Masterstroke or Visa? Man made own credit deal!

[Spearmint]

Ha! Well done that man!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Bloody clever, but its probably fraud isn't it? Whilst its nice to see the little guy get one back, he never warned them to ensure they were aware of the amended terms they were agreeing to.

 

[grumpyoldgit]

We can only dream,or be so lucky

 

[PraiseBacon]

I suspect the guy will lose the case - if you are offered a contract (the card the bank offered him) , and want to change the terms before agreeing - you have to ensure the other party is aware of, and agrees to , the change of terms. (hence legal mark ups for those that follow this stuff)

The same also applies to changes of terms -that is basically why every time the terms of your bank account, or credit card change you get a letter about it and offered the change to cancel the card.

All the Bank would have to do is send a letter to the effect the terms were being revised back to standard terms, and any continued use of the card constitutes agreement.

There was technically a more interesting case a while back with a guy called Patrick Combs who deposited a joke cheque for $95K, which the bank cashed - and didn't realize until it was beyond the reversal period. The whole saga is interesting for how badly the bank treated the guy in their attempts to recover the money (even after he said, just admit you made a mistake - and I'll give you the money back). Pat himself now makes a good living telling the story as a one man show - and being invited by banks to talk about the impacts of poor customer service (i met him, he's an interesting guy)

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Playing-With-Money-How-a-95-093-35-junk-mail-2588766.php#page-1

As an aside, had it gone to court, he would probably have lost for knowing cashing a joke cheque - but the bank would have taken a really big hit because of it's behavior and not been able to recover fees and costs etc.

The way he actually resolved it was really funny though, and big 'up yours ' to the bank..

 

[XVR RA RA RA]

I suspect the guy will lose the case - if you are offered a contract (the card the bank offered him) , and want to change the terms before agreeing - you have to ensure the other party is aware of, and agrees to , the change of terms. (hence legal mark ups for those that follow this stuff)

The same also applies to changes of terms -that is basically why every time the terms of your bank account, or credit card change you get a letter about it and offered the change to cancel the card.

All the Bank would have to do is send a letter to the effect the terms were being revised back to standard terms, and any continued use of the card constitutes agreement.

From what I read, the bank had technically agreed to his amended contract after he sent it back to them, the bank then signed it off and then issued the card. So technically the bank should of been aware but it appears they did not read the small print. Because of this I think the guy has a strong case.

He was clever enough to write in a clause that if the bank change anything, the bank owes him a penalty fine.

My take on it is this is a set of double standards. It's perfectly legal for a bank to print money that does not exist and screw people over robbing them blind for everything they have, but if you were to do exactly the same they don't like it.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

From what I read, the bank had technically agreed to his amended contract after he sent it back to them, the bank then signed it off and then issued the card. So technically the bank should of been aware but it appears they did not read the small print. Because of this I think the guy has a strong case.

He was clever enough to write in a clause that if the bank change anything, the bank owes him a penalty fine.

My take on it is this is a set of double standards. It's perfectly legal for a bank to print money that does not exist and screw people over robbing them blind for everything they have, but if you were to do exactly the same they don't like it.

Well its the Bank of England that makes the decision to print money, not your highstreet bank. Its legal to do that, not liking the fact that they do that doesnt mean it can be conflated into a case of altering a contract without making the other party aware, which probsbly isnt legal even though it appeals to our sense of 'ownbackmanship'.

 

[XVR RA RA RA]

Well its the Bank of England that makes the decision to print money, not your highstreet bank. Its legal to do that, not liking the fact that they do that doesnt mean it can be conflated into a case of altering a contract without making the other party aware, which probsbly isnt legal even though it appeals to our sense of 'ownbackmanship'.

The high street bank does print money when it gives people loans! As banks loan out more money than it holds, thats how they make profit. To such an extent that if everyone was to run to the bank and ask for all their savings in cash, the high street bank would not have enough to give everyone their money! If you get a £10 note from the bank it says "promise" to pay the bearer, which means the banks £10 note is nothing more than an I.O.U from them. What is to stop them from saying all £10 notes are now worthless? Thats why if you have large savings its better in a solid object like gold than a worthless currency that isn't backed up by anything.

Back on topic... Tinkoff was aware, they gave Mr Argarkov a bid and Mr Argarkov gave them a counter bid which Tinkoff signed off. He did give them a copy of his terms, if Tinkoff signed it with out reading it, it's is their fault.

 

[PraiseBacon]

Banks don’t make a profit from giving out more money than they hold – in itself that wouldn’t make any money at all!

