Topic: Need a shrine to this guy (Page 1 of 1)

We switched to a credit union several years ago because we were just fed up with all the charges the banks continue to pile on... so this story just warmed my wittle wittle heart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430129&in_page_id=1770

___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain

Fudge. Triple edit.

I still say if you think that the charges are unfair, don't bother to sign up with them. Cheers.

rukuartic@halflght:~/$ whatis life
life: nothing appropriate.

(Edited by rukuartic on 02-10-2007 22:30)

(Edited by rukuartic on 02-10-2007 22:33)

Nice to see banks getting a taste of their own for once.

Sounds like the guy never really bothered to actually go in and talk to either a personal banker or the branch manager about the charges. Probably could have cleared it up fairly quickly if he had.

Of course, people like to forget that banks are for-profit institutions. They are there to make money just like any other corporation, and if people can't be bothered to manage their accounts properly, then you have to pay the associated fees. Branch managers can look up account history and see if you're telling the truth about having a check bounce by mistake, or if you are a chronic offender always overdrafting your account.

Plus attitude makes a huge difference as well. If you go in sounding like an arsehole and screaming about how the bank screwed up, then you won't endear yourself to the manager and s/he'll be less inclined to waive those fees. I'm not saying that banks don't ever screw up - they do. But a lot of the problems people have are caused by their own actions, so blaming the bank is cheap.

And unless it's different in the UK than it is here in the US, it's illegal to write a check knowing the funds aren't present to cover it, yet counting on your direct deposit to hit at midnight. Yet people do it all the time and sometimes they get burned.

The stories my husband can tell after almost 15 years in the banking industry...

_____________________

coeur de feu :: Grimwell Online
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Rhyssa: He took them to court and won (which suggests to me that he tried the normal avenues of communication first, even if the article doesn't specifically mention that), and they still didn't pay him. I can understand him being a little frustrated at that point. When a bank fails to obey a court order, it's a little late to sit down for a chat, don't you think?

Yes, in many cases people bring a lot of grief onto themselves through their own actions. I don't think this particular case was one such instance, though.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Suhu, actually, reading it again, I don't think the man won so much as the bank didn't bother to show up to any of the proceedings, which meant the courts ruled in the man's favor by default. It's not that the courts agreed with his charges as they really had no other option. The bank was stupid for not responding in court.

And it says the initial charges the man was disputing was garnered over six years of business, which means that he'd either been putting off paying them or had repeatedly been charged the fees in question for various reasons.

HOLY SH*T!!! I just used an online currency converter to see what £3,400 pounds equals in US dollars - $6,640.61 according to this site. $54/£28 is more than a bit steep for an overdraft fee, but if it's clearly stated that amount is the fee, then you don't have much of a bitch coming when you get caught. Like I said, branch managers have access to account histories, and it's plainly visible if someone is a chronic offender or if they are the victim of some bad timing.

In fact, I mentioned this article to my husband just now, and while he said he's not had an issue with fees this large, it didn't surprise him all that much. He did say that his first call of the morning tomorrow was to call a customer about some fees, as a matter of fact.

_____________________

coeur de feu :: Grimwell Online
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Rhyssa:

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

actually, reading it again, I don't think the man won so much as the bank didn't bother to show up to any of the proceedings, which meant the courts ruled in the man's favor by default. It's not that the courts agreed with his charges as they really had no other option. The bank was stupid for not responding in court.

---

Yeah, on closer inspection, that does look to be what happened. Doesn't clear the bank of any wrongdoing, though. It is difficult to tell from the article who was actually right in this situation, but I'm still putting my money on the customer. Why? Well, their failure to respond to all of the customer's attempts to resolve the problem, including taking them to court, might simply be monumental incompetence. Or it might be something else. Also, the bank never tried to challenge his claims. Perhaps they thought that simply ignoring them would make them go away. Given how readily banks resort to legal action, their actions here could mean that they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

All of this is speculation, though. I don't see any resolution without more details. We could argue this back and forth until Hell freezes over and get nowhere. The fact that your husband works at a bank is naturally going to make you more sympathetic to the bank's cause. The fact that the rest of us don't have husbands who work at banks is naturally going to make us more sympathetic to the customer. That's really what our discussion boils down to.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup