loz
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by loz
-
-
How frequently do they have to write these letters before it constitutes harassment?
-
Thanks for that mooreda - it looks like I've been caught out in part by that £2500 / £25000 change. As I also suspect thousands have other people have been. What's with that change anyway, it's like admitting that somebody made a typo...?
-
I'm not exactly sure what I should do next - clearly the court aren't interested in lifting the stay based on what I told them, though that was before the account was closed. I have the FOS complaint form, should I send that in or should I tell the court what has happened and ask again for the stay to be lifted?
Hate to admit it but I have let them bring me down and my health is now affected again with all these bills I can't pay because of this. Would appreciate any help/advice that anyone can offer.
Loz
-
Late last week I answered my mobile to a call from the "debt recovery" arm of HMRC; who claim I was overpaid over £800 on a WTC claim in 2005. They have been trying to inform me of this by writing to an address I moved out of over 2 years ago, and never tried calling me until now - I did them a favour by answering (damn it!)...
Firstly there is no way I can pay this, secondly I am not accepting the say-so of some guy on the phone so I have sent a SAR requesting everything relating to this claim. I have also checked the existing paperwork I could find, plus my pay slips from that year, and they are asking me to repay more than I received in the first place!!
As far as I remember the application form asks for details of your wages for the previous year - as I had just changed from thin-on-the-ground temping to a proper job, so any "change of circumstances" effectively happened before my application and if their form asks the wrong questions surely that isn't my fault?!? I hope that the SAR will confirm that I answered their questions correctly; I really don't need this right now that A&L have screwed me and are hiding behind the OFT case
Loz
-
I smell a troll... *rolls eyes*
-
I don't know whether to advise you to do a S.A.R or not - I did it a couple of months ago and got nothing from them but copies of the agreement(s) and statement details... still trying to work out where I stand with it all. Maybe your branch will have more detail than mine though.
It definitely sounds like a mis-sell to me though, from what you've said. Good luck with whatever you do
Loz
-
Loz and MBNA
in MBNA
Good luck hopeful & empowered, it seems that MBNA have had quite a little racket going here IMHO... Very nice of them to admit that they can't prove it though!
-
Loz and MBNA
in MBNA
A quick update, it took me a long time to get my act together on this one (though MBNA's "final response" also was a while in coming). A few days ago I sent a complaint about this PPI to the FOS, claiming a total of £187 in premiums plus whatever interest I've been charged on those premiums. Fingers crossed...
-
I am in the same position, my case is stayed but A&L have not only ignored any requests to suspend their action until the dispute is resolved - they have now closed my account. A bigger bunch of *&%@^s I have yet to meet.
Loz
-
Something I've seen mentioned many times on this site, which I've tried to bring to bear in my ongoing (and now seemingly lost) battle with A&L, is the idea that if an account is in dispute they cannot enforce. Can somebody tell me where this comes from, what regs or legislation? I tried asking the lass at the FOS this morning and she disagreed.
Anyone?
Loz
-
I hate to put a pessimistic tone to your thread, but in my experience A&L pay no attention whatsoever to complaints. I thought HSBC's customer service was down there with the worst, but A&L have proved themselves as sympathetic and flexible as the Nazis. IMHO.
-
I'm going to have to take at least the morning off work to sort this out. Will try calling CCCS and CAB, maybe even FOS before I go see A&L - I can't believe how many laws/rules/regs they have now ignored, not to mention their attitude to my complaints.
When I got in from work tonight there was a letter (dated yesterday) backing up their claim that the default notice of Dec 13th served as sufficient notice that they were going to close my account - "...your account is still overdrawn above the agreed limit. I have therefore decided to withdraw banking facilities..." - so that's OK then, obviously. >
I am so angry I cannot describe. They are effectively holding my salary to ransom, I can't have it until I agree a payment plan for the balance of my overdraft. Even then I will have to pay everything by cash, including my rent and company credit card bill (it's a weird arrangement), and continue doing so until I can find a new bank account. Which means everyone and their dog will know about my "financial difficulties", f*&%ng marvellous eh?
I really struggled to stay calm on the phone to A&L this evening (especially as the wifey kept telling me not to raise my voice or get upset), I just want to talk this through with somebody who won't tell me it's all my fault.
Actually what I really want is to take a rusty blade and shove it...
Furiously,
Loz
-
Pay day. I go to the cash point and all I get is "unauthorised usage". Website access to my account is denied. I call their number and spend half an our trying to work out how to speak to a person.
She tells me my account is being closed. WTF? I HAVE HAD NO NOTICE OF THIS!! Where have my wages gone? What can I do?
