What a bunch of lying "people"

Edited by deleted (Fri 16-May-14 13:09:34)

I think banks only generally reverse charges where they were made in error - in this case the charge was to pay for a service that you have subsequently cancelled so the charge was valid.

No harm in trying the bank but I doubt they have powers to reverse legitimate payments.

My Mum was miles in credit after BT didn't adjust payments down automatically (oddly they adjust them up quickly enough). It took over 6 months to get it credited because they apparently can only credit a certain amount at a time - they are worse than even the electric/gas companies at taking overpayments and then not refunding them.

Should "would be back without 5 working days" be "within"?

No need to be aggressive

?
I've no idea what I was in your deleted reply, but I genuinely thought there was a typo in your post. Very possibly a wrong "autocorrect" which I frequently see coming from my spellcheckers, and often don't notice till after posting.

As it is, I shall remain ignorant of what "would be back without 5 working days" means, if it shouldn't be "within".

I agree having to wait 40 days was ridiculous and unacceptable. Waiting up to five working days, (assuming "within"), seems perfectly normal.

Do you suffer from OCD where spelling is concerned. Appears like it.

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

Just to prove they are idiots with no clue

Random made up name at my new address with 10yr living here - made up DOB and passed credit check with £0 deposit.

[censored] fools!

And you accuse them of lying. Providing false information in order to pass a credit check sounds a little bit like fraud to me.

In reply to a post by flippery:

Do you suffer from OCD where spelling is concerned. Appears like it.

Is this a question, Mark?