Jump to content


Banks who try changing monthly tariffs or contract


SurlyBonds
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4934 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I can't really find the right 'home' for this one, but here's as good as any. if any Mods want to move it to a more suitable squat then fine with me.

 

Anyway, Lloyds TSB are changing a lot of their current accounts, especially the ones that offer extra services for a monthly fee. I actually use such an account, because things like the AA cover and annual holiday insurance works out more competitive. However, they have now tried adding two Mickey-Mouse add-ons which are disproportionately expensive for the extra £10 that they are trying to charge on top of the normal fee. Reading their website, it seems that they are trying this with other value-added accounts too.

 

However, they can't do this, and their call-centre Noddys simply give the highly-diplomatic and non-antagonistic [yeah!] attitude of "take it or you'll get your account downgraded" straight from the Saddam School of Diplomacy.

 

Anyway, if anyone else has had such nonsense, I've pasted in the letter that I've just sent them. You might find it useful as a basis for your own case(s)

 

In the meantime, the default work carries on, and a major battle with Barclays is just about to come to crunch time, so I will let you all now how I get on and what we can use from that case.

 

Rgds, SB

 

Customer Relations Department

Lloyds Bank plc

xxxx

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Proposed increase in account fees - Premier A/c No. xxxxxxxx

 

I refer to my recent correspondence to Lloyds Bank and its offer of additional facilities within Premier accounts for an additional fee of £10 per month.

 

I have looked at the additional services that are being offered and do not consider that they are worth this extra expenditure, and certainly do not offer value for money under the provisions of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In fact, the proportionate cost, for example, of the Home Assistance package offered is in no way competitive with my current arrangements.

 

This also brings me on to my second point in that both of the additional services being offered are not required by me anyway. I already have such facilities in place with longer-established suppliers, at a far more realistic price, so object to any bank trying to impose them on me when it would be a clear waste of money to have two products in place that serve the same purpose.

 

As such, I will not be accepting the new facilities, and will remain on the current Premier account tariff of £15.00 per month. I will remind the bank that it is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 for any supplier to try imposing a change of contract upon a consumer, and subsequently impose such a change without their acceptance and explicit consent thereto. I refer to Schedule 2 of Regulation 5(5):

 

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;

 

Having tried to discuss this matter with some of the call-centre operatives at Premier, it is clear that they do have sufficient knowledge of consumer law. They have, basically, stated that I will no longer be “allowed” a Premier account if I refuse to accept the new fee. I appreciate that this may be the diktat from their on-screen scripts, but I do wonder why so many unqualified-at-Law staff seem to claim a superior legal knowledge when they clearly have no knowledge of Law whatsoever.

 

For a call-centre operative to make such threats and try imposing such a condition is also unlawful, as the above regulations allow for a contract to continue even though some parts might be unworkable or not accepted by either party. I refer again to the UTCC Regulations:

 

Effect of unfair term

8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

(2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

 

As such, I maintain that the bank is acting in an unlawful manner in both its attempt to impose some minor changes in my original contract that:

a) do not meet the “reasonable price” test of the Supply of Goods and Services Act;

b) are surplus to own product requirements when I already have such facilities in place; and,

c) would be unlawful under several clauses of the UTCC Regulations.

 

 

Therefore, you are hereby formally notified that you are forbidden to make any changes to my original contract and the contract will (as per the UTCC Regulations) continue in the mode that it has done since opening. The bank is prohibited to charge any monthly account fee over and above the originally agreed fee of £15.00, per month, unless I give you written permission to do so.

 

Any deductions made over and above this £15.00 amount will be treated as theft, and will be reported immediately to xxxxxx CID as a suspected case of a fraudulent banking transaction on my account. I feel certain that the staff at the xxxxxxx branch, or at Head Office, would not want the embarrassment of the Police entering the premises taking statements and requesting ledger printouts. I would also respectfully suggest that you do not underestimate my resolve on this matter as this is neither an idle nor churlish threat; it is an absolute and guaranteed promise.

 

In the meantime, I shall continue with my Premier Account for the agreed monthly fee of £15.00 and do not expect to have to communicate again on this issue, as I think that I have made my position crystal clear.

 

Yours faithfully, etc.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I posted earlier in the cahoot forum about an issue I have with a fundamental change of my Credit Card contract with them and am now wondering if the above would help with my query.

 

Would your points be true of Credit Card accounts as well as bank accounts?

 

if you would like see my thread for more info:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cahoot/138779-advice-please-t-c.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...