Battling Alliance and Leicester - HELP!!

KateSullivan

I apologise in advance if this issue has already been discussed and would be happy to be pointed in the direction of a previous thread but I'm really not sure what to do next.

In Feb '09 I opened an on-line direct current account with Alliance and Leicester with the intention of moving my personal banking over from Abbey. To cut a long story short I stuck with the Abbey and never used the A&L account.

In August '09 I received a letter from A&L advising me that I needed to contact them regarding an outstanding amount on my account, or words to that effect, no amounts were indicated in the letter.

I telephoned them to discover they'd applied charges as follows to my £0.00 balance unused account:

May '09 £5.00 under funding Fee
June '09 £5.00 under funding Fee
July '09 £5.00 under funding Fee
July/August '09 £175.00 exceeding overdraft limit

I wasn't aware that after an initial period the terms of the account required me to deposit a minimum amount each month, I was now £190 o/d they wanted the money.

I telephoned them in Aug '09 to explain that had they contacted me in the first instance to advise me that I had initially had a £5.00 under funding fee applied to the account taking me overdrawn I would have paid it and closed the account. They said that the type of account I had put no onus on them to contact me, that the onus was on me to check my on-line statements.

I felt this was unfair, said I wasn't prepared to pay the overdraft fees and they suspended the account, gave me a claim number and insisted that the claim could only be dealt with under the umbrella of the recent bank charges case.

Following the outcome of that case I've had a subsequent letter stating that A&L believe I have no grounds to dispute the charges.

I called them to see if they would be prepared to accept an offer of £15.00 for the under funding fees only, explained that I refused to pay the exceeding overdraft fees of £175.00 as had they informed me I would have paid them in May, they refused saying that they're 'in-limbo' with regards to settling individual cases and could only accept the full amount, they weren't able to advise me what I should do next, or what they might do.

I feel this is unfair, but do I have any chance of settling with them? And if so what do I do next?

Any advice much appreciated, I'm so frustrated, although I've summarised in this post I've actually spoken to at least 6 staff at A&L in the last 10 days and I'm just going around in circles, this just feels like monopoly money to me, totally surreal.

Kind Regards
Kate

Premier_2

KateSullivan wrote: »

...I wasn't aware that after an initial period the terms of the account required me to deposit a minimum amount each month, ...

Were you not provided with the terms & conditions?
Or did you just not bother reading them?
Ignorence is no defence.

KateSullivan

Premier wrote: »

Were you not provided with the terms & conditions?
Or did you just not bother reading them?
Ignorence is no defence.

I appreciate your comment, however I am not disputing the terms and conditions in relation to unfunding the account, and as such, as already explained I have offered to pay £15.00 to cover the three individual charges of £5.00 relating to those terms.

It is the application of unauthorised overdraft charges, that were only applicable because of the underfunding charges that I object to. Surely the application of unauthorised overdraft charges as a result of charges I had not been notified about can't be right...can it???

Premier_2

KateSullivan wrote: »

I appreciate your comment, however I am not disputing the terms and conditions in relation to unfunding the account, and as such, as already explained I have offered to pay £15.00 to cover the three individual charges of £5.00 relating to those terms.

It is the application of unauthorised overdraft charges, that were only applicable because of the underfunding charges that I object to. Surely the application of unauthorised overdraft charges as a result of charges I had not been notified about can't be right...can it???

You may object now to the underfunding charges, but you accepted them when you accepted the terms & conditions.

If sufficient cleared funds are not available to fund those charges you accepted, then you incurred an unauthorised overdraft for which you have been charged in line with the terms & conditions/tariff of charges..

KateSullivan

Premier wrote: »

You may object now to the underfunding charges, but you accepted them when you accepted the terms & conditions.

If sufficient cleared funds are not available to fund those charges you accepted, then you incurred an unauthorised overdraft for which you have been charged in line with the terms & conditions/tariff of charges..

Mmm, I was hoping for something a little more constructive. This is all rather too much like talking to the bank, continue to pick you way through my post if you wish, I've almost lost the will to live already!!

Alpine_Star

I'm not sure of the banks obligation to notify in advance of charging an underfunding fee but there is an obligation for them to notify insufficient funds charges http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2007/fulltext/527_4-13.pdf

I would say that although you obviously didn't spot the terms of the contract with regards to under-funding, the bank may well have an obligation - through the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly guidlines and possibly BCOBS - to make sure you understand your key contractual obligations which I would imagine should include funding requirements.

KateSullivan

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I'm not sure of the banks obligation to notify in advance of charging an underfunding fee but there is an obligation for them to notify insufficient funds charges

I would say that although you obviously didn't spot the terms of the contract with regards to under-funding, the bank may well have an obligation - through the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly guidlines and possibly BCOBS - to make sure you understand your key contractual obligations which I would imagine should include funding requirements.

Thank you, some hope, I'll look in to both of those.

noh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I'm not sure of the banks obligation to notify in advance of charging an underfunding fee but there is an obligation for them to notify insufficient funds charges http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2007/fulltext/527_4-13.pdf

I would say that although you obviously didn't spot the terms of the contract with regards to under-funding, the bank may well have an obligation - through the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly guidlines and possibly BCOBS - to make sure you understand your key contractual obligations which I would imagine should include funding requirements.

If this is the Premier Direct account then it is an online only account all statements etc are online.

The OP would have been notified of the charges online.
From the link in the quote above:-

"The notice may be issued separately or incorporated in a statement or another notice that is required under the CCA."

I would think that A+L have complied with the treating customers fairly guidlines as when applying for the Premier Direct Account online the £500 per month funding requirement is made very clear.
The Applicant also has to confirm that they have read the T+Cs.

I'm guessing that not only did they not read the T+Cs they did not log into the account for some considerable time and so did not see that the fees and charges had been or were to be applied.

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

Were you not provided with the terms & conditions?
Or did you just not bother reading them?
Ignorence is no defence.

If you were conversant with the issues you would realise that part of the argument was that T&C's were not intelligible and not in plain English.

The campaign has helped to redress that problem with banks now making them easier to understand.

Please do not put people down. You should find something better to devote your energies to.

noh

orc wrote: »

If you were conversant with the issues you would realise that part of the argument was that T&C's were not intelligible and not in plain English.

The campaign has helped to redress that problem with banks now making them easier to understand.

Please do not put people down. You should find something better to devote your energies to.

The T+Cs are all here http://www.alliance-leicester.co.uk/siteinfo/legal.aspx?ct=footer

The application process makes it clear that £500 pm is required.

How plain do you want them to be?

The fact is that however plain the T+Cs are some people will still not read them.

orc_2

noh wrote: »

The T+Cs are all here http://www.alliance-leicester.co.uk/siteinfo/legal.aspx?ct=footer-
I was referring to T&C's historically.


How plain do you want them to be?
Even the banks admit they still have some way to go on this. And its a case of work in progress.

The fact is that however plain the T+Cs are some people will still not read them.

You may well be right on that.
But, the banks hid for long enough behind difficult to understand terms and conditions- fact, it suited them to do that- profit motive and to frighten people away from challenging them.
Every term and condition, no matter what product or service it relates to should be in Plain English, for the benefit of consumer rights.

I was making a point to Premier, who always knocks people down and referring to T&C's generally, which historically have not been in plain Engish. At the time of Premiers post, the link to the T&C'S were not on this thread.

Fact.

The following stands. You are wrong I am afraid. The bank charges campaigns pressure resulted in easier to understand terms and conditions.

"If you were conversant with the issues you would realise that part of the argument was that T&C's were not intelligible and not in plain English.

The campaign has helped to redress that problem with banks now making them easier to understand."