HELP!!!
-
oooh that's an interesting angle!
-
I have a "General Directions Order":
The judge orders that you and the other parties prepare for trial as follows:1. Following the filing of a defence or holding defence the claim shall be stayed pending judgement in the OFT test case.
2. Liberty to apply with an explanation.
I don't understand what the second point means - anybody? Also, do I have any chance of getting the stay lifted, since the root cause of the charges IMHO is the rogue DD? If so, how do I go about this? At the very least could I get the judge to stop them charging me until the test case is resolved?
Loz
-
I received a response to one of my letters, from an Andy Benson at A+L:
With regards to your enquiry about a Direct Debit... I have noted that the company did advise you of the increased amount and have not to my knowledge issued a refund to you.Added to this I have been unable to locate any record of the matter being brought to our attention at the time and we were therefore not given the opportunity to assist you. Please also bear in mind that if the amount was actually due... any request for a refund would have been rejected.
Taking the above information into account the charges made have been correctly administered and I am unable to agree to a refund of the amount requested.
As I have tried to explain, I didn't complain at the time because I did not realise that the DD had been taken incorrectly. Just because I didn't get in touch straight away doesn't make my complaint invalid, IMHO.
What he says about "if the amount was actually due" - if this is the case then why have they agreed to reverse another DD which didn't follow the rules? (see above) Furthermore, I have never claimed that I did not owe the money, simply that the way they took it was incorrect and left me in a significantly poorer financial position.
I'm really hacked off with this lot now.
-
An interesting thing - Honours Student Loans tried to take a direct debit from my account, despite their last notification declaring the next payment due to be £0-00. I informed A+L of this and asked them to reverse the payment, which they did without question. So why is my complaint any different?
Loz
-
-
I got A+L's defence yesterday from Wragge. I expected them to deny everything and indeed they have, but I am still worried that I have done this all wrong. Would appreciate anyone's comments (especially some help with the legal jargon):
1. Save insofar as the same consists of admissions and save insofar as it is herein expressly admitted or expressed not to be admitted, the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant's claim. Pardon?2. This Defence is served and filed without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable cause of action and ought to be struck out pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3.4 and/or that summary judgement ought to be granted against the Claimant pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 24.2 as the Claimant has no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue ought to be disposed of at trial. I have no grounds for complaint? My ar$e
General
3. It is admitted and averred that the Defendant is a company providing banking services.
4. It is further admitted and averred that the Defendant agreed with the Claimant to provide banking services for the Claimant in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditions.
The Direct Debit
5. The Claimant states that on 1 May 2007, the Defendant allowed a Direct Debit to be taken from his account which was approximately £60 greater than previous payments.
6. However, the Defendant has no control over the amount that is debited from an account or when it is debited by way of Direct Debit payment. The Defendant simply gives permission to the Direct Debit recipient to debit money its customers' accounts (in this case the Claimant). The Defendant cannot therefore be held responsible for the quantum of a Direct Debit payment taken from the Claimant's account. But aren't they responsible for resolving any mistakes/disputes etc under the Direct Debit Guarantee?
7. In any event, the Defendant has a policy whereby if there is a query with a Direct Debit, it offers an Indemnity to the customer. This means that the customer is able to request that the Defendant pays the money taken by the Direct Debit payment back into his/her account, and the Defendant would then claim the money back from the party who debited it. And how exactly do I get A+L to do this, if complaining doesn't work?
8. This Indemnity was open to the Claimant. However, he did not contact the Defendant until 31 July 2007, some two months after the Direct Debit had been taken out of his account, to try and rectify the situation. Just because over two months had elapsed before I became aware of my rights, doesn't allow them to dismiss the complaint, surely?
9. The Claimant claims that the party in question did not notify him of the change in the value of the Direct Debit to be taken from his account until the day it was actually debited. The Defendant is not responsible for the Claimant not being aware that there was a change in the usual Direct Debit amount. The Defendant repeats paragraph 6 above.
10. The Claimant also claims that he cancelled the Direct Debit in question using the online banking facility offered by the Defendant, prior to the Direct Debit being taken from his account. However, the Defendant received no notification that the Direct Debit had been cancelled. Had the Claimant correctly cancelled the Direct Debit using the online facility, this would have taken effect the following day and would have prevented the Direct Debit being taken from his account. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that he cancelled the Direct Debit. My point exactly, and I cannot prove what happened, but I think their website is slightly misleading where this facility is concerned.
