Call To Boycott Alliance & Leicester

drsims

Outrage!! Banks dish it out but can't take it on the chin.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=409701&in_page_id=7&ct=5&ito=1453

May I suggest a dignified boycott of all that is A&L. Switch your accounts etc (and don't be sweet talked by those 5% & 10% interest rates)!!

maforduk

All the customers have to do that have been offered the full money back etc inlight or an account review. Say NO and go ahead with Court Action.
DO NOT LET THE BANKS Force you into taking the money back and telling you that it's going to review your account etc.

Just say to them "No, I will not accept full refund with more terms of the bank and I will go ahead with the court proceedings."

jonesMUFCforever

A court might just say to any plaintiff doing this NO you do not deserve to win because you turned down the exact sum that you are suing for, In other words wasting the court's time.
Any bank can also decide who it wants as customers and who it does not - it does not close accounts just for acounts that have had charges refunded.
As someone who does play by the rules and do not incur uneccesary bank charges why should I subsidise those who don't.

moonrakerz

This isn't an outrage, it's VICTORY for the consumer !

A & L have not shot themselves in the foot, they have blown both legs off below the knees !

They KNOW that they cannot win this argument in Court and by this action they have now admitted this to the whole world. The only thing that they can do LAWFULLY (albeit spitefully, petty, mean spiritedly, etc, etc) is to return your bank charges and then close your account.

After they closed my son's account, the whole family have moved all their accounts else where. Agree wholeheartedly with drsims on that one !

And still we have people who rabbit on about not playing by the "bank's rules" - these so called rules are UNLAWFUL !! Full stop !

Aark

May I suggest a dignified boycott of all that is A&L. Switch your accounts etc (and don't be sweet talked by those 5% & 10% interest rates)!!

I have an Alliance & Leicester current account, regular savings account, cash ISA and instant access savings account. As far as I am concerned these are all excellent products.

Just as banks intend to maximise profits, I also intend to maximise my profits by using the best accounts available. If these happen to be with Alliance & Leicester I see no reason to refuse them just because some other customers have had issues.

surfcat

Why boycott A&L? Don't bet the others won't follow, it's just A&L have had the guts to stand up for themselves first..

grumbler

I am a happy customer with free annual worlwide travel insurance, 5%+ on instant access savings and cash ISA. Why would I boycott them? IMHO it is fair (I don't say 'lawful'; we have loads of ridiculous laws) to get rid of customers that don't bring to the bank anything but trouble. Bank isn't a charity.

jonesMUFCforever

moonrakerz wrote:

This isn't an outrage, it's VICTORY for the consumer !

A & L have not shot themselves in the foot, they have blown both legs off below the knees !

They KNOW that they cannot win this argument in Court and by this action they have now admitted this to the whole world. The only thing that they can do LAWFULLY (albeit spitefully, petty, mean spiritedly, etc, etc) is to return your bank charges and then close your account.

After they closed my son's account, the whole family have moved all their accounts else where. Agree wholeheartedly with drsims on that one !

And still we have people who rabbit on about not playing by the "bank's rules" - these so called rules are UNLAWFUL !! Full stop !

The bank's rules or terms and conditions are not unlwful, it is the scale of some of the charges that has yet to be fully tested in court. This is because not a single bank has yet 'fought' a test case to determine this.
I think you are saying that it is ok to overdraw an account by more than its agreed limit and then sod the consequences because any charge levied will be claimed back - you end up with a free overdraft whilst If I use mine sensibly and keep within my limit I have to pay.
Try getting stuff from any shop for free and see where it gets you!
In France issuing a cheque knowing there are no funds to meet it is a criminal offence - perhaps that law should be adopted here.

humfer

Not really surprised - you only have to look at their recent behaviour to existing mortgage customers (me included) when they raised their mortgage deeds/closure fee from £195 to £295 overnight with no justification whatsoever. Eventually got it back down to £195 but it just shows what they can get up to...

Gorgeous_George

I agree with the sentiments of the OP but I don't go overdrawn without agrrement and do not wish to subsidise those who do. I bank with A&L, not them with me.

The bank's charges are outrageous but they are published and people must start to take responsibility for their own finances.

If banks don't penalise (unfairly) those who break the rules, they would have to penalise those who abide by them. This would lead to all good customers going elsewhere and all the borrowers would be stuck with a bank that's going bust.

Debt is not society's fault. It's the fault of the individual.



GG

moonrakerz

ejones999 wrote:

The bank's rules or terms and conditions are not unlwful, it is the scale of some of the charges that has yet to be fully tested in court. This is because not a single bank has yet 'fought' a test case to determine this.
I think you are saying that it is ok to overdraw an account by more than its agreed limit and then sod the consequences because any charge levied will be claimed back - you end up with a free overdraft whilst If I use mine sensibly and keep within my limit I have to pay.
Try getting stuff from any shop for free and see where it gets you!
In France issuing a cheque knowing there are no funds to meet it is a criminal offence - perhaps that law should be adopted here.

1. I did not say the bank's Ts & Cs are unlawful. However,some of the bank's Ts & Cs are unfair in Law.

2. The charges the banks levy are unlawful. They do not refelect the loss they may have incurred.

3. The banks have already repaid vast sums of money to customers, I know legal advice is expensive but the banks could have saved a lot of money by taking ONE person to Court and fighting (and winning !!) their corner. They haven't - because they know they would lose. Just ONE victory in Court by any bank would stop all the claims dead in their tracks ! Draw your own conclusions.

4. I AM NOT saying it is OK to overdraw etc, etc, - if you had read some of my earlier posts on this subject you would see that.

5. I DO NOT end up with a free overdraft - I have never incurred a single bank charge in my life. Don't make assertions that you cannot support.

6. I obey the Law, I would just like the banks to do so as well ! Why do you seem to think it is OK for the banks not to ? If I tried to pull a fast one on them, they would be down on me like a ton of bricks !

7. You state: "Try getting stuff from any shop for free and see where it gets you!"
It gets me in Court because it is Unlawful to steal - why do you condone the banks "stealing" from their customers ? Perhaps because you think it may benefit you ?

8. I agree that the Law might need changing (a la Francais), but until it is you (and me) are stuck with it. The basic problem is that Contract Law (which is what governs your dealings with the banks) was written years ago for large contracts, not millions of day-to-day small transactions with banks.
Putting posts on this, or other websites, will not change anything - write to your MP, write to Tony Blair and tell them the Law needs changing. I have recovered money (for someone else) and am in the process of another recovery. When I am done, I intend to write to my MP and the OFT about what the banks are doing. If something happens, and the Law is changed so that a £35 (or £500!) charge for bouncing a cheque is Lawful, I don't have a problem. At least it is transparent and everyone can see what is going on.

Could I just make a comment on Grumbler's post as well -

"to get rid of customers that don't bring to the bank anything but trouble" .
If you thought about it for a minute, you would see that the banks want people who overdraw, bounce cheques etc, etc, they make billions from them. What they don't want is people who stand up for their legal rights.

A comment on surfcat's post:
"it's just A&L have had the guts to stand up for themselves first"
If A & L had guts, why haven't they appeared in Court ?, why have NONE of the banks appeared in Court. Closing people's accounts is the only Lawful thing they have done AND it is an admission of defeat.

A common thread from the posts supporting the banks is that these "sinners" who reclaim chrges are some how depriving the "honest" of something - I could be tempted to put it another way - perhaps the people who don't incur charges (Myself included !) are sponging off those who do incur charges.