Welkom op c/theNetherlands! Voor het delen van alles gerelateerd aan Nederland: nieuws, sport, humor, cultuur en vragen.
Welcome to c/theNetherlands! For sharing anything related to the Netherlands: news, sports, humor, culture and questions.
This isn't true, at least in the Netherlands. The Euro is legal tender of course, but stores aren't required to accept it, provided they make this clear to customers.
Source (in Dutch): https://radar.avrotros.nl/hulp-tips/hulpartikelen/item/mag-een-winkel-cash-geld-weigeren/
And directly from the government (in Dutch): https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/geldzaken/vraag-en-antwoord/kan-ik-met-een-wettig-betaalmiddel-overal-betalen
Thanks for the info. That link is broken for me but I was able to reach the article here:
This differs from Belgium then. In Belgium shops are breaking the legal tender law and it’s going unenforced.
(update) It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale. E.g. suppose you’ve been paying your debt by bank transfer, then your bank account gets cancelled (either by you or by the bank). You could then be in a situation of only having the capacity to pay in cash. What does NL law say in that situation?
It would be interesting to know how Netherlands treats debts and whether that differs from point of sale.
That’s the point of the notice rule. You need to know about the condition before the transaction, so you can’t be forced into a debt that can’t be settled with cash.
I don’t quite follow. It would be nice to know in advance before entering home mortgage contract that 10 years into the loan the bank that holds your asset account is going to give you the boot. The reality is that you don’t even get a 1 day notice sometimes (depending on circumstances).
So the contract with your mortgage lender might say the payer agrees to pay via bank transfer for 15 years, while all contracts for asset accounts at all banks never include a guarantee to keep your account open. They reserve the right to pull the plug at any time. Are you saying that in the situation where the payer does not know in advance that their bank account will remain open that they are protected and thus can switch to cash payments?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
If you agree to pay back your mortgage by bank statements, it’s up to you to make sure you have a bank account.
Yikes! So the law has ensured that people are put in the unreasonable position of making guarantees they are not in control over.
if you can no longer get a normal bank account (because of financial crimes you’ve committed, you falling into debt repeatedly makes you too risky for the banks, etc.)
It’s much easier than that to be systemically shut out. You just have to be born in the wrong place. Point 2 in this paper. That page lists several situations where a law-abiding consumer is shown the door by banks.
you can get a basic bank account which comes with various restrictions, but will allow you to pay your bills.
EU basic bank accounts do not support cash deposits. So if you earn cash or your bank was at least kind enough to warn you before they close your account and you withdrew cash, that money is trapped as cash & cannot be spent from a basic account.
This avenue should always be open to you, so the “I can’t pay through a bank account” excuse probably doesn’t work.
Depends on your nationality.
Suppose you are a Canadian residing in Netherlands and you buy a house. You sign up for a loan under non-negotiable¹ terms. Say 8 years later Canada makes a treaty with NL saying that Dutch banks must either report all Canadian consumers to Canada or they must very closely watch their Canadian clients (bank’s choice). Both options are a burden on banks, so banks decide it’s not worth the money a few Canadians them to deal with it, so they reject all Canadians unless they open a basic account. But the does not want to serve Canadians with basic accounts because of the extra babysitting burden. So they don’t inform Canadian consumers that the option exists. They simply send them a letter saying they have 1 month to clear out their bank account and leave. Some Canadians will do just that and bring home a pile of cash. Other Canadians will take the time to do a bit of research & discover they can force the bank that’s booting them to open a new “basic” account for them.
Human Rights Breached
It’s a human rights problem (all people must be treated as equals which is even codified in EU law). But it’s being ignored. So rewind 8 years. How would a Canadian have predicted that their human rights would be pushed aside and they would be given the boot by banks?
So the Canadian homeowner is booted by the bank and the mortgage lender says “not my problem; pay me and it better not be cash”. How is that reasonable? It comes down to really fucked up law that overlooks the importance that all debts be payable in cash. Not only is the Canadian victimized by way of the human rights violation of treating them different, but then the creditor kicks them when they are down. The lender is also a bank possibly even one with a vault for handling cash, but they simply do not want the inconvenience of handling a monthly cash payment.
The above hypothetical actually happened - but with USians. USians are at the mercy of banks to accept them. Some banks will verbally say “we don’t take Americans” (they will never put that in writing though because it’s an illegal policy). Some banks have decided to take US clients but with extra reporting (thus still violating their human rights by way of unequal treatment). So some USians will say fuck this I’m done with banks. But what about the mortgage that’s still in play? It’s insanely reckless to impose on the human being side of the contract the ability to predict that disaster. And regardless of that, even if a mortgage borrower could predict it, it’s a human rights problem that it would preempt them from home ownership.
Why is this happening? (A: “crime fighting”)
This raises the question: WTF justifies forcing everyone into this shitty banking system? Crime fighting (they say). So non-criminals are getting probed, kicked around, harassed, & denied service under the “crime fighting” rationale? How fucked up is that that the hunt for criminals is designed to put non-criminals in harms way? The whole point to fighting crime is to protect non-criminals in the first place.
Prediction: Brits or Canadians are next
One of those two countries will be next to follow in the footsteps of the USA, and their citizens will also become toxic citizens to banks.
¹ It’s always non-negotiable terms because no bank will take the burden of altering terms and then have to manage different terms for different clients. You can only negotiate figures.
I'm in Portugal and no place whatsoever can refuse to take cash and you, as a customer, can complain in writing and even have the police called: you want to pay, you are not evading your charge, it's the business problem how they handle the cash they receive.
During the pandemic we moved a lot of the day to day transactions to digital format but it was ruled it is unfair treatment to refuse cash.
What can be refused is to take unreasonable volume of coins or too high value bills, as in, paying €50 in small change or handing a €200 bill.
Indeed that’s similar to Belgium. By (unenforced) law, a shop in Belgium must accept accept cash but they can refuse banknotes that are disproportionately high for the transaction amount, they can refuse high volumes of coins, and they can refuse if they don’t have change to give back.
There was a group of people who fought the war on cash in #Belgium by entering a cashless cafe, placed orders, racked up a bill, consumed the food, then when it came time to pay they said “here is our cash. We are happy to pay.” The cafe worker threatened to call the police if they do not pay by card. They said “please feel free to call the police… we will wait.” The police showed up and said indeed there was nothing for them to do. The customers were free to go.
Nice move! Have to remember that one.