Halifax Overdraft - Changes to Accounts £1 a day

[indebtstudent]

The fee is essentially to cover the costs of the scheme, that's why it is paid by the banks. If consumers had to pay it then it would bring ability to pay as a factor in complaining (you know a lot like the courts!).

 

"and I will be telling them I will make a FOS report and let them know it will cost them £450. I fancy I should tell them its for spite and I am encoraging as many 100s of people I can tell, to do the same...... Or

should I not say this? Is it really true that each complaint costs that much? Surely the FOS will already have had 100s of these identical complaints, and dont need to investigate each one. Wouldnt they just send a template reply to each complainant?"

 

 

Oh dear this is what I was afraid of. NO definately do not tell them you know the costs of the FOS and that you are doing this out of spite. Put yourself in the position of the person who looks at the claim. If you have the impression that this person complained just because it would cost the company money you are not going to be sympathetic to them are you?

 

I also would not mention inciting other people to do the same. Your only concern is your own account, even if you also believe the practice is generally unfair.

 

Far better to say something to Halifax like as you have not in anyway addressed my complaint I feel I have no alternative but to take the matter to the FOS.

 

IMO the FOS will not be impressed with Halifax's no further correspondance, becuase its not really a proper final response. A final response should be something like we've looked at your complaint and we cannot uphold it because...

 

Which fair enough really, all companies have policies. What you may find is that they sing an entirely different tune when they hear from the FOS. This might be because the complaint gets in front of someone with some authority to make a decision, or it could be because they fear what the FOS might order.

 

So to sum up mention the FOS, but don't mention the costs. Be businesslike, and above all appear reasonable.

 

I do think, as a seperate issue, this issue does need some publicity as it seems to flout some basic legal principles.

[bigyeti]

 

a: They acknowledge my refusal of the new T&Cs and close the account. They are not going to charge me the daily rate but they're keeping the account open so they can keep adding on the monthly interest and thus I still get the statements. I'm fine with this as it is what I offered on my letter. The statements are a diffrerent layout, (they even provided me with a leaflet explaining it) and it's easier for them to just use the new template for everybody. However, call me cynical but I'll be surprised if this is the case.

 

b: They intend to charge, but it doesn't list the charges until the month after. Future statements will give a charge of £26 for December, £31 for January etc.

 

Well it was option b after all, they say they will rob me of £26 on 31st January.

 

Can I threaten them with court action to prevent them from taking the money in the first place? Based on my letter in post # 228, I'm trying to put together an LBA threatening court action for them to ignore but I won't send it unless I know which legal avenue I ought to take.

[bigyeti]

I've drafted this which I'll most likely send. Feel free to make use of it.

 

new T&Cs_003.pdf

[surprise]

I had my final response letter yesterday regarding T&C's telling me to go to the FOS. Furthermore, today I receive a letter regarding charges. I've attached this for info for everyone.

 

I have actually emailed Eric Daniels, Chief Exec with my views on the way in which the Halifax have handled this matter and how much money they have wasted with FOS claims when amicable resolutions should have been the way forward.

Halifax 15.1.10.doc

[Bigdebtor]

I have just been charged £2 for not having 15p in my account on 31 December ( I keep it a £0.00 wherever possible to stop them making even more money out of me). The 15p was for interest debited then for a very small overdraft over 2 days in Novemeber. I could not pay back the 15p until 4 January - when the banks re-opened. I had read somewhere that any charge for an overdraft of under £10 would be waived. I complained by phone and got the £2 refunded - but only after a fight and a call lasting nearly 20 minutes. The girl knew nothing about the £10 waiver. Am I wrong in this?

 

If everyone took up 20 minutes of the Bank's time for every small charge now imposed they might just think again. It must be costing them a lot of time and money to deal with these complaints now - and it's not as if they are trousering £39 a go any more! I have also asked them to send me a copy of the document I must have signed agreeing to their right to unilaterally vary their terms. it will be intersting to see if this turns up!

 

Anyone know how this would affect the legal situation? Is it like the CCA situation

- no signed agreement = unenforceable debt?

 

BD

[bigyeti]

I had my final response letter yesterday regarding T&C's telling me to go to the FOS. Furthermore, today I receive a letter regarding charges. I've attached this for info for everyone.