11. The Defendant has no information regarding the Direct Debit in question. If there was a problem with the Direct Debit, it is for the Claimant to contact the party debiting the money from his account to query it. The Defendant would only be involved should an Indemnity be requested. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that the amount debited from his account is incorrect and was not owed to the recipient of the Direct Debit. I never claimed the amount was not owed to the 3rd party, rather that the way they claimed it was incorrect.
12. The Defendant denies being liable for the charges incurred as a result of a potential error by the party who took the Direct Debit. It is for the Claimant to contact that party to claim any charges incurred as a result of an incorrect amount being taken by Direct Debit. Seriously?
13. In any event, the Defendant denies that the Direct Debit can be the cause of the amount of charges claimed by the Claimant. It is the Claimant's responsibility to keep his account within the agreed overdraft limit, regardless of any queries regarding Direct Debits. I have a spreadsheet which will hopefully prove that without that transaction the charges would not have begun/continued...
Charges
14. In accordance with the Defendant's standard bank account terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant, the Claimant agreed to pay charges as levied by the Defendant for banking services provided by the Defendant in the course of the banking relationship. It is admitted that, in accordance with those terms and conditions, the Defendant has debited the Claimant's account with bank charges as set out below.
15. The Defendant's terms and conditions from time to time, which are incorporated into the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant, provide specifically for the debiting of these categories of charges as follows:
15.2 PAID ITEM FEE
This is where the customer (the Claimant) presents an item for payment, and the Defendant is prepared to pay the charge, but the payment is in excess of the Claimant's agreed credit limit.
The charge for this is currently set at £25 per item, with a maximum of no more than four paid item charges per day or six paid item charges per month being levied. So kind with their maximums...
15.2 FAILED TRANSACTION FEE
This is where the customer (the Claimant) presents an item for payment that the Defendant was or is not prepared to pay. This is currently charged at £34 per item presented. Are they admitting here that they charge more for doing nothing than they do for making a payment? And why do they not make this charge when I try to use my debit card?
15.3 UNAUTHORISED OVERDRAFT FEE
This is where the customer (the Claimant) goes in excess of the agreed overdraft limit, or where the customer (the Claimant) never had an overdraft limit and went overdrawn.
The charge for this is £25 for the first day and then a further £25 if the customer (the Claimant) remains overdrawn for five or more days during the month.
16. The only charges relevant to this claim are those which have been debited to the Claimant's account within these three charge categories in the last six years from the date of issue of these proceedings.
17. These charges were incurred as follows:
17.1 The paid item fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant presents an item for payment which, if honoured, would give rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any overdraft limit at that point agreed between the parties, and where the Defendant decides nevertheless to make payment in relation to the item.
17.2 The failed transaction fee is a charge incurred where it is necessary to return a cheque or other item unpaid as a result of the Claimant presenting an item for payment which, had it been honoured, would have given rise to the Claimant's account being overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit.
17.3 The unauthorised overdraft fee is a charge incurred where the Claimant's account becomes overdrawn and no overdraft facility has then been agreed in advance by the Claimant; or becomes overdrawn in excess of the overdraft limit at that point then agreed between the parties.
Credit File Repairing They are either entering a "standard" defence, or somebody has actually read my letters, since my POC didn't mention my credit file...
18. It is denied that the Defendant has entered any untrue and/or incorrect and/or misleading information against the Claimant's credit record.
19. It is further denied that the Defendant has entered any untrue and/or incorrect and/or misleading default notices against the Claimant's credit record.
20. Insofar as the Defendant has entered any information which could be described as detrimental and/or any information which could be described as a default notice against the Claimant's credit record, then that information is true and has been added by reason of the overdraft on the Claimant's account and/or is as a consequence of the Claimant's own conduct of the account with the Defendant and where charges have been debited only in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditions agreed to by the Claimant.
21. It is denied (if such is alleged) that the Claimant's defaults occurred as a result of any charges levied by the Defendant. The Defendant levied charges in accordance with the Defendant's standard terms and conditions.
22. It is therefore denied that the Claimant is entitled to any alteration to the credit history, as claimed or at all.
23. If, which is denied, the Claimant is entitled to any alteration of the credit history, it is averred that the Defendant can only forward amended credit history details to the various credit reference agencies. It is for the credit reference agency to alter or amend the credit file and it is not within the power of the Defendant to alter the credit file or direct an alteration of the credit file.
24. It is denied (if such is alleged) that the Defendant defamed the Claimant in the manner alleged or at all, and it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to any declaration in this regard. It is also denied that the County Court has any jurisdiction to hear any allegation of defamation and so any such claim is an abuse of process.
