger of that............the taxpayer/debtors were forced to bail them out
|
|
By:
But only because we made them exist. Everyone withdraw their money tomorrow and stick it under yer bed. They wont. Most havent got any and the ones that have want more so they ask bankers to make them more. Oh well, I have ten years of pain left then they can all go and feck off.
|
|
By:
If the banks had lost the case, they would have got money in other ways - such as charging people for using cashpoints.
If they take money from people who make errors, and don't charge people like me for using cashpoints, then that's fine by me. |
|
By:
The banks have quite rightly won this.
The only support i would give for those incapable of managing their money is that i would wish to see a return to the right to be paid in cash- then they can be protected from their own inabilities re banks. |
|
By:
That's a relief. Maybe my phone will start ringing less often now.
|
|
By:
WHY DONT SOME OF YOU OPEN A BASIC BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE POST OFFICE. NO WORRIES THERE OF GOING IN THE RED.
|
|
By:
To the people who agree to the court ruling - do you think the amounts charged are justified or just blatant profiteering
|
|
By:
Profiteering. Same as Tescos will do once they own everything. You wont get yer 2-for-1 then my friend. What stuns me is that people talk as though they are a charity designed to help you, when they are a monmey making business as valid as Manchester United selling 50 quid shirts that cost 2 quid to make in the far East. I hate banks but whats the problem?
|
|
By:
Profiteering, but the people paying are operating outside their agreed limits.
They deserve all they get. Why should I pay for other people's inability to live within their means? |
|
By:
Everything's Gone Green 25 Nov 18:54
Profiteering, but the people paying are operating outside their agreed limits. They deserve all they get. Why should I pay for other people's inability to live within their means? You haven't but if you're a taxpayer, you have certainly paid to keep the banks alive and those greedy fat cats giving themselves more bonuses I wonder how much the NHS can improve on 62 billion pounds? |
|
By:
^ Irrelevant
|