 

I have actually emailed Eric Daniels, Chief Exec with my views on the way in which the Halifax have handled this matter and how much money they have wasted with FOS claims when amicable resolutions should have been the way forward.

 

Am I right is saying that their letter is completely irrelevant?

[surprise]

Yes it completely irrelevant. I'm just waiting for the reworded letter to come out regarding charges. My charges would actually clear my overdraft.

[indebtstudent]

"have also asked them to send me a copy of the document I must have signed agreeing to their right to unilaterally vary their terms. it will be intersting to see if this turns up!"

 

There won't be such a document, it will say something like they can vary the terms so long as they advise you. Which is fine, the issue here is people are saying thanks for the notification, I do not accept the news terms. Frankly I cannot see how they think thier position of tough is in anyway acceptable.

[bigyeti]

"have also asked them to send me a copy of the document I must have signed agreeing to their right to unilaterally vary their terms. it will be intersting to see if this turns up!"

 

They can unilaterally change their T&Cs, it says so in one of the clauses. There'll be nothing in there to say that you have to agree to them though.

[Helford]

I posted this on another Halifax thread on the 12th January 2010.

 

"At home at the moment having been redundant late last year for the second time in 2009!

 

Today, I was listening to the Treasury Select Committee investigation into the bank bonuses (Don't even go there!)

 

John McFall the Chair of the Committee was questioning Daniels (CEO of Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)) on the bank's policy of social exclusion and the like. John McFall challenged Daniels on it's whole charging regime with regard to charging the poorest members of society the most for overdrafts. Daniels didn't have a clue and John McFall read out a couple of letters from Halifax customers on the new charging regime. John McFall then asked Daniels how he could justify something like a 1568% (or something equally obscene) for someone to have a £200 overdraft. Daniels denied any knowledge, thought it could not be right etc. Daniels has had to promise to come back and confirm details. A scolded school boy springs to mind!

 

If would have been funny, had it not been correct. John McFall was not impressed.

 

The committee also ridiculed him for not knowing the correct number of redundancies he has made, is it 6000, 12,000 or 15,000.

 

Clueless!"

[angel_1]

Helford thank you so much

how refreshing to read this,,, well that gives me another angle in my reply to the said Mr Daniels team as im doing my letter in reply to their template reply that was not even signed by whoever wrote it confirming it was a mass produced letter -

 

have a fun day all laters angel x

[Bigdebtor]

I posted this on another Halifax thread on the 12th January 2010.

 

"John McFall the Chair of the Committee was questioning Daniels (CEO of Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)) on the bank's policy of social exclusion and the like. John McFall challenged Daniels on it's whole charging regime with regard to charging the poorest members of society the most for overdrafts. Daniels didn't have a clue and John McFall read out a couple of letters from Halifax customers on the new charging regime. John McFall then asked Daniels how he could justify something like a 1568% (or something equally obscene) for someone to have a £200 overdraft. Daniels denied any knowledge, thought it could not be right etc. Daniels has had to promise to come back and confirm details. A scolded school boy springs to mind!

 

"

 

As I said earlier I have been charged £2 for having a 15p overdraft for 1 day - which I could not clear earlier because of the bank holiday over New Year (and online banking won't let you make such a small transfer).

 

This equates to 486666.7% - nearly half a million percent apr! (Are you reading this Messrs McFall & Daniels?)

 

I bet the loan sharks are all wishing they had HBOS's T&C's - and their cheek!

 

I still don't see how they can say they can change T&C's whenever they like without providing proof that at one time we gave them that right when we first took our an overdraft - at much lower interest (19.5%) rates.

 

They have just charged me half a million % apr. If I had been 1p over drawn it would have been 7.3 million per cent apr - or 18.25 million % if it had been unauthorised!

 

If the CCA 1974 doesn't protect us then what act does govern personal overdrafts?

 

18 million percent today - what tomorrow?

 

Surely a massive bonus awaits the evil genius who thought up this revenge for the consumer's unfair charges revolution!

 

BD (if this gives you food for thought or some ammunition then tip my scales!)

[indebtstudent]

Clearly the best way forward is to have bank charges of £1 million, that way virtually anyone who incurs a charge goes bankrupt.

 

I am only half joking, this is the problem with the situation at the moment. There's nothing to stop them charging that much and some, elsehwhere, argue that there should be no limit on the amount they can charge. Utterly clueless.

