Lollipop

[JohnW2]

There was, meter tails went to a CU as the single isolation point. Four MCBs, during building only two used to feed caravan and builders panel.

Where were your two RCDs, then - in that CU?

If they were in the CU, so that he was complaining that you wanted the meter to be connected to a dual-RCD CU, that would be crazy - and, these days, would result in the great majority of meters not being installed!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

.

At the time regulations suggested that an installation could not have more than one Residual Current Device., maybe a hangover from the restrictions on VOLCB devices.

 

[JohnW2]

<a diagram>

I presume that the thing in the shed with a 'Main Switch' is the CU to which you were referring, and that Main Switch would certainly serve as a 'single point of isolation' for the entire installation.

It seems rather odd that the meter installer should have been concerned about anything downstream of the single CU to which he was connecting the meter tails!

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

I had a related experience with a card, much more recently than the '70s.

Bought something using a card, which we do for absolutely everything we can for convenience, consumer protection and rewards. We always clear the balance each month.

The something got returned, and the retailer credited our card, so come payment time we paid off what the balance actually was , only to be stung with an interest charge the following month because a credit does not count as a payment, so the balance they used to work out charges was (actual balance + credits). Apparently I should have paid more and ended up with the card company owing me money in order to avoid paying interest.

I'd be taking that up with an onbubsman if they tried that with me.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

... or ombudsman (from the swedish of course)...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'd be taking that up with an onbubsman if they tried that with me.

Fine.

But the ombudsman would not look at your complaint until after you'd exhausted every avenue for redress with the card company, by which time you would have had redress.

 

[SimonH2]

In the early days of 'computerisation' ...

When it became common to "blame the computer" for making a mistake. Back in the 90s I was in business and my then partner had a wonderful tale of putting the fear of god into the bank manager. My colleague spotted a mistake on a statement and went into the bank to query it, and was told by the lady behind the counter that the computer had made a mistake.
My colleague then said that he'd need to close his account and take his money out while the bank was still solvent - ie before the run killed them - adding that once it got out that the computer system was unreliable then no-one would leave any money in the bank. This "startled" the lady who fetched the manager, and after a short discussion, the manager said something like "you know a bit about conputers don't you ?, and that's not a good excuse to use is it ?" - to which my colleague answered yes and no. The manager turned to the lady behind the counter and said "never use that excuse again".
You had to know my colleague - he had a pedantic streak very much like BAS exhibits here and probably (well actually, in my colleague's case there was no probably about it) relished to opportunities for things like this.

 

[JohnW2]

When it became common to "blame the computer" for making a mistake. Back in the 90s I was in business and my then partner had a wonderful tale of putting the fear of god into the bank manager. ....

I imagine I've probably told this story here before - but, anyway ...

.... when I was first at uni, some 50 years ago, I was in receipt of a grant (when such things existed!) from my Local Authority, which was paid by cheque (produced by what must have been an 'early' computer), if I recall, 50% at the start of each of the first two terms. One one occasion, the computer had 'accidentally' added three extra zeros to end of the sum (and had correctly interpreted that erroneous number into typed words!).

I rushed with it to my bank to 'pay in' this cheque, and after a rather interesting 'interview' with the bank manager, he agreed to let me bank it, provided that I promised to leave most of it there, on the basis that 'the LA were good for that amount'. He knew exactly what I intended to do, and seemed to agree that the LA 'ought to be taught a lesson', and arranged for the money to go into a 'high interest' account (with a long notice period for penalty-free withdrawals!)!

It didn't seem, in those days, that there were any easy mechanisms (legal etc.) for them to 'get this error corrected quickly', so there followed a fascinating period of 3-4 weeks during which they were pleading with me, and trying to bribe me etc., to return their money. They even complained to the Vice Chancellor of my Uni, but they definitely pickled the wrong person, since he fully supported me and 'sent them on their way'!

I let them stew for about 4 weeks, by which time the accrued interest (at the rates of the day) on the excess were far in excess of the amount the cheque should have been for! The bank then returned their money to them, but less a hefty 'penalty fee' for withdrawing money from a high interest account without the prescribed period of notice'

Kind Regards, John

 

[FrodoOne]

I had a related experience with a card, much more recently than the '70s.

Bought something using a card, which we do for absolutely everything we can for convenience, consumer protection and rewards. We always clear the balance each month.

The something got returned, and the retailer credited our card, so come payment time we paid off what the balance actually was , only to be stung with an interest charge the following month because a credit does not count as a payment, so the balance they used to work out charges was (actual balance + credits). Apparently I should have paid more and ended up with the card company owing me money in order to avoid paying interest.

While I can appreciate your feelings and logic, the poor simple minded computer system wants to have the "negative balance" existing at the end of the "billing period" concerned reduced to Zero by a "payment" by the "Due Date" - which, in my case, is 14 days later.

It is not programmed to take into consideration any "refunds" received after the end of the "Billing Period" and before the "Due Date" as "payment" reducing the balance existing at the "Due Date".
Of course, that could be done but it would require additional programming by the Bank/Lender concerned.

I do hope that some human employed by the Bank/Lender concerned was able to sort it out for you.

I once incurred an "interest charge" on an amount not paid by the "Due Date" because my Bank had a computer glitch where transactions set to be processed on a certain day were not done.
When I pointed out that the problem was not my fault but due to a failure of the processes of the Bank, the "interest charge" was reversed.

