Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

[Nattie]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

to clarify, its point 6 which seems to indicate that knowledge of payments going out after that date of the phone call and possibly not queried at the time. (not saying it was the case, merely what I am reading of the letter).

[Jester]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

The first I got wind that something was awry was just before Christmas. By then, all of the DD's had stopped (one way or another) and the SO's had all stopped (except one which was soon stamped upon). Regardless, they stated that all DD's and SO's would be stopped in September, yet they continued processing them, refusing them and then charging me for the 'privilege' of doing this.

Yes, I did get paper statements sent through, but I didn't read them as I had no reason to believe that there was anything wrong as I was simply not using the account and knew what the balance was (so I thought). That probably is my fault for not checking, but then I had been assured this would not happen.

The rest is simply made up of interest charges on being overdrawn, which does annoy me more than the other charges to be honest. Anyway, by this point there was nothing I could do about the balance as I had no money to put into the account, so the debt just kept spiralling.

As regard Tax Credits, Ame is right in that I had earned too much money in 2007-2008 to be able to get them. In fact, that will still apply for the coming Tax Year too. What annoys me about that is that I had plenty of money when in employment, but one lives to ones means. Once those means were removed, then I am in the same situation as anyone else who is unemployed. The Tax Credits issue I have taken up with my local MP as it still irks me that people who have never worked (and have no intention of ever working) get benefits thrown at them left, right and centre. You can find such people in the pubs all day every day, drinking the money that the government gives them for doing nothing whatsoever. Yet when people who have always looked after themselves and their own try to claim money because of being out of work they are entitled to nothing. If it wasn't for the workers the system would not exist at all due to lack of funding. Strangely, staff at the local Jobcentre do not disagree...I wonder why ?

As regard inability to speak to anyone at A&L, it's all automated. I tried several times, but when I could not supply the correct security information (because the account no longer exists as far as the security system is concerned), I was simply cut off !!

[Nattie]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

At christmas, did you ask them to investigate the fact that you were advised that all standing orders and direct debits had been stopped and that you were advised not to pay into the account?
This is either by letter, phone or branch visit?

[Jester]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

I did write and queried what was going on after what I had been told, but never received an answer. By this time , nothing was any longer being processed anyway as I had got them stopped by other means. However, it's not the fact that they continued to process them anyway, for me it's the level at which they charged me (i.e. £30 each time they refused an SO or DD). The computer system decides to reject such things and it takes a nanosecond for it to do so. It also does not cost £30 in computer processing power. Had they simply charged me something like £2.50 then I would not really have been bothered. But those £30 charges are what caused other charges to come into operation. This really brings us into the whole Bank Charging syndrome which is discussed elsewhere.

As I stated in the original post, I feel this is more of a stalling tactic until such a time as I can do something about this. I've no issue in paying charges back to the bank (as we are both partly to blame for the situation that has arisen). It is more a case of the LEVEL of charging that has occurred that irks me. £2K in charges in 6 months is, quite frankly, ridiculous...especially as they have suddenyl got so heavy handed. As stated above, when somebody backs me into a corner, my batural instinct is to come out fighting. I refuse to be bullied !!

Besides, if we were only talking about a small amount, then I doubt A&L would be taking the action they are.

[Nattie]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

The charges issue is irrelevant because of the OFT test case but the issue is saying one thing and not doing it. At the moment, most banks are not refunding any charges OFT charges related. The question must be to ask the question again about the issues you raised initially in December. THe bank charges will be refunded as it is a BANK ERROR but not because you say they are unlawful. Regardless of how most people view the way an item is returned, the issue in your case is not the charges but the reason WHY the bank misinformed you.

[argentarius]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Jester, you are clearly very bothered about the magnitude of the charges per incident, but honestly it is a red herring and isn't helping your complaint.

As others have said, complaints about the magnitude of charges are on hold because of the OFT action. Complaints about bank errors are not. By going on (and on) about the size of the charges, rather than sticking to the essential truth of your complaint, you are merely making it more likely that they will say "your complaint can't be dealt with because of the ongoing OFT case".

Not reading statements is, frankly, ridiculous. And waiting for statements, rather than checking the state of your account online, isn't very sensible either.

Notwithstanding all of that, if you have a clear agreement with them to cancel all DDs and SOs then that should have been actioned, and all consequential fees and interest should be refunded.

Obviously you would still have had to pay your bills by other means, so I'm not sure exactly how that was going to happen. The FOS (for example) won't make A&L refund the DD/SO amounts because they have been correctly applied to meeting your debts. They would likely make them refund the fees and associated interest, but equally well I expect that A&L would do so anyway, if you proved your case that it was their error and didn't distract them with irrelevant reams about the legality of bank charges.

I have to say that, apart from the apparent error of not cancelling the DDs and SOs, what A&L did here was quite right. Suggesting downgrading the account to avoid under-funding fees was spot on; suggesting cancelling DDs & SOs would have minimised any fees and interest.

It is a shame that apparently the thought was there, but the actions didn't follow.

I believe that if you don't enter anything sensible when you phone up the Internet Banking service, you will get put through to a human being. If you put in a reference number of a frozen account, that might not work as well.