 

If the head guy knew nothing about the recent changes at Halifax then who made the decision to do it????

 

Ps why hasn't the OFT already called in the competition commission given the conerns it has about charges and current accounts in general?

Edited January 17, 2010 by indebtstudent

[surprise]

Odd thing is though I emailed Eric Daniels weeks ago and complained about these charges and gave him examples. He obviously received it as it was passed to a member of the Executive Team to respond, albeit a negative response. Teach him to read his emails properly in future he may just learn something!

[surprise]

I've today received a response from the Executive Office giving their final response stating they will not close the account as there is an amount owing and for me to put a complaint into the FOS. I have emailed Eric Daniels again and said I find the bank's response unbelievable, they would rather pay £500 than come to some arrangement with me so that I can pay off the overdraft at the rate of interest I agreed. I shall therefore make the complaint as requested if thats the way they want it.

[Bigdebtor]

I would complain to your MP or John McFall MP (Chairman of Commons Finance Select Committee) stating that the 43% state owned bank would rather squander £500 a go of OUR money (well 43% of it is) rather than agree to a smaller settlement with a customer and UK tax payer/share holder.

 

Why not copy them in on your reply to Daniels - in fact on the entire e-mail trail to/from Daniel's Executive office?

 

BD

 

PS BTW The standard letter now being sent out by HBOS about their "win" at Supreme Court is very misleading - bordering on misrepresentation. If you have one then refer to this too.

[surprise]

Thank you, good advice, will follow. Yes, I have one of those letters as well.

[indebtstudent]

Eh???

 

So thier response is we can change the conditions whenver we see fit and you will be bound by them unless you can clear the balance immediately?

 

Ok ok I'm going to stop the fake surprise now.

 

Natwest's letter re the test case is also mis-leading IMO. Shocker.

 

Damn I did it again, ok I promise this time.

 

I may write to my MP about the imbalance between the two parties in general now the OFT has bowed out and the extremely questionable position taken by Halifax. I don't bank with them but I am horrified and remain concerned others will try it on, a lot like bank charges, non dd charges etc etc. The line must be drawn here, this far and no further!

 

If anybody is proposing any co-odrinated action I would be happy to assist.

[surprise]

Done. Emailed John McFall and my MP. I sent them a copy of the email I sent earlier today to Eric Daniels and I copied in Eric Daniels on my email to the MPs. Shall let you know how it goes.

[bigyeti]

This morning I received a reply to the letter I sent 27th November, dated 20th Jan no less. The understand that

I'm not happy

I want to close the account

I want to pay the overdraft off at £10 per week.

 

However, they say that they are unable to stop the £1 per day charge and that they cannot close their account because there's a balance outstanding.

 

So to summarise, they're going to charge me regardless, trapping me in their unlawful system.

 

I'll amend the letter I was going to send appropriately nd get it sent off on Monday.

[bigyeti]

I'm going to send this on Monday:

***

Dear Bank,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 20th January 2010. Although you claim you have tried to call to us to discuss my concerns, I quite frankly don't believe you. Notwithstanding my previous letter, the bank statement we received on 15th Jan 2010 detailed the unlawful charge which you unlawfully wish to levy unlawfully, (just to ensure there is no ambiguity).

 

As you have introduced new terms and conditions to our bank account, I wrote to you previously stating that we do not agree to the changes. For some reason known only to you, you appear to have ignored our non-acceptance of the changes to the terms and conditions.

We wish to state our refusal of these unilaterally imposed terms, which we are entitled to do in accordance with your own terms and conditions which state:

 

If you do not agree to the change you can close your account. If you notify us that you do not accept a change, we will take this as notification that you wish to close your account immediately.

 

As we have notified you in writing within that 2 month period, you are bound to take this as notification that we wish to close this account. You say that you cannot close the account because there is a debit balance outstanding. This is nonsense and is a clear breach of you own terms as quoted above.

 

The agreement between you and us was that this overdraft was provided without a charge apart from the interest it attracts, and we have no wish for this to change, nor have you given us a choice in the matter.

 

I reiterate that I believe your actions contravene the Consumer Protections from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008 and are in fact prohibited under Part 2, section 3.-(3)(a) and (b);

 

3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.

