I don’t really understand what human rights banks have violated here.

Banks are giving different treatment to different customers based on their national origin. They singled out those born in a particular country. Some banks showed the marginalized group the door… gave them a GTFO in one month notice. Other banks said “you can stay, but we’re reporting your activity to Canada (for example)”. If you are born anywhere else, you do not get that “special” treatment. It’s a human rights violation because people are not being treated the same.

Small amounts of cash, for sure. Everyone should have enough cash ready to buy a week’s worth of groceries in my opinion. Unless you’ve managed to score a pretty great deal on a mortgage, that’s not mortgage payment money.

Regardless, the mortgage still remains unpaid if the grocer accepts your cash but the lender does not.

That’s very strange. What bank was this? Both my banking apps always tell me this type of news one or two months in advance.

If only the app tells you, that’s obviously incompetent design as it relies on you opening the app frequently enough. Not that it matters, because as I’ve said the designed obsolescence driven forced upgrades are injustice whether they are warned or not.

The fact you bought a phone from a company that refused to maintain its software isn’t your bank’s problem, though. It’s not the supermarket’s fault if the car you bought isn’t allowed into the milieuzone the store is in either.

It is the bank’s problem because the bank chose the platform. And the bank chose a platform that all vendors neglect to maintain. (of course, that’s how capitalism works; there’s diminishing profits if you maintain the software for the life of the hardware). I countered that by installing the bank app on a virtual machine with recent SDK (which is the only way to get immunity from designed obsolescence). The bank app detected that it was being run inside of an VM and refused to run. So by your analogy, it’s more like the bank has deliberately taken an pro-active action to sabotage your car from reaching it.

Then you should either save up and purchase a house lump sum or rent somewhere. You’re the one asking for a huge amount of money from someone else, they have a say in how they like to be paid.

You’re still ignoring human rights. When the bank takes a Canadian to court because the discriminatory treatment lead to inability to pay their debt, the gov itself is bound by the human rights covenant that they signed.

I don’t know what happened between you and your bank but I fail to see the practical problem here. Do you have an example of someone taking the hit because they had plenty of clean cash but no access to a bank for some reason? Practically speaking, anyone with enough money to get a mortgage can buy a €100 smartphone (or a €50 one at Marktplaats) that they use just for banking and nothing else.

You’re confusing multiple different problems. The smartphone problems are inherited from a forced banking posture. You impose banking on people but you do not grant them a right to not use a smartphone so in principle all banks can force you to do something unethical (buy a phone every couple years). It’s also a money problem because the population pushed into forced banking is bigger than the home loan debtor population. It includes poor people. The mortgage problem is a problem of having a loan for 10-30 years out where you cannot predict how the banks will treat you, so you’re being forced to make a promise that you cannot guarantee. You cannot guarantee that your bank account is sustainable. You can’t guarantee that the law doesn’t change. And when the law does change the problem is it’s the human being who didn’t have negotiating leverage that takes the hit for the change, not the bank who has control over what they draft.