capitalising on capital one

[jubaxt]

you really come across as having a chip-or potato-on your shoulder!!!!!

 

why are you even posting on here??-we try to help others on here-you obviously always pay your bills on time-but take heed you never know what is round the corner!!!-i was fine until my mum was taken ill and took time out to nurse her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

i lost my salary!!!!

 

as for people making a profit-this is not the case!!they are claiming back what they are rightly entitled to!!!-if these extortionate charges ahad been in a savings account they would have gained interest!!!!!!!

 

i would choose your words very carefully

[forestrich]

My attitude is one that disagrees with yours. That's all.

 

I'm on the site out of interest.

 

Are people on here so afraid of debate and opposing views?

 

There is a large percentage of this country who disagree with what is happening here. People who have always maintained tier accounts,a nd are not able to claim will be forced into annual bank account charges with high costs for things like Direct Debits and bank transfers, which are currently free.

 

I think the actions of the people on this site affect more than just the people claiming.

 

In all fairness, regardless of idiosyncratic stuatinos, the people claiming are doing so becasue of their own accounts. they were charged because of thier own accounts. do you think its fair that the cost of the claims will be passed onto people who have not claimed?

 

Banks are businesses, and if they don't make a profit they close. They will need to make a profit somehow, and I would sooner their profit be made through charging people who breach agreed terms and conditions.

[jubaxt]

i think i can speak on behalf of other site users-we are open to opinion-thats fine.we probably all put our hands up and say yes-we would prefer to not have been in a position where we have not had to suffer bank charges BUT--

What we are against is being charged for example-£25 for a visit from an office 6 miles away-£35 for letter writing and in some cases £10 for a local rate phone call-if we were to claim these charges back without any interest we would probably be 'better off' than alot of people who have never paid a bank charge!!!!!!!!!

 

i think that what is upsetting many people is that you cant substantiate your claims-eg you claim you KNOW this that and the other but are not saying how or perhaps you're just one of these people that are always right and always know best!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

so come on then, substantiate your remarks and at least start getting your facts right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jubaxt]

oh and btw-if these charges are fair-why has no bank stood up in court and justified their rates???????????????????????????????????????????????/

[jubaxt]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-lol

[jubaxt]

bangs head against a brick wall-ouch

[Curlyben]

Jubaxt here borrow my desk as it already has a nice big dent in it

[jubaxt]

lol-ring that bell-ready for round 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sowerby17]

well then all this fratching not helping anyone lol. What do i do got aq to fill in by 30th july but not got a cheque from capone either so doubt it would clear by then.help!

[alex_the_lad]

There is a large percentage of this country who disagree with what is happening here. People who have always maintained tier accounts,a nd are not able to claim will be forced into annual bank account charges with high costs for things like Direct Debits and bank transfers, which are currently free.

 

The law says that the charges made by the banks should reflect what they will lose - but, for example, does it really cost 35 quid to send a letter for a debt of 7 quid which gets repaid with interest in a matter of days anyway? Suggesting that we're all going to have to pay more for banking transactions 'cos were reclaiming money that is rightfully ours is just letting banks off the hook again. I think you should be encourged that people are questioning banks and if banks do start charging you for direct debits you should feel reasured that there is a dedicated bunch of people (like the consumer action group) who will not let banks get away with it.

[jubaxt]

is it worth callin crap one sowerby??????????????.i'm waitin for my cheque to pay fees for another claim oh and to have a little more spending money for my hols!!!!!!!!

[sowerby17]

i would like mine so i can have a hol.lol.

[jubaxt]

5 weeks today i'll be on one of those big birds in the sky-cant wait-sea,sand-good food and hopefully a bit more dosh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Janet-M]

Are people on here so afraid of debate and opposing views?

 

People who have always maintained tier accounts,a nd are not able to claim will be forced into annual bank account charges with high costs for things like Direct Debits and bank transfers, which are currently free.

 

You are entitled to your opinon and debate is welcomed .What is not welcome is people posting just to inflame as this is against the site rules .

 

FYI ,except for one period, I do not occur bank charges and I get as you call it 'free banking ' if there is such a thing. I do not believe in anyone acting unlawful and I certainly do not want my free banking on the back of people who can least afford it .

The charges are unlawful .

[forestrich]

I am well aware of the law, but sometimes the law isn't as cut and dried as people would like to think so.

 

The people outraged that the banks are breaking the law and profitting from charges are the same who question how rapists can be sent to prison for only 3 months, how terrorists can walk the streets and how the people who burgle your house get a slap on the wrist. Thats all within the law too.

 

There are two schools of thought on the 'people who can't afford it paying for it' argument.

 

I understand your view, but I see banking more as a 'pay as you go' entity. If you keep your account in credit and don't break any agreements the only charges you pay are in the blanket reduced interest rates, which will never change. If you break agreements, go over agreed limits and don't meet your financial requirements, you are creating more work for the bank, and as such they should be able to charge for it.

 

I think in reality its a semantic dispute, as, although the law doesn't alow you to profit from penalty charges, it allows the government to profit from speed cameras. It doesn't cost 50 quid to send you a picture of you doing 90mph does it? I know there is a difference, but it is slim.

 

If the banks had a term in their agreement that stated there would be a service charge for these breaches of contract, then they would be fine. You would have agreed them before opening the account.