 

[JohnW2]

It is not programmed to take into consideration any "refunds" received after the end of the "Billing Period" and before the "Due Date" as "payment" reducing the balance existing at the "Due Date".

That surely is the 'programming oversight' (or 'error') - but it seems a little odd that they seem to have (unnecessarily) 'gone out of their way to single out' refunds for different treatment. In other words, far from being the result of 'laziness' (often the source of programming issues) they seem to have done more programming work than than they needed to do!

If one makes two or more payments into one's account between the end of the billing period and the 'Due Date' which, in total, at least clear the balance, then the computer will be happy and will not charge interest. It should not make any difference if the 'payments into the account' did not all come from the same source (one being a 'refund'), should it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

That surely is the 'programming oversight' (or 'error') - but it seems a little odd that they seem to have (unnecessarily) 'gone out of their way to single out' refunds for different treatment. In other words, far from being the result of 'laziness' (often the source of programming issues) they seem to have done more programming work than than they needed to do!

If one makes two or more payments into one's account between the end of the billing period and the 'Due Date' which, in total, at least clear the balance, then the computer will be happy and will not charge interest. It should not make any difference if the 'payments into the account' did not all come from the same source (one being a 'refund'), should it?

Kind Regards, John

As much as I hate to do this, I have to side with BAS. I know the 'Credit Card Companies' have weird, and to me incomprehensible, methods of accounting.
When I have accrued interest, not always through my own forgetfulness, I have found it very difficult to pay it off before the end of the next billing period due to the order that different debits and credits are added to the account.

 

[JohnW2]

As much as I hate to do this, I have to side with BAS.

Was it not clear that I was also 'siding with him' (again, rather uncharacteristically!)?

I know the 'Credit Card Companies' have weird, and to me incomprehensible, methods of accounting. When I have accrued interest, not always through my own forgetfulness, I have found it very difficult to pay it off before the end of the next billing period due to the order that different debits and credits are added to the account.

Indeed, and also some policies which I find annoying, and not necessarily all that logical.

As one example, I have always felt it a bit unreasonable that they calculate 'minimum repayments' (when balances are not being cleared each month) on a monthly basis - not the least because when (as with myself) income is very fluctuant/unpredictable, one is then often deterred from making repayments as large as one would like to make, in case the result is that one might have difficulty ('not enough money left'!) in comfortably making the required minimum repayment the following month.

For example, I have often been in the situation that I had made repayments considerably greater than the minimum required for the last several months but, due to temporary cashflow issues, would prefer not to have to make any repayment in the current month. I feel a bit aggrieved when, for example, I have paid them, say £5,000 more than I 'needed to' ('minimum payments') over the preceding 6 months, yet know that they would not 'tolerate' my not paying a 'minimum repayment' of £200 this month. It would seem far more reasonable if they looked at, say, a 'moving total' of repayment amounts paid over a period of several months.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Was it not clear that I was also 'siding with him' (again, rather uncharacteristically!)?

It wasn't intended as a contradiction.

Indeed, and also some policies which I find annoying, and not necessarily all that logical.

As one example, I have always felt it a bit unreasonable that they calculate 'minimum repayments' (when balances are not being cleared each month) on a monthly basis - not the least because when (as with myself) income is very fluctuant/unpredictable, one is then often deterred from making repayments as large as one would like to make, in case the result is that one might have difficulty ('not enough money left'!) in comfortably making the required minimum repayment the following month.

For example, I have often been in the situation that I had made repayments considerably greater than the minimum required for the last several months but, due to temporary cashflow issues, would prefer not to have to make any repayment in the current month. I feel a bit aggrieved when, for example, I have paid them, say £5,000 more than I 'needed to' ('minimum payments') over the preceding 6 months, yet know that they would not 'tolerate' my not paying a 'minimum repayment' of £200 this month. It would seem far more reasonable if they looked at, say, a 'moving total' of repayment amounts paid over a period of several months.

Kind Regards, John

I remember a current account which was offered which could have other accounts attached, like mortgage, car loan, credit card etc. and the plan was to not have a positive balance on one bit and a negative balance on another. in other words the 'loans' were treated more like overdrafts. I did look at it but it felt cumbersome and in the early days of computerisation is seemed far to complicated to be successful. These days I think it would stand more chance of working.

 

[scousespark]

Many years ago I was in the armed forces and was travelling North with 3 colleagues. We were travelling by rail and went to a cash machine in a station. The guy in front of us took out £20 and his card came out. The machine gave him a second £20. He was about to pocket this, but we stopped him as the machine started spitting out £20 notes. I went and found a BTP copper and we all waited for the machine to stop issuing notes. It eventually issued £840 in twenties. I gave my details and we went on our way. A few weeks later I got a letter from this bank thanking me and my colleagues for securing their cash, together with a reward. The letter had a cheque for the princely sum of £20. We laughed, but felt a bit insulted, as we got a fiver each. We gave the money to the poppy appeal.

 

[John D v2.0]

The letter had a cheque for the princely sum of £20. We laughed, but felt a bit insulted, as we got a fiver each

It's the thought that counts! Banks aren't know for being generous
Nice story, good to know you did the honest thing