Alliance & Leicester Letters

[Amethyst]

Received

'we refer to your complaint relating to bank charges which was previously put on hold under the terms of the financial services authority's waiver. the waiver has now lapsed and we are therefore writing to you to respond to your complaint. we consider your complaint to have been about the level and accordingly the fairness and lawfulness of these charges.

as you will be aware from when we last wrote to you, several banks entered into agreed legal proceedings with the office of fair trading in relation to bank charges on 27th july 2007. alliance and leicester were not one of these banks, however we felt this was an issue where our customers and the financial services as a whole would welcome legal clarity.

the outcome of these legal proceedings means that the bank charges you have complained about do not amount to penalties at common law and that the level of them cannot be assessed for fairness under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999 (utccrs). We do not believe that there is any legal basis on which the amount of charges can be challenged. We are satisified that the bank charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged and the outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position. We are therefore not upholding your complaint and we will not be refunding the bank charges you have complained about.

we hope we have resolved the issue you raised with us. however if your complaint relates to something other than the level of charges please contact our complaints team. you can either write to:..............................

If you ultimately remain dissatisifed with our final response you have the right to refer your complaint to the financial ombudsman service. before you decide whether or not to take your complaint to the ombudsman service, you may find it helpful to consider the information about this subject on the service's website at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...k-charges.html.

If we do not hear from you within 8 weeks we will consider your complaint closed.

richard harris
complaints

[Amethyst]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

To help with responses

TERMS AND CONDITIONS HISTORICAL

TERMS AND CONDITIONS - CURRENT - http://www.alliance-leicester.co.uk/...conditions.pdf

LETTERS from A&L to account holders can be found in - Charge Notification Letters Required - Legal Beagles


Sample response to Bank to keep complaint in progress.... - Legal Beagles - LETTER FOR BANK - OUTLINE

FOS responses to keep complaint open.... - Legal Beagles - LETTER FOR FOS - OUTLINE

[Smasher]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Copy of the letter. Its a bit low res, but its readable.

[Smasher]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Here's an adaptation of Ame's response letter to specifically address A&L's rejection letter. Let me know if I've slipped up anywhere.

Dear sir/madam

I am writing in response to your letter dated [DATE] ref: [REF NUMBER].

I refer to the following paragraph of your letter which I would like you to clarify for me.
“as you will be aware from when we last wrote to you, several banks entered into agreed legal proceedings with the office of fair trading in relation to bank charges on 27th july 2007. alliance and leicester were not one of these banks, however we felt this was an issue where our customers and the financial services as a whole would welcome legal clarity.

the outcome of these legal proceedings means that the bank charges you have complained about do not amount to penalties at common law and that the level of them cannot be assessed for fairness under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999 (utccrs).”

It is my understanding that the banks terms may not be assessed in terms of price under regulation 6(2)b of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR). However, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously stated that due tothe terms of the contract and the and the contract as a whole may still be subject to the assessment of fairness under regulation 5.1 of the UTCCR.

I also consider the terms to be in breach of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act.

I further consider that there was an imbalance in the contract to my detriment as a consumer because;

• I consider that Alliance & Leicester by virtue of the contract can impose which service they offer without consideration for or confirmation of what I intended. For example you could consider a request for overdraft and pay or simply reject payment on grounds of lack of funds. In performing these services you act as agent for the myself and therefore should have had regard to my intent. My intent may be for the payment to be facilitated if there are sufficient funds, to be rejected if there are not or to be asked for confirmation (where practicable) otherwise. However the contract denies me the opportunity to express that or any specific intent other than that determined by the Alliance & Leicester.
  
  This is evidenced by TRANSACTIONS WHICH EVIDENCE THIS
• I consider that a request to pay is not necessarily a request for overdraft except by virtue of the non-negotiated contract terms. The overdraft assessment is not optional, additionally there was no opt out possibility at commencement of the contract and therefore it acts contrary to good faith and is therefore unfair.

I suggest that if an 'overdraft extension request' was declined, there is no reason why Alliance & Leicester's answer for any subsequent requests should be any different if the account balance has not changed other than by virtue of the Relevant Charges being applied. I could therefore not intend subsequent payments to be requests for assessment, and it would be to my detriment for them to be regarded as such. If the fee was argued to be for checking my account, Alliance & Leicester would actually be providing the same service as they otherwise provide for free and therefore no further consideration should be required unless the circumstances are materially different.