 

If people feel unable to manage theor accounts in a responsible way, so as to avoid charges, there are other options available. You could have a cash card instead of a debit card so as not to abuse the delay in PDQ transactions. You could have an account that doesn't allow direct debits, so that they won't try and make payments without sufficient funds. You could have internet banking, meaning you can access, and change, any standing orders and direct debits at any time and delay them if funds are not available.

 

The banks have made it quite easy to control your own accounts, and as such, excuses for abusing the agreements don't hold much water with me.

 

People claim to be awaiting on payments from businesses to be able to pay their staff, when, in my experience, it is important to have a buffer for wages in a business account, and the bank would generally provide this with an overdraft. No business should be run with the staffs wages being dependant on a company paying an order on time. It's suicide to do that, and as such, businesses that have been charged for bounced wage cheques have no sympathy from me.

 

I think there are isoltaed cases whereby people were not resopnsible, but the banks would be able to help and sort something out if they had been told.

 

Cap1 is a credit card firm and obviously sells PPI, which many think to be a rip off, but on this thread someone has already stated they had to stop work and look after a parent. PPI would have covered all of your payments.

 

There are ways and means available to anyoen to avoid being charged, and I don't think people have fully exploited them, but are now claiming inflated sums of money on the back of thier own financial mismanagement.

 

As I have already stated, banks are businesses, how do you propose they make money? they made in the region of 4bn last year I think on charges, they will make that 4bn again enxt year, where should it come from?

[jubaxt]

you know i could have claimed ppi do you??????????????

 

FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-----i was a casual worker so no I would not have been entitled to ppi--understand the meaning of fact?????????????????

 

because i was a casual worker-despite working an average of 37 hours a week-i could not claim compassionate leave or sick pay-i had to take leave without pay whilst mum was in intensive care-i really wish you would get your facts right

 

 

ALSO- i have worked in a city accident /emergency unit-you try telling bereaved parents of kids killed in motoring accidents that a speeding fine should only reflect the cost of the photograph-i really think you should keep your opinions to yoursel. how can this be compared to letter writing and phone calls??????????????

 

at the end of the day-as my friends on this site stste-we have all prob come across mis-fortunes like illness,job losses,family crisis and personal problems but that doesnt give banks the right to take the mick-as i've said before , you dont know what might be around the corner so i'd tread very carefully-and i am talking from experience!!!!!!!

[forestrich]

You could have claimed PPI for whatever reason you weren't working. I think you should look at the terms of it, and if you have it, give the company a ring. You don't have to be salaried to claim it at all.

 

I never said that I think speeding fines are bad. I think they're quite good actually. I also think bank charges are good. I agree with consequences for inappropriate action.

 

Do you think that you should be able to abuse credit and financial agreements and there not be any repercussions?

 

Why do answer my posts so aggressively? I think my lst post was a valid arguement and I thin I raised some very valid points. If you can't debate properly, please don't.

[jubaxt]

right-if i could have claimed ppi as a casual worker then

a)-why have i just won a case before court for being mis-sold ppi????????????????????????????????

[jubaxt]

i am not going to respond to your posts anymore all i ask is-see beyond yourself and your ideal obviously flawless life-believe me-in my profession i deal with people from all walks of life with MANY problems and get a great buzz from helping them-oh and have you fount THE answer to the previous post????

 

there are many casual workers without contracts who, as i was,are sure they cant get ppi to cover them if they are ill-perhaps you're the person who can actually help in advising them otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lickthewallfatboy]

Do Not Feed The Troll

[forestrich]

Jubaxt, if you could claim sick pay you would not get PPI

 

PPI is nothing to do with what you earn. It only comes nito force when you do not earn.

 

I'm not sure you fully understand what PPI is.

 

It is an insurance offered by the Credit Card company for the instance where you would not be able to emet the financial comitments.

 

As a casual worker, you should have taken out PPI, it would have cost ess than 1% of your total, and they wold have made payments when you were out of work.

[forestrich]

Do Not Feed The Troll

 

How nice.

 

Just trying to engage in debate, but all seem to get is hostility from people who don't like other opinions and insults from people like you.

[Paintball]

Hey guys

First of all we are here both to reclaim charges and help each other, there is absolutely no point in putting people off claiming (paintball please note) and please try and keep it friendly.

Right now I have got that off my chest just to keep you folks in the picture last friday filed for "Execution of Warrent", Cap 1 will get notice of intended visit of bailiff if they do not act. They can ask for a set aside as they claim they didnt receive the claim but it might not go down to well with the judge when a letter informing them that they hadnt responded to the claim was signed for on the 5th June and even giving them more time to respond.

The other aspect I have done is (all doubters of cci take note) give the judge the option of calculating stat interest should he feel cci not allowed (the old saying of "cover your 6" is good here).

Anyway we will see what happens.

 

KM_S

 

 

Can you elaborate on the "Paintball please note" bit? TVM

[forestrich]

Can you elaborate on the "Paintball please note" bit? TVM

 

It was probably aimed at me.

 

Care to take me up on my bet offer?

[Paintball]

It was probably aimed at me.

 

Care to take me up on my bet offer?

 

 

I should jolly well hope that I'm not being accused of discouraging people; my comment previously was aimed at you [edit], with your daft comments aimed at disheartening and insulting people. Start a thread if you want to engage in intelligent debate rather than jumping in and hi-jacking another's ...

 

Are you a relative of the much reviled MotleyCrue perchance?

 

Mods, are you taking note here?