Paid cash in, counted and weighed. Bank now disputes figure.

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

Sid, I thought you worked in the financial industry. If you do, you really need to keep up. Didn't you know about this one:

12000 business owners ripped off by RBS via its GRG Dept (ret'd) got a letter a few weeks ago. It's headed "Putting Things Right".

So Sid, you'd better get onto them PDQ and tell them to redact those letters because THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG, have they?

I've said no such thing.

drainbrian said:

Or have they?

Anyone else had the "Putting Things Right" letter? Give them a ring and tell them your tale. I did. And I've already had a fat compensation cheque for the mis-sold hedging product which was to hedge the unnecessarily reorganised loan arrangement I got charged the eye watering fees for. I didn't even know till the letter came that the scumsters who conned me are from RBS GRG. But apparently they were and apparently they've been forced to drain all the pus out of the GRG swamp. And apparently I'm a "classic case" for 'putting right".

Okay, it's banker wrongdoing so little or none of it's going to be dealt with by criminal procedures. It's not real serious stuff like misdeclaring income on a mortgage application which might get you a fraud charge and a Proceeds of Crime case on top. No no. Nothing like that. Just the wholesale unnecessary destruction of businesses and lives requiring BILLIONS in compensation on top of 10's maybe 100's of millions in investigatory expenses.

So get on to them quick. You just explain to them that they really didn't do anything wrong. The victims were all really victims of their own lack of understanding! And hurry up! I've already agreed a fee to a bank wolf to represent my case so if it was all just a kid-on and there's nothing to put right I'd like to know asap.

Thanks

You're an idiot. I've said no such thing.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 17th February 09:46

[Car mad enthusiast]

What like Banks today keep good relationships with their customers. NOT.

stevensdrs said:

So you knew at the time having counted the cash yourself that the teller was making a mistake yet you kept schtum. Legally the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on but morally and to keep a good relationship with the bank you need to stump up the sixty quid.

[PugwasHDJ80]

Car mad enthusiast said:

What like Banks today keep good relationships with their customers. NOT.

stevensdrs said:

So you knew at the time having counted the cash yourself that the teller was making a mistake yet you kept schtum. Legally the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on but morally and to keep a good relationship with the bank you need to stump up the sixty quid.

I used to deposit tens of thousands of pounds in cash every week (I used to own a chain of fish and chip shops) so got pretty good at counting money.

But iF the cashier manually and electronically counted the money and then told me i'd counted it wrong, then I believed her! If she phoned back later to say she made a mistake I wouldn't give the money back- its more realistic that someone at bank side has pocketed the money!

[Granfondo]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

I used to deposit tens of thousands of pounds in cash every week (I used to own a chain of fish and chip shops) so got pretty good at counting money.

But iF the cashier manually and electronically counted the money and then told me i'd counted it wrong, then I believed her! If she phoned back later to say she made a mistake I wouldn't give the money back- its more realistic that someone at bank side has pocketed the money!

I agree with Pugy here, we use Fastcash system where they count it at a central depot and if if there is a discrepancy they let you know but you have no way of disputing their counting!
If the cashier counts it in front of you and gives you a rieciept then that's it IMO.

[Jules360]

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

[Granfondo]

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

[Jules360]

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

[Granfondo]

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

Seriously?

[Hugo a Gogo]

wtf weighing the notes? what if one had a bit of sellotape stuck to it, for example?

what's wrong with a counting machine?

do them in batches of 500 quid or something

[Soov535]

Muzzer79 said:

Seriously?

You have a receipt for the full amount...

They could have:

• Nicked it
• Dropped it down the back of the counter
• Mixed it up with another bundle
• Paid it out to someone else
• Office dog could have eaten it

If they've made a mistake, they cover it. It's not your problem.

Tell them to do one.

This. You have a receipt for the full amount. It's THEIR problem.

[Jules360]

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

Seriously?

I'm being pedantic. But you seem to think that it is the responsibility of the bank to perform DD on its borrowers (and it should), but when they packaged up these assets and sold them, the buyers had no similar responsibility. So it's the banks' fault ? Wonderfully one sided, don't you think ?

[Granfondo]

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

Seriously?

I'm being pedantic. But you seem to think that it is the responsibility of the bank to perform DD on its borrowers (and it should), but when they packaged up these assets and sold them, the buyers had no similar responsibility. So it's the banks' fault ? Wonderfully one sided, don't you think ?

Take a look at drainbrain's post above and you will see why it's one sided!

[Jules360]

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

Seriously?