I also consider that your bank has purposefully misled me into believing the charges were a penalty for my breaching the terms of the contract between myself and your bank. In fact your terms & conditions make no reference whatsoever to the charges relating to the provision of any 'service', which was Alliance & Leicester 's adopted pleaded position during the test case.

The relevant terms at the time I opened my account stated;
(i) You must not overdraw the Account or exceed the Overdraft Limit (if any) without the Alliance & Leicester's agreement. If a payment does result in an overdraft or your Overdraft Limit being exceeded, you shall immediately repay the amount of the excess, together with any interest and other charges.
(j) The Alliance & Leicester does not guarantee that it will refuse to make any payment out of the Account in excess of any credit balance or overdraft facility. If the Alliance & Leicester decides to make a payment out of your Account which may cause it to become overdrawn or to exceed your Overdraft Limit, this does not mean that the Alliance & Leicester shall have to do so on another occasion nor does it constitute an increase in your Overdraft Limit.

I feel this was unlawful under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or, at common law, as a unilateral mistake from which your bank knowingly benefited.

• Alliance & Leicester misrepresented that the relevant terms were penal as opposed to contracting to provide services, or

• Alliance & Leicester were aware of my mistaken belief that the relevant terms were penal but failed to correct this, to my detriment, but to the benefit of the Alliance & Leicester. Alternatively, Alliance & Leicester were aware that the relevant terms were penal in nature but realised they could argue they were in exchange for a package of services and presented to the court accordingly.

In any case, the conduct of my account has relied on the misrepresented but reasonable assumption that the relevant terms were related to costs rather than service charges and I contend that the charges should not have been part of the consideration in exchange for any so called contracted 'package' of services.

Therefore I remain dissatisfied with your final response and request that you continue to consider my complaint and refund charges imposed under the contract between 1998 and 2009 as previously requested.

Yours faithfully

[EXC]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Here's an adaptation of Ame's response letter to specifically address A&L's rejection letter. Let me know if I've slipped up anywhere.

Just my thoughts Smasher.

* = remove
Red = replace or include



Dear sir/madam

I am writing in response to your letter dated [DATE] ref: [REF NUMBER].

I refer to the following paragraph of your letter which I would like you to clarify for me.
“as you will be aware from when we last wrote to you, several banks entered into agreed legal proceedings with the office of fair trading in relation to bank charges on 27th july 2007. alliance and leicester were not one of these banks, however we felt this was an issue where our customers and the financial services as a whole would welcome legal clarity.

the outcome of these legal proceedings means that the bank charges you have complained about do not amount to penalties at common law and that the level of them cannot be assessed for fairness under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999 (utccrs).”

It is my understanding that the banks terms may not be assessed in terms of price under regulation 6(2)b of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR). However, the Supreme Court *suggested* clearly and unambiguously stated that due to the terms of the contract and the contract as a whole may still be subject to the assessment of fairness under regulation 5.1 of the UTCCR.

I also consider the terms to be in breach of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act.

I further consider that there was an imbalance in the contract to my detriment as a consumer because;

• I consider that Alliance & Leicester by virtue of the contract can *choose* impose which service they offer without consideration for or confirmation of what I intended. For example you could consider a request for overdraft and pay or simply reject payment on grounds of lack of funds. In performing these services you act as agent for the myself and therefore should have had regard to *the Consumer‘s* my intent. *The Consumer‘s* My intent may be for the *request* payment to be facilitated if there are sufficient funds, to be rejected if there are not or to be asked for confirmation (where practicable) otherwise. However the contract denies *the Consumer* me the opportunity to express that or any specific intent other than that determined by *the Banks* Alliance & Leicester.
  
  This is evidenced by TRANSACTIONS WHICH EVIDENCE THIS
• I consider that a request to pay is not necessarily a request for overdraft except by virtue of the non-negotiated contract terms. The overdraft assessment is not optional, additionally there was no opt out possibility at commencement of the contract and therefore it acts contrary to good faith and is therefore unfair.

