Call To Boycott Alliance & Leicester

sashacat

I would have asked for my money back, of course I would, and my bank charges ( as my daughter has done with HSBC) She was paid in full and paid her court costs, and, on the same day telephoned and asked if she would like to be a " Premier" customer...so not all banks close accounts

Bisoy

Why boycott? It doesn't mean that I like them because I don't have loyalty to any bank or lender.Presently have current accounts and Direct ISA with them and have benefitted with their refer a friend incentive. So far don't have any problem with them and is fully aware that their customer services are apalling but as I have said in my other posts if there are any lender/bank that offers better I'll be one of the first to transfer.

EdInvestor

There seem to be rights and wrongs on both sides of this issue.But adopting extreme positions - which is what both sides are doing - is never likely to resolve the problem.

Surely the regulator's ruling on credit card charges shows the way forward?The OFT ruled that banks were entitled to impose charges on people breaking the t and cs - but not to exact penalties.

A charge of 12 pounds was determined as appropriate, and the banks have accepted that.

Shouldn't the same principle apply to unauthorised bank overdrafts?It it did, then people would be entitled to a refund of approximately half their charges, but not the full amount. A number of few banks seem happy to offer that anyway, with no threat of account closure.

It would also be helpful if the banks made a bit of an effort to separate out genuine hardship cases where the computer is creating a situation akin to shark lending, from which a poor victim is unable to escape.At present it does seem that some computers may be operating very efficiently on the debits and charges side, but very inefficiently on the credit side to some customers' serious disadvantage.This kind of thing can give rise to suspicions that can be very bad for a bank's reputation.

On the other hand it would also be sensible if people made an effort to manage their accounts more effectively so they don't repeatedly break the rules. There may be some "helpful hints" that could be provided ( by the action groups, by sites like these, by schools, even by the banks themselves? ) so that people who have no experience of banking can set up their accounts more efficiciently to as to avoid getting into trouble accidentally.

The underlying problem at present seems to boil down to greed on both sides - whether it be excessive charges imposed, or excessive claims to get them back. A bit of moderation might go a long way to bringing a solution which is fair to all,including the vast majority who manage their accounts according to the rules and who currently could end up being penalised through no fault of their own.

maximus78

I'm not a financial expert but do you think that with a French or Spanish company taking over Alliance&Leicester PLC there will be no changes?

Mon, 22 May 2006 10:25
By : James Rowe
LONDON - French bank Credit Agricole SA said that it is assessing a possible takeover of Alliance & Leicester PLC.

Would this 5% C/A, 10% Regular savers, 5% ISAs, bonanza come to an end?
Could it be possible this are all moves to increase the stock value?:rolleyes:

just wondering

M

moonrakerz

EdInvestor wrote:

Surely the regulator's ruling on credit card charges shows the way forward?The OFT ruled that banks were entitled to impose charges on people breaking the t and cs - but not to exact penalties.

A charge of 12 pounds was determined as appropriate, and the banks have accepted that./QUOTE]

I don't think that was quite correct - the OFT has put to the banks that a lower charge (£12) might be more appropriate. The banks have not accepted that (as a whole), although some have broken ranks recently !
The OFT did not rule that the banks were entitled to charge people for breaking Ts & Cs - they merely re-stated what the lawful postion is. ie:- the banks can only recover the losses that they could justify in Court.
As the banks have shown a total unwillingness to put their case forward in Court - here we go again !!!

See OFT statement:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/135-05.htm

MarkyMarkD

No, the OFT have stated their view of the legal position which hasn't been proven in court. They don't have the power to make or revise the law or, indeed, to determine it.

jonesMUFCforever

moonrakerz wrote:

ejones999 wrote:

I think we will ! but I still find it hard to understand why so many people seem to condone the banks acting unlawfully.

Could I just float this past you all ?

A while ago there were major roadworks on the A303 (a fast dual-carriageway, for those who don't know the road), a 50 mph limit was imposed for everyone's safety. Speed cameras were set up and did a roaring trade with lots of fines for speeding flooding into the public coffers. 99.999995 of those "flashed" just paid their fines and decided not to drive so fast on that bit of the 303.
One person disputed the charge and after several Court hearings the Court ruled that the speed trap had not been set up correctly and that all the fines that had been imposed were "unlawful".
Now - if you were one of those people flashed what would you have done next, when you read in the press or saw on TV that if you wrote in you would get your money back ?

1. Ask for your money back, as it had been taken from you "unlawfully" (even though it was the police wot dun it !)
2. Say to yourself, "well actually, I was doing 75, so I am a reckless driver who deserves to be fined" and not ask for your own money back.

Think on that one and be honest !

Thank you and good night !

I don't understand your analogy on this.
For a start you have a choice of where to bank - did you have a choice of which road to use?
Again I think that you are confusing unlawful and unenforceable.

pink_phantom

I a normally very good with my account but I did have a DD come out 3 days early and it bounced. I managed to talk my way out of it with the bank and as it was a first time for me I didn't get charged. I did phone up the company responsible and go mad at them and they said that they would have reimbursed my fees should I have been charged.

I don't think anyone means that they are getting a free overdraft etc, I think people are narked a: because the banks do not help people who are in financial difficulties through no fault of their own b: because people who do make mistakes then maybe be a bit more leiniant. Perhapse have a scale of charges for frequency and ammount or somthing like that.

To the person who said "why should I fund others", well my friend was made redundant from 2000k a month to nothing and one day this may happen to you. Bills coming in and no money to pay them and a family to feed. Lets just hope it doesn't happen to you.

MarkyMarkD

But as you acknowledge, Louise, in that example it was clearly the fault of the company taking the DD, and they should have paid the charge.

In many cases where people moan at the bank for charging them, they should be complaining to someone else.

pink_phantom

MarkyMarkD wrote:

But as you acknowledge, Louise, in that example it was clearly the fault of the company taking the DD, and they should have paid the charge.

In many cases where people moan at the bank for charging them, they should be complaining to someone else.

Yes that's true but sometimes it is human error, dates mixed up etc and they could just be a bit more leniant in some cases I think. Fair enough serial offenders who deliberately write cheques knowing the funds aren't available but I think the whole service is de-humanised because all the decisions are made by computers.

It's like in Little Britain "computer says naaaa".:rotfl: