Alliance & Leicester bandits.

Paulos77

I have been with Allliance and Leciester for only about 6 months, and this last week I went over my overdraft limit by just £2, and they charged me £25!. My overdraft limit is only £100 so it took it to £102. It was a cheque that took a while to clear, which I had actually forgot about it took that long.

Not only was there the £25 charge they have also charged me £40 ( £5 a day) for being over my limit. I did pay a cheque in my account other day which I thought would bring me back to under my limit but it never cleared in time before all these extra charges were added.

Now I know banks normal fine people for going over their overdraft limit but £65 for going £2.00 over! come on seriously!! :mad:

I was just wondering if I sent them a letter explaining it was only £2 and im not happy with all these charges etc, would it just fall on deaf ears or would there be any chance the would repay the fines. Its my first offence and I have never gone over my limit before.

I joined A & L thinking they were a better bank than my old bank but right now I wish I hadnt, I would have been better off staying put! At least I had a slightly bigger overdraft and they wouldnt have charged me £5 a day for going over it, infact I wouldnt have gone over it!

natweststaffmember

If it is a first offence you can ask them if they would refund as a Gesture of Goodwill or perhaps partially refund it.

little_oak

I agree with you about A & L being bandits.
They currently state tht a payment rewiew letter paid or unpaid is £25. Back in January I was out of the coutry when a direct debit can in which would have put me £10 over my overdraft limit. they charged me £25 and paid the direct debit putting me £35 over my limit. In Feb they took a further £25 ([EMAIL="5days@£5"]5days@£5[/EMAIL]) a day, this meant that two further very small deirct debits would have made me go over my limit But again they charged me £25 each and paid them now putting me about £60 over my limit. This process has gone on for several months that although I believed I had enough money they would charge e £25 pay a direct debit and then charge me £5 a day for the priveldge of them authorising me going over the overdraft but without asking me if I wanted to. Given the refusal price is the same as the paid price. I believe they have chosen to pay so they can get the money a £5 a day. Had they said no in the first instance I would have only had to pay my water bill a couple of days late with no charge other than the original £25 letter saying 'we haven't paid it' becuse even with that charge i would have still remained under my overdraft limit. Last night i calucluate that but for their actions of reviewing the item and then paying it I would have not paid £460 in charges in the last 9 months. Given they authorised me going over the overdraft limit without asking me if i would be prepared to pay £x until I cleared it each time I believe that what they have done borders on fraud or obtaining money by deception. Particulary as it is only thier charges that put me near or over my overdraftlimit in first place on each and every occassion.
If I were to not dispute the amount of the charge but the 'authorisation without consulation or warning' can I argue the refund and lost interest repayment (and/or interest ) seperately to a dispute of unfair cost.
If so can anyone advise of the acussation that should be put forward ie is it fraud or obating money by deception or some other 'sharp practise' not allowed by the FSA.
A template or guide would also be good. I think it is a seperate issue to that of unfair value of a charge.

What do others think?

natweststaffmember

I think that with that argument you would get nowhere so follow the process as outline by Martin on here. It isn't about what it looks like it is about what it is and what you can prove with case law that will count.

little_oak

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I think that with that argument you would get nowhere so follow the process as outline by Martin on here. It isn't about what it looks like it is about what it is and what you can prove with case law that will count.

Sorry to disagree but I do think it is about what it looks like.

I can sort of understand that to undertake a payment review and charge me is fine. But if I have an agreed overdraft surely if I haven't asked them to pay it like you used to do in the days when banks were banks then they have done something of there own backs and are then charging me for thier decision without a contract in place.

Why
a) they have decided to extend my overdraft to the new amount
b) they do not ask me agree to new terms that apply to this extension
c)I did not have the option of not agreeing
d) i could not cancel what they had done.

these are normaly the basis for a contract heads of terms and as such there is no contract or agreement in place. My orginal bank forms would have said that i should run my finance without exceeding the overdraft.


Basically they did what they did of thier own choice and i did not and was not given the opprtunity to say otherwise.
yes they may have informed me in a general letter many months before hand that they were introducing the new charge but it is an informative it did not relate to specific event and they always have the opportunity to decline a request for payment in the event of insufficent funds.
I repeat I did not say can you please pay this item. They chose to without out consultation. I infact signed an agreement that I would not exceed the overdraft and in essance I am saying i didn't - they did and they did so knowing that it would result in the ability to collect even more money at a greater rate than the normal. so it can't be my charge in the eyes of the law surely.

I feel it is not a dispute about the firgure of £5 a day but more about the fact that their actions not mine that caused the figure to be applied.

I will try the charge return letter but did not want it to be caught up as the unfair amount (meaning actual value) but want to be able to make it clear I was not responsible for even creating the debt in the first place.;)

natweststaffmember

little_oak wrote: »

Sorry to disagree but I do think it is about what it looks like.

I can sort of understand that to undertake a payment review and charge me is fine. But if I have an agreed overdraft surely if I haven't asked them to pay it like you used to do in the days when banks were banks then they have done something of there own backs and are then charging me for thier decision without a contract in place.

Why
a) they have decided to extend my overdraft to the new amount
Their argument and yes I think it is a stupid one is that you informally asked the bank to increase by giving payment instructions when there was no funds available.
b) they do not ask me agree to new terms that apply to this extension
You have informally asked for a variation of the contract
c)I did not have the option of not agreeing
You agree to any variance of the terms and conditions of the account with that argument(whether those terms are fair are within the OFT test case remit)
d) i could not cancel what they had done.
Since you informally requested it then the reason you couldn't cancel it is that you requested it in the first place.
these are normaly the basis for a contract heads of terms and as such there is no contract or agreement in place. My orginal bank forms would have said that i should run my finance without exceeding the overdraft.
You should check the current terms and conditions since those are the one in current useage so their idea of informal requests(however ridiculous that may sound to me) is the likely argument.

Basically they did what they did of thier own choice and i did not and was not given the opprtunity to say otherwise.
You informally requested it.
yes they may have informed me in a general letter many months before hand that they were introducing the new charge but it is an informative it did not relate to specific event and they always have the opportunity to decline a request for payment in the event of insufficent funds.
You had the opportunity to read the variance of the agreement which is normally 30 days notice and chose either not to or decided not to complain about it.
I repeat I did not say can you please pay this item.
The informal request to consider the payment to allow an extension of the the overdraft is the payment request itself. It is within the remit of the OFT test case issues.
They chose to without out consultation. I infact signed an agreement that I would not exceed the overdraft and in essance I am saying i didn't - they did and they did so knowing that it would result in the ability to collect even more money at a greater rate than the normal. so it can't be my charge in the eyes of the law surely.
The agreement you signed when you opened your account also allowed for charges and also allowed to variance in the contract which has been done. It is still within the remit of the OFT Test case issues.
I feel it is not a dispute about the firgure of £5 a day but more about the fact that their actions not mine that caused the figure to be applied.
Terms and conditions/OFT test case issues remit.
I will try the charge return letter but did not want it to be caught up as the unfair amount (meaning actual value) but want to be able to make it clear I was not responsible for even creating the debt in the first place.;)

The unfortunate reason why I am repeating the mantra of OFT related issues is that ALL of it is within that remit. Suggesting fraud by the bank against you will not stand up to the test. Another poster on another forum suggested manipulation of credits/debits, yet it is all inter related to the OFT test case issues currently awaiting the first part of the case decision.

little_oak

okay thanks for the fully explaination, I better understand why you think it needs to come under the unfair charges so i will continue with that option. Thanks agin for taking the time to explain