I suggest that if an 'overdraft extension request' was declined, there is no reason why *the Bank's* Alliance & Leicester's answer for any subsequent requests should be any different if the account balance has not changed other than by virtue of the Relevant Charges being applied. *The Consumer* I could therefore not intend subsequent payments to be requests for assessment, and it would be to *their* my detriment for them to be regarded as such. If the fee was argued to be for checking *the Consumer's* my account, *the Banks* Alliance & Leicester would actually be providing the same service as they otherwise provide for free and therefore no further consideration should be required unless the circumstances are materially different.


I also consider that your bank has purposefully misled me into believing the charges were a penalty for my breaching the terms of the contract between myself and your bank. In fact your terms & conditions make no reference whatsoever to the charges relating to the provision of any 'service', which was Alliance & Leicester 's adopted pleaded position during the test case.

The relevant terms at the time I opened my account stated;
(i) You must not overdraw the Account or exceed the Overdraft Limit (if any) without the Alliance & Leicester's agreement. If a payment does result in an overdraft or your Overdraft Limit being exceeded, you shall immediately repay the amount of the excess, together with any interest and other charges.
(j) The Alliance & Leicester does not guarantee that it will refuse to make any payment out of the Account in excess of any credit balance or overdraft facility. If the Alliance & Leicester decides to make a payment out of your Account which may cause it to become overdrawn or to exceed your Overdraft Limit, this does not mean that the Alliance & Leicester shall have to do so on another occasion nor does it constitute an increase in your Overdraft Limit.

I feel this was unlawful under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or, at common law, as a unilateral mistake from which your bank knowingly benefited.

• Alliance & Leicester misrepresented that the relevant terms were penal as opposed to contracting to provide services, or

• Alliance & Leicester were aware of *your Customer‘s* my 'mistaken belief' that *their* your relevant terms were penal but failed to correct this, to *the* my detriment *of the Consumer* but to the benefit of *the Banks* Alliance & Leicester, alternatively Alliance & Leicester were aware that the relevant terms were penal in nature but realised they could argue they were in exchange for a package of services *misrepresented* presented to the court accordingly. ( remember they misrepresented the penal aspect and not the service aspect)
  

In any case, the conduct of my account has relied on the misrepresented but reasonable assumption that the relevant terms were related to costs rather than service charges and I contend that the charges should not have been part of the consideration in exchange for any so called contracted 'package' of services.

Therefore I remain dissatisfied with your final response and request that you continue to consider my complaint and refund charges imposed under the contract between 1998 and 2009 as previously requested.

Yours faithfully

[Smasher]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Nice one, updated now thanks.

[danmc77]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

This is probably not the correct place to post but i'm a newbie on here so please accept my aplologies if it isn't!
The letter above form A+L is virtually identical to the one that I received last week from Halifax, almost word for word.
I am unsure as to the best way to progress as I am going to find it difficult providing the evidence suggested in the response above due to not having statements going back for the entire period I have claimed my charges for (Halifax only provided a list of charges, not the actually statements).
As in the A+L letter, Halifax have stated that I only have 8 weeks to respond or they will consider the matter closed.

Any help would be appreciated?

Dan

[grimbell]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Hi
I had a complaint with the FOS who wrote in DEC saying they were passing it back to A&L.
A&L sent the generic get lost and I wrote back saying the claim was made based on the hardship rules and they should therefore look at it.
Today I got this:


They have also included a booklet re the FOS and "dealing with debt" by the BBA.

Should I now use Ames letter?

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Can you take out the Dear Mrs..... as that kinda identifies your second name.

Is the account still open?
Have you looked at the lending code section 9?

[grimbell]

Re: Alliance & Leicester Letters

Thanks, sorted now.

The account was closed by them in September 2007 without notice and had a credit balance. When challenged by CAB they said they had not closed it but removed my banking facilities (though what the difference is i don't know)

I couldn't access the account in anyway and neither could branch staff. I was due to have my money for the mort go in and when I went to the branch to find out if it had gone in nobody could tell me. They phoned collections and they too didn't seem to know but told the branch staff to give me the sum I was expecting minus £50. It turns out the money didn't go in and there is now a minus balance.

I did complain to the FOS about the way they had closed the account and was awarded £100 which A&L paid into the account.

Where will I find the lending code section 9? Is this a good argument to use.
There are about £1200 in charges and I am struggling at the moment with arrears on priority debts and it may get worse as the company both me and hubby work for are on the brink of collapse.