Interest
25. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to interest as is alleged or at all. If, which is denied, the Claimant is entitled to interest, that interest is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 59 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum.
Overdraft/Set-Off
26. In any event, if at the trial of this action the Claimant holds overdrawn accounts with the Defendant, then even if any money is due to the Claimant by way of refund, then the Defendant is entitled to and claims to set off the sum refunded against the overdraft sum then outstanding on that account(s) and owing by the Claimant to the Defendant.
27. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the loss and damage as pleaded. The Claimant is not entitled to the relief sought, or any relief.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement on its behalf.
I think what happened when I tried to cancel the Direct Debit is that I mistakenly clicked the button marked "cancel", rather than the "submit" button. Yes this would be my mistake but I bet I'm not the first person to do this.
I guess I wait for instructions from the court now? I haven't sent them any copies of letters, list of transactions or anything like that yet, do I send them or wait?
Loz
-
I never posted my POC, submitted to MCOL (yes I know) on 24th Nov:
On 1st May 2007 Alliance + Leicester (A+L) allowed a Direct Debit of £77-66 to be taken from the claimant's account (xxxxxxxxx) which was approx £60 greaterthan previous payments. Notice of this increase was received on the same day the payment was taken, which is a breach of the Direct Debit Guarantee. This payment led directly to the first in a chain of charges for exceeding the claimant's overdraft limit (£450), which would not have happened if the Direct Debit had not been taken. These charges now total £894-00. Evidence of this will be provided by the claimant.A+L have further failed in their responsibility to address the claimant's complaint, first raised on 30th July 2007.
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 1st May to 24th November of £19-66 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment.
I thought that this summed it up as best as possible in the space available.
-
Writing now... for starters I have spotted a flaw in their default notices:
"if it is possible for the customer to put the matter right, details of what he is required to do in order to achieve this, and the date before which he is required to do so. This date must be at least seven days after the date of service of the notice" - they ask me to pay £xxx within 6 days of the date of the notice, regardless of allowing for delivery time...
I wonder whether to address my letter to "P Woods" or "S Griffiths" in Customer Services, or perhaps the nameless person in the Credit Control Unit, all of whom have identical signatures...
Muppets.
-
You have my sympathy Tony, A&L have proved themselves IMHO almost as flexible and sympathetic as the Gestapo. They've been ignoring a complaint of mine for five months now, over a £77 direct debit which started a chain reaction of charges like yours that has now reached over a grand. I've filed a claim against them but they have their fingers in their ears going "lalalalala" and I am at my wits end
Hope you have better luck
Loz
-
They are taking the mick now. Following on from a patronising letter last month headed "Helping you to avoid unnecessary charges" ("we've noticed that your account has incurred a high volume of charges over the last few months" - no sh!t sherlock!), I now have another patronising letter that says "your account is overdrawn by £xxx and is causing concern... please call us within 3 days" and another Default Notice, dated the following day. FFS.
I do not want to phone them, for many reasons. However they have consistently ignored my written complaints, which is why my account is in this position. I want this resolved, which is why I went to MCOL (I think they have until the 28th to file a defence) since they have proven themselves uninterested in addressing complaints. What can I do if they refuse to acknowledge my dispute and continue applying penalties - and hence the default notice - while my case is pending?
Composing an angry letter in my head... and sick with worry
Loz
-
If you find out how to make a claim I'd be interested; all through my recent travails with BT I kept asking how to do it and they said they'd send me something... still waiting so I'll just deduct it from their bill otherwise
Loz
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Loz vs A&L - direct debit and subsequent charges
in Alliance & Leicester
Posted
I really would apprecate any advice anybody has to give... anybody? I do at least have a little movement:
On 17/1/08 I wrote to MCOL to request that the stay be lifted, on the basis that the original cause of this was that wretched Direct Debit - I provided evidence (I think this is the only paperwork I have actually provided to date) that the charges applied since could be considered a direct consequence of that transaction. I also pointed out that A&L had continued to apply charges and issue default notices which is of course contrary to OFT guidance "putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive. This includes ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute".
On 23/1/08 I found that my account had been closed. Rage ensued.
Last night I got home to find this:
Clearly this doesn't say that the stay has been lifted, but it's a little progress isn't it? Am I right in assuming that I wait for directions from the court before I submit any further info, or should I inform them that A&L have closed the account and generally carried on being nasty?
Can I also take this to the FOS at this point? I haven't been in contact with A&L since my account was closed, so I haven't been through the "complaints procedure" about the closure, just the DD & charges...
A little confused,
Loz