Banks make some of their money from the delta between the cost of the money and the interest on money loaned out. That is to say, the cost of the money is the interest rate paid to savers (2-4% depending on the account), or cost of borrowing money from the Govt to loan out (about 6%) – the interest rate you charge on loans (varies from 4 – 12 % depending on size, loan term, type of security offered (if any) etc , etc)

That is essentially retail banking, and small to mid -ize commercial banking.

Investment banking is different as most income is ‘fee ‘ based, advisory fees, setting up and servicing bond fees, trading fees , und management fees etc . Along with the profit from trading on own account (casino banking).

Getting back to retail banking for a moment – if,, as you suggest, banks should not loan out more than they hold in deposits– the effects would be catastrophic for the country. The solution sis to control how many times the deposits they hold are lent out.

Northern rock – for example, held about 5% in deposits – ie loaned out 20 times more than they held. Once a few loans went bad they had no ability to absorb it, people lost confidence, and there was a run on the bank, which collapsed it.

Banks nowadays, with the revised capital adequacy rules, hold 18 – 20% in the vault, i.e. loan about to a ratio of 5 to 5 and a half times the deposits they hold. This has already massively restricted the money supply, and banks are being heavily criticized, mostly for political gain and deflection of accountability from politicos, for not lending enough (while being asked to hold yet more in reserve!).

Only lending out what is in the vault will reduce the money available for loans by another 80% - a and collapse t which point commerce, mortgages, finance for small companies would all but dry up and collapse the markets.

But that is just my understanding of it from a degree in finance, and 15 years post RAF experience of working for, and contracting to, infrastructure providers of the global financial system.

You clearly know more about it than me – so I’d like to hear your viewpoint on how the funding gap will be met if banks are restricted to only lending out what is in the safe?

 

[XVR RA RA RA]

Pom,

I'm not saying the system should change, or that I know more than you. I was only giving an example of how banks print money they don't have.

Back to the topic... At least this credit card contract was a two way thing where both parties had the opportunity to agree to new terms. Unlike NEM and AFPS 15, which was forced upon us, a one way change in the contract that's different to the one we signed.

 

[busby1971]

Pom,

I'm not saying the system should change, or that I know more than you. I was only giving an example of how banks print money they don't have.

Back to the topic... At least this credit card contract was a two way thing where both parties had the opportunity to agree to new terms. Unlike NEM and AFPS 15, which was forced upon us, a one way change in the contract that's different to the one we signed.

On Topic, angry angry angry, changing terms of contracts happens all the time so don't go thinking you're special, you don't have to sign up to NEM unless you want longer service, the choice is yours.

Really back on topic, I wonder how it would work over here, I'm pretty certain you could scan in a Barclaycard contract or similar, make amendments, sign and return.

Contract law is probably more established over here but there must be some responsibility for an organisation with a turnover in the billions to check what it agrees to.

 

[PraiseBacon]

Pom,

I'm not saying the system should change, or that I know more than you. I was only giving an example of how banks print money they don't have.

Back to the topic... At least this credit card contract was a two way thing where both parties had the opportunity to agree to new terms. Unlike NEM and AFPS 15, which was forced upon us, a one way change in the contract that's different to the one we signed.

actually you can't loan money you don't have - not even a bank. It comes from the bond markets and money markets. But that is going off topic....

Back on topic, a lot will depend on whether the opportunity to change terms was offered.

ie the bank make an offer of a card on standard terms, mostly they are not negiotable.

in this case a person created a form looking just like the one sent, but amended the terms himself - and basis his claim on the bank should have noticed , despite no indication he had changed them. Personally I doubt he will win, but then again, I've been wrong about lots of things before ;-)


many , many , moons ago - I was involved in an investigation where the opposite happened - an employee changed the standard terms of a mailshot for a joke and forgot to change it back. therefore 100,000 offers of a card went out with terms including "we an charge whatever we want for fees, whenever we like, and if you don't like it you can suck my foaming cock"

it got the usual take up rate ( about 1%, normal for a direct mailing) - so about 1000 people agreed to the terms - that will teach them not to read it ;-)

the bank sent out revised terms quickly, but was dreading cases going to court because of the publicity it would attract.!

As for one sided changes to employment terms, they are not unique to the RAF, or even the public sector. The UK has lead the way on lowering wages , reducing benefits and basically making sure we are all worse off during the recession. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23655605

i agree it doesn't make 'take it or leave ' changes to employment terms right though ..