I'm being pedantic. But you seem to think that it is the responsibility of the bank to perform DD on its borrowers (and it should), but when they packaged up these assets and sold them, the buyers had no similar responsibility. So it's the banks' fault ? Wonderfully one sided, don't you think ?

Take a look at drainbrain's post above and you will see why it's one sided!

I thought your question related to the financial crisis.

[Granfondo]

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

Jules360 said:

Granfondo said:

sidicks said:

Granfondo said:

Seems very strange that a few rogue workers brought the whole banking system to its knees which needed to be rescued by governments and taxpayers throughout the world!

You seem to be confused between the rogue workers who committed fraudulent acts and the mark-to-market issues faced by many banks operating entire within the law under banking regulation.

Really!
Who caused these issues?

It could be argued that people borrowing far more money than they could expect to be able to repay and then defaulting was the cause.

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 14:28

Then we come back to Sidicks favourite phrase "due diligence"!

By who ? The borrower or lender ?

Seriously?

I'm being pedantic. But you seem to think that it is the responsibility of the bank to perform DD on its borrowers (and it should), but when they packaged up these assets and sold them, the buyers had no similar responsibility. So it's the banks' fault ? Wonderfully one sided, don't you think ?

Take a look at drainbrain's post above and you will see why it's one sided!

I thought your question related to the financial crisis.

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!
Could have been written about the banking industry!

[Jules360]

And indeed, many others. But i fail to see th relevance to our discussion

Edited by Jules360 on Friday 17th February 15:32

[amancalledrob]

This thread's deteriorated to the point where it's hardly readable. Would it be possible for a mod to separate the willy-waving banking experts and leave the actual subject a bit easier to follow?

[fido]

Hmmm .. they know it's you who pocketed the extra £60 through their mistake .. I'd probably pay it back as I know I'm in the wrong (even though they cocked up). I appreciate that makes me some of weirdo on PH but I wouldn't like it if it was the other way round. Either way, I don't think the cashier will get fired for £60 - maybe a warning.

[Piersman2]

When the bank phoned I'd have asked them what they would do if I'd just been in a few hours earlier, had withdrawn £5000 and then counted it at home to find it £60 light. Would the bank be happy enough to hand me the 'missing' £60 if I went back in?

We all know the answer here (sidicks excepted ) - it would be 'No'.

So then I'd have asked the person form the bank why I should be expected to do anything differently.

If they could come up with some cogent argument to that I 'might' hand over the £60. But they couldn't, so I wouldn't.

[Piersman2]

With regards the wider banking question in this thread, I do admire sidicks' attempts to whitewash, it's almost Trump'esque in the level of delusion.

The banks spent years slowly but surely selling off mortgages. At the start they were good but when they realised how much money they could make doing this they started having to find more and more mortgages to sell on. The quality of the mortgages tailed off, anyone could get a mortgage, and the bank was happy for this to continue for as long as possible. The banks were very clever at keeping the wraps on the quality of the mortgage bundles being sold, the ratings companies were lazy and earning too much to overly worry about what they were grading and the investment companies had similarly got lazy in checking what they were actually buying. A perfect storm of greed and laziness from all involved.

With regards to the banks ruining individual companies. There's been multiple examples of people having their SME companies deestroyed by banks in the Private Eye over the last few years. Business people being promised the gold at the end of the rainbow by bank reps with a 'product' to push, too busy and/or stupid to see the risks. The bank then brings in the liquidators, forecloses and sweeps up the left overs to be divided between themselves and the liquidators. So no possibility of a conflict of interest there, eh!

[Soov535]

Piersman2 said:

With regards the wider banking question in this thread, I do admire sidicks' attempts to whitewash, it's almost Trump'esque in the level of delusion.

The banks spent years slowly but surely selling off mortgages. At the start they were good but when they realised how much money they could make doing this they started having to find more and more mortgages to sell on. The quality of the mortgages tailed off, anyone could get a mortgage, and the bank was happy for this to continue for as long as possible. The banks were very clever at keeping the wraps on the quality of the mortgage bundles being sold, the ratings companies were lazy and earning too much to overly worry about what they were grading and the investment companies had similarly got lazy in checking what they were actually buying. A perfect storm of greed and laziness from all involved.

With regards to the banks ruining individual companies. There's been multiple examples of people having their SME companies deestroyed by banks in the Private Eye over the last few years. Business people being promised the gold at the end of the rainbow by bank reps with a 'product' to push, too busy and/or stupid to see the risks. The bank then brings in the liquidators, forecloses and sweeps up the left overs to be divided between themselves and the liquidators. So no possibility of a conflict of interest there, eh!

What has this got to do with some dappy bird who works in a branch who can't count?