Thread: Alliance and Leicester - Riding the Waiver!!!!

All, Below is the text of a letter I have submitted to the FSA. Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Best wishes,
Mark.

Sirs

Complaint regarding the Alliance and Leicester PLC

I am writing to complain regarding the Alliance and Leicester PLC, and their recent application of bank charges to my account. Whilst I understand that, at the present time, your organisation is not dealing with complaints of this nature as a rule I have good reason to believe that the Alliance and Leicester PLC (A&L) are abusing the privileges of their waiver, and I would therefore urge you to consider this complaint immediately.

On the 19th July 2007 my current account (Account number) with the A&L was sent into an unauthorised overdraft of £27.11. This was due to an unpaid item charge being debited from my account, for a failed direct debit (the value of which was £37.14. I had requested an overdraft facility to avoid this situation, but the bank refused my request).

On the 25th july 2007, some 3 working days later, my account was returned to credit.

Consequentially, on the 09th August 2007, a charge of £25 was imposed on my account for being in an unauthorised overdraft position on the 19th July. In addition to this, the A&L levied a further £25 for failing to clear the overdraft within 5 days.

When challenged on this point the A&L stated that the 5 days included non-working days. I argued that this was not clear in the terms and conditions of the contract. Further to this, I argued that, because clearing banks are not open on Saturday s, Sundays and Bank-holidays then funding accounts on these days was either severely restricted or, in the case of Sundays and Bank Holidays, impossible. However, A&L refused to accept this argument and the charge stood.

On the 08th September 2007 I then incurred a further charge of £25. When I challenged A&L on this, they stated that the charge was because I was my account was in an unauthorised overdraft on the 24th July. I argued that I had already incurred charges on the 19th and 23rd July for this unauthorised overdraft, and that no further charges were due. The A&L replied that, as their “Statement month” starts on the 24th July, it was a new month and thus the charge was enforceable.

The terms and conditions relating to unauthorised overdrafts at the A&L makes no reference to “Statement Months”, when they start or finish, or that charges are governed by them.

When I pressed them, particularly on the second issue of the charge for being overdrawn on the 24th July, I have been offered a variety of different excuses, including;

“Because the BACS transfer didn’t go in until the evening, and you withdrew some cash in the morning (of the 25th)”.

“Because the account was overdrawn on the 24th, which is a new month...”.

“Because the charges in August were for being overdrawn in June (Which I hadn’t been)..”

Consequentially, as a result of a single failed direct debit, I have subsequently incurred £113 worth of charges, predominantly for having an unauthorised overdraft for 3 working days.

I am writing to you, because every time I have contacted A&L they have only had one thing to say:

“Because of the current test case, we are unable to resolve any complaints or queries regarding Bank charges”

The simple fact of the matter is that the A&L have begun a process of aggressively enforcing charges on any perception of their terms and conditions, safe in the knowledge that any query, legitimate or not, can be met by waving the waiver that they have acquired in the face of the complainant.

I would urge you to resolve this issue immediately. If you advise me that this is not possible, then I will have no alternative to pursue this matter to the courts.

Further to resolving my dispute, I will also seek to amend the waiver issued by the FSA by removing the protection from the banks for complaints regarding single charges and events, such as mine, leaving the banks protected from only the multiple charge claims. It is ludicrous, in my situation, that the waiver is used as a form of defence by the bank.

I would like to thank-you for your time in considering this complaint, and look forward to your response.

Yours Faithfully,

Mark Johnson.

Copies to;
Alliance and Leicester PLC
The Consumer Action Group
Office of Fair Trading
BBC (Watchdog)

Similar Threads:

• si & nic v Alliance & Leicester
• Alliance & Leicester
• Jon v's Alliance & Leicester
• J vs Alliance & Leicester

A+L are not really a bank, only in name. If you try to draw say £1,000 over the counter you will be told no, you have to order it at least 24 hours in advance.

Of course they wont give you an overdraft, they only get £5 per month for that and then would not have been able to steal from you £134.

This is banking at it's raw bottom. Amateurs playing at being bankers.

I'm not sure how to take the FSA. On the one hand they say they are for the consumers and have instigated proceedings and on the other they have given the banks the 'go ahead' to charge whatever they want as often as they want without any retaliation.

Take heart Mac that the banks wont win in January when this comes before the courts and you will be able to claim it all back.

They have not paid your dd so it cost them nothing, and then they themselves put you in an overdrawn situation. If you went into a shop for a pint of milk and did not have enough money to pay for that milk and then asked your friend with you to pay it and she said NO, would she then charge you a hundred pounds just for asking her? I think not, but this is exactly what the Alliance and Robbers have done.

My son is with these tyrants and a dd of his was paid which took him over by £8. He was then charged £75 for the pleasure of that £8.
They could have refused payment and charged him the £25, but that wouldn't have taken him over his limit so they would have only been able to steal £25, but by paying it, it allowed them to take £75.

There is no logic in how they work except they take the route which will earn them the most money.

You could S.A.R - (Subject access request) them and begin the process of claiming back all the charges they have ever taken off you, but which will be held until the courts have made a deliberation.

I am with you on this one and you have my full support. I personally have advised my son to hang fire to see what the rates are set at in January.

Conniff

No, I believe that they have incurred some costs. The computer had to decide to refuse my DD, and then send me an automatically generated letter telling me so... Therefore I believe their costs may have crept in at around the 50p mark...

I am not so much concerned with reclaiming my charges out of right, but more with the lack of clarity and the obvious bias in their T&Cs... i.e. exactly how am I supposed to pay funds into my account on a Sunday, yet it is used in their Unauthorised overdraft calculation.. even Saturdays the bank is only open in the morning for cash transaction, no payment clearance takes place.

The whole thing stinks, and I just hoped that, if the CAG could use any of this information as supporting evidence in the pending test case then it wouldn't have been in vein.

Originally Posted by mcjohnson

No, I believe that they have incurred some costs. The computer had to decide to refuse my DD, and then send me an automatically generated letter telling me so... Therefore I believe their costs may have crept in at around the 50p mark...

I am not so much concerned with reclaiming my charges out of right, but more with the lack of clarity and the obvious bias in their T&Cs... i.e. exactly how am I supposed to pay funds into my account on a Sunday, yet it is used in their Unauthorised overdraft calculation.. even Saturdays the bank is only open in the morning for cash transaction, no payment clearance takes place.

The whole thing stinks, and I just hoped that, if the CAG could use any of this information as supporting evidence in the pending test case then it wouldn't have been in vein.

Of course it is deliberate deceipt. They don't include weekends when cashing a cheque, so that they get the longest possible use of your cash.
It really is time that one of the most trusted institutions, the one we are forced to use because our salaries are paid through them, were brought to book. It is our money they are using, they have no money of their own, and yet they make all the rules with the person whose funds are making them rich having no say in it whatsoever.

Well the courts surely wont be fooled by their 'fair' charges, lies and deceipt.