One Account rates cut

natwestripoff

Hi Karanda, I just don't get it, the letter is explicitly clear. Was this written in connection with Virgin One account or Nat West One account. Whichever has anyone submitted this to the Ombudsmen? Surely this is clear and indisputable intent expressed by the bank.

There will be a reckoning over this but I think they want to wait until they can afford it!

Regards Chris.

Yorkshire_Bred

Fom the FSA site


Treating customers fairly (TCF) is central to the delivery of our retail regulatory agenda as well as being a key part of our move to more principles-based regulation.



Latest update on the TCF initiative

Please see our latest update on the TCF initiative in November 2008, which reminds firms what is required of them and explains how firms will be assessed.

• FSA update on the Treating Customers Fairly initiative and the December deadline [PDF]
• Press release: FSA statement on the Treating Customers Fairly initiative

Our retail regulatory agenda aims to ensure an efficient and effective market and thereby help consumers achieve a fair deal. We aim through our TCF work to deliver improved outcomes for retail consumers as outlined in our July 2006 publication 'Treating customers fairly – towards fair outcomes for consumers'. [PDF]
The six TCF outcomes

We have defined six consumer outcomes, which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.


Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.
Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.
Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

natwestripoff

Hi Yorkshirebred - thanks for posting this, most useful. I would highlight (3) too as no one who took these products seemed to be told or were informed that the bank could charge whatever interest rate it liked, whenever it liked. There seems so much overwhelming evidence in support of the consumer in this battle against RBS doesn't there? and I think the truth of this is reflected in the amount of concern expressed here on this forum and elsewhere.

Well done for bring this to our attention, information is key and it all helps.

Saran_2

Yorkshire_Bred wrote: »

Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.

This outcome and a letter containing "the promise" are the basis for my claim currently lodged with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

One way or the other we are going to find out where we (and the FSA) stand on this issue. Logic dictates that the product has changed fundamentally and is not performing as expected. (logic and 170,000 very angry customers).

Will the FOS have the nerve to uphold this?

As for the promise: they are sorry if we were misled by this...(maybe they had their fingers crossed?)

It is wrong on so many levels that THEY fail to run their business prudently (now who's favourite word is this?) and expect to be able to take our money to fill the hole.

natwestripoff

Hi Saran,

Am I right that this letter was in respect of the Virgin One Account? I think I have seen it referred to before.

Thanks Chris.

Saran_2

Hi natwestripoff,

The letters I have specifically refer to the Virgin One Account and were sent out in 2001 or there abouts. Don't know if Natwest had its One Account running then - think that came about after RBS buyout of Virgin in 2003.

natwestripoff

Yes I thought as much, I wish we (the nat west 1 club) had such a letter/undertaking, it certainly adds indisputable evidence to your case in my opinion. It doesn't even have to be a legal document for the FSA to act upon it, that is the point they look at it from a consumers point of view not as a point of law.

With this letter alone I cannot see you losing.

I wish you the very best of luck and I hope you will let us all know how you get on!

red789

I spoke informally to a friend who is a fund manager over the weekend, and he said there may well be a case with the Financial Ombudsman. In a nutshell they take a very dim view of terms being buried in the small print which are contrary to the impression of the big print.

I've completed my submission to the FO and urge everyone who feels equally agrieved to do so - I am only waiting to submit becuase I need to prove I have "failed to agree" with the one account - so OA are sending me a written summary of my recent conversation with them in which they failed to answer any of my points.

One request - someone on here had a letter from One Account that said something to the affect that "If we gave the impression once that we were a tracker, we apologise as we aren't a tracker and never intended to imply we were" - if anyone recognises that if they could repost the wording and the date.

I urge everyone to do whatever they can to keep the pressure up. Remember you don't need to take the behaviour of the one account personally, its just business. Their job is to skin you of every possible penny they can and stay within the law, and your job is to give them as little as possible of it in return. Its nothing personal, they just want your money. If it was the other way round and they needed to come after you they would, so make sure you return the favour and do what you can to go after them!

jackarmy

Guys,

I admire your resolve, but be under no illusion, you will find it difficult to win your case.

Letters from the ex MD will not help. All the FSA will do is refer to the T&C.

I am sorry to be so pessimistic but hard facts win cases not marketing hype.

I also feel betrayed, and thought I had a product for life.

natwestripoff

Hi Red 787, I could not agree with you more but the FSA dismissed my case (see page 43) and again on Appeal. This was despite referring to the paperwork at the time which clearly demonstrates the basis of this mortgage was anything but explained clearly and demonstrably. I feel we have such a strong case but no-one in authority seems to agree. If this doesn't constitute a poorly explained product then I do not know when the FSA would decide one ever was.

Your right about keeping up the pressure though, that does catch attention.