[WendyB]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Jester, I think the general consensus is to complain about bank error, rather than excessive charges. If you can prove bank error, you've got more chance of a result, simply because any mention of excessive amounts of charges will send them scuttling off to hide behind the OFT case. I myself did this last year with Natwest and got the charges refunded. Only 84 quid on that occasion but it was my 84 quid and I wanted it back.

And for what its worth, I don't think you're ridiculous. Niaive, maybe, and too trusting that the bank would actually do what they said they'd do (that would be a first, probably). But then again, if they've always been efficient before, why should you have had any reason to doubt them this time?

Everyone is allowed financial cock-ups every now and then, nobody is perfect. And at the end of the day, we've all been there, done that, got the teeshirt, sent the postcard. if not, there'd be no-one subscribed to this site, would there??

So chin up, keep uop the fight, and keep us informed.

[argentarius]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Not reading your bank statements when you are financially secure is slightly naive, but understandable.

Not reading your bank statements when you have lost your job and are right up against your overdraft limit is ridiculous. So I'll stick by my words.

[Amy]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Not reading your bank statements when you are financially secure is slightly naive, but understandable.

Not reading your bank statements when you have lost your job and are right up against your overdraft limit is ridiculous. So I'll stick by my words.

Not terribly understanding are you?

[cinders]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

I have to say that while I partly agree with your comment Argentarius, I completely agree with Amy's comment. The situation that I and a lot of other people find themselves in is they don't want to check their statements for fear of the realisation of how bad things really are. I get a lump in my throat whenever I go to the ATM, I do check my balance now but only because I have learnt the hard way. Maybe you should try to put yourself in the position of others before replying in the tone that you have used above. People come here for help and support, not to be told they are stupid.
Loulou

[Tempty]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Agreed
we are all human and capable of making mistakes, While some of your comments may be valid your tone constitutes to rubbing salt into an open wound and is unnecessary.

[Nattie]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

I think argentarius has made a specific point, the bank Alliance and Leicester have made a bank error which they have to correct. To write to them stating unfair charges means the bank immediately go into OFT charging mode. Test case, cases on hold, etc,etc, BANK ERROR leading to spiralling tide is a different matter.The mindset you have is dictated sometimes by the way something is said to you. If someone states the charges are unfair and after explanation still continues to do so, then you go into OFT Charges mindset. If its bank error then your mindset is into getting the internal evidence together to get the things refunded.
This will seem harsh, but Jester was aware that there was an issue at Christmas, and wrote to the bank but did not follow up on it. That is a mistake. The bank not cancelling Direct Debits should suggest that bills were either (a) coming out of the wrong account or (b) they were being doubled up. When the issue arose at Christmas, I wish you had posted because we would have been on the case earlier.
It's BANK ERROR and argentarius, you must have heard of "walking in a customer's shoes". I agree with what you are saying but we know by now that the reality is different.

[argentarius]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Amy, loulou

I understand your comments, but they don't apply in this situation.

The OP claims to have told A&L to cancel all outgoing payments. If that was true, and that had been correctly applied by A&L, then there would have been no transactions at all on the statements.

And at the point that instruction was apparently given, the account was being run within its authorised overdraft limit.

So looking at them wouldn't have shown a picture of things getting worse and worse.

I haven't called the OP stupid. I have said that not looking at your statements is ridiculous - and it is, and you've admitted that it is by saying that you've "learnt the hard way".

Tempty

If people want to come on a public forum and get "there there, the bank is nasty and you are quite right" comments, feel free to give them. I'll try to provide a bit of balance and constructive advice.

As Nattie has said (several times now), echoing what I've said, the OP's complaint letter contained a huge amount of irrelevant and distracting material which would do nothing other than to wind A&L up and to put them into "OFT case" mode.

The sensible way to complain is to say the minimum amount possible, and to stick to the topic of the complaint. In this case, A&L supposedly failed to cancel DDs and SOs in accordance with the customer's instructions, leading to escalating charges and the account going into default. That's the whole of the complaint. That takes about 3 lines to explain, not 17 paragraphs.

[Amy]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

Amy, loulou

I understand your comments, but they don't apply in this situation.

How so? I am sure Jester realises he should have read them, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The OP claims to have told A&L to cancel all outgoing payments. If that was true, and that had been correctly applied by A&L, then there would have been no transactions at all on the statements.

If it were true, you'd be correct (again).

Tempty

If people want to come on a public forum and get "there there, the bank is nasty and you are quite right" comments, feel free to give them. I'll try to provide a bit of balance and constructive advice.

I must have missed your advice.

As Nattie has said (several times now), echoing what I've said, the OP's complaint letter contained a huge amount of irrelevant and distracting material which would do nothing other than to wind A&L up and to put them into "OFT case" mode.

I think you mean "confuse" A&L and make them think it was a charges issue and therefore, they need do nothing as there is a waiver in place.

That's the whole of the complaint. That takes about 3 lines to explain, not 17 paragraphs.

Or indeed several pages.

[Nattie]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Suing For Overdraft

amy, there is a lot of irrelevant material in the first letter. Jester should have a complaint about Alliance and Leicester failing to cancel Direct Debits and being told not to pay anything into the account which was followed which resulted in charges. That is BANK ERROR. I think I used 3 lines to say that to be honest.