 

I also believe your actions contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, section 5. (1) to (4):

 

1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

 

and I also refer you to Schedule 2 "INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR";

 

1) Terms which have the object or effect of –

k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided.

I do not consider the "simplification" you claim is your primary reason for this change to be a valid reason. The more likely reason is that £1 per day is considerably more than any interest made on a debit balance. I will state this as clearly as possible so as you can understand what you are choosing to ignore.

 

Your terms state that you can change your terms and conditions with notice to us should you wish but you cannot bind us to them if we do not agree to them, regardless of whether there is a debit balance outstanding. Otherwise you could introduce whatever terms you like and we would be forced to comply. This is unlawful.

 

Your terms also state that the overdraft is repayable on demand. However, we strongly suspect the reason you haven't chosen to do this is because that the interest on our outstanding balance is considerably less than £1 per day. We fully intend to pay the overdraft back at the agreed rate of 19.5%, with a minimum payment of £10 per week and we reserve the right to make extra payments as and when possible. As we wish to close this account and that we do not accept the proposed charges regime, any attempt to levy the £1 per day overdraft charge without our explicit consent in writing will be disregarded and will be reported to the FOS for investigation.

 

We are more than willing to consider any counter offer you may wish to make should you choose to not accept our proposal. If you do not reply by 31th January 2010 accepting our offer or to propose a counter offer, our offer will be retracted and the account will be formally disputed by us. I feel that this is a fair repayment scheme and I am in no doubt that the court will agree given our income and outgoings. It may be worth considering that if you still levy your unlawful £1 per day charge, the balance would not be paid off until August 2019. It will be a sorry day for justice if a court deems that to be acceptable.

 

In addition to the legislation cited above, we intend to recommend to the court that it investigates whether you may be liable for prosecution under section 4-(1) of the Fraud Act 2006;

 

1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

2) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

The change is going to hit the people in the worst economic situation hardest, as those who can afford it will leave in droves whilst those stuck in the living-in-the-overdraft trap will be the ones worst hit, unable to leave and hit for those fees month after month after month. In a lot of cases, it may lead people to try and raise additional funds by taking on consolidation loans to pay off the overdraft, when they may not be able to afford it in the first place, which would amount to irresponsible lending and/or a breach of the OFT's guidance on Unfair Business Practices 2.6 (b) "pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing". Whilst we cannot be sure of this happening, we believe it is no coincidence that since I initially wrote to you, we have received two mail-shots from you offering us a bank-loan.

I repeat just to make sure there is no ambiguity in our absolute refusal to accept this change of charging regime and that we wish to close the account.

 

We await notification of the closure of our account plus your acceptance of, or a counter offer to our reasonable overdraft repayment scheme.

 

Yours irascibly,

 

Us

[indebtstudent]

You should write back saying you understand that they have violated the law and that there are not prepaed to do something about it because thier system won't allow them to.

 

Well done for resisting the urge to ask them why thier staff cannot read, I often get the urge to ask that myself when they struggle to address simple points made in plain english.

[surprise]

I would also send a copy of that letter to Eric Daniels, Chief Executive - email [email protected] Also email John McFall and your own MP.

 

I think the more people that do this who are caught in this trap the more the Halifax will have to re think their strategy.

Edited January 23, 2010 by surprise
hadn't finished typing - amend email

[surprise]

I received a phone last night at around 8.00 pm from a market research company. I asked what they were doing ringing me as I was registered TPS. He said he they were acting on behalf of the Bank of Scotland and Halifax and they wanted to ask me some questions. I said I'm not interested I can answer what I think of the Halifax in one sentence and the fact that I have a complaint in with the FOS speaks for itself. He then said "Thats why we are doing this research".

 

I find it unbelieveable that the Halifax are incapable of sorting out internal complaints, advise you to go to the FOS then carry out a market research on why your've gone to the FOS.

 

It appears that the Halifax are yet wasting more taxpayers money.

 

I just wonder what the Halifax are upto now?

[the_freedom_trail]

I'd be careful about who you speak to over the phone about banks - it could be a [problem]. Only yesterday I got a very tidy email asking me to reinstate my HSBC account. Yet, I haven't got an HSBC account!

 

These scams to get your details are growing ever more common - be careful.

 

TFT