Cash withdrawals abroad

chattychappy

lisyloo wrote: »

Can you give a reference to the act you are referring to?

I didn't refer to any.

lisyloo wrote: »

Can you give a reference to the statue that says they have to cover fraudulent transactions?

This is not the point - if fraudulent then it's not your transaction. Don't need a statute for that.

lisyloo wrote: »

You say you have legal training but have provided no details of any acts yet.

Correct. Because none are applicable to this.

lisyloo wrote: »

Can you cite the act that says they have to cover it.

...
But we need some evidence to get to the bottom of it, so I would like to see some legislation

The point is, the T+Cs don't make the distinction betwen credit/debit balance that you do. Therefore it is for you (or NW) to find legislation or regulation that would imply into the T+Cs the exception you claim exists.

lisyloo wrote: »

As I said without any evidence I think we have to go with the Ts &Cs until we get some proper evidence otherwise.

But that's exactly the point - I am "going with the T+Cs" and explained my interpretation. Now I can accept you don't agree with my interpretation - but I don't agree that in the absence of statute your interpretation should prevail.

chattychappy

djc_uk wrote: »

b) But that (a) was probably not necessary as cash advances didn't attract interest providing that you paid the full balance at the end of each statement period. This regardless of whether the cash advance was being made abroad or not.

Many years ago, (I'm talking 1980s here) I remember that this was a distinction between Access (issued to me by Midland bank - would now be an HSBC mastercard) and Barclaycard. Access had no fee for cash, but interest was charged from the date of transaction. Barclaycard was a 1.5% fee, but then the transaction was treated like a purchase - ie up to 56 days free credit if you paid off in full.

I would be really surprised if any cards DON'T charge interest on cash these days (except as part of an intro offer). Some are certainly fee free (eg Zero) though.

I don't know if this is the card you are referring to, but the summary box at https://www.halifax-online.co.uk/ApplyFactoryCards/SummaryBox.aspx?SourceCode=F1855GOIY seems pretty clear:

"The interest free period applies only to purchases if you pay the balance in full and on time. See section 3.4 of the terms and conditions for full details. There is no interest free period on cash advances, balance transfers or cheques."

I reached this by following the link from "Halifax Clarity Card" on their website - I don't know if the Rewards thing is different in this respect. What does 3.4 say on your T+Cs?

(EDIT: following the "Reward Credit Card" link gives a similar summary box.)

ManAtHome

djc_uk wrote: »

(b) But that (a) was probably not necessary as cash advances didn't attract interest providing that you paid the full balance at the end of each statement period. This regardless of whether the cash advance was being made abroad or not.

Pretty sure they're wrong - wording from the agreement is

3.3 We calculate interest based on your average daily balance and charge it to your account on each statement date. The interest rates shown above are calculated by compounding the interest we charge each month over one year. The simple interest rates (not including interest being charged on interest) are:
Balance Transfers 12.20% a year Cheques 12.20% a year Cash advances 12.20% a year Purchases 12.20% a year 3.4 If you pay the total balance shown on your current statement by the payment date (and have also paid the total balance on your previous statement by the payment date), then we will not charge interest on purchases shown on your current statement. On all transactions where we do charge interest, we charge it from the date we first charge the amount to your account.

So only purchases are free if the account is paid in full. Also they set any part-payments against purchases before cash advances - so make sure you pay off in full if you have any ATM transactions (of you're a proper MSE-er!).

[edit] sorry, link to T&Cs is http://www.halifax.co.uk/creditcards/conditions_7785.asp

lisyloo

if fraudulent then it's not your transaction

I think you might need a little more proof than that.
You could have cloned the card yourself and be lying.
They would be ripped off left right and center if that was the case.

The point is, the T+Cs don't make the distinction betwen credit/debit balance that you do.

It's not my distinction, it's information from Nationwide.

Regardless of this I would still advicse people NOT to pre-load as it's against Ts&Cs and their card might be stopped, so jsut thought I'd make it clear at this point that it makes no difference to the advice not to pre-load.

Correct. Because none are applicable to this.

Yes they are.
From your legal training can you tell us if it's a statutory obligation for a lender to cover fraud or it it at their discretion.
If it's the latter then they can decide to do whatever they want.
If you are claiming otherwise, then you need to give a reference.
Otherwise it's just an opinion on a board which means little.
I would like to check the legislation to see if it covers money that's not part of the credit agreement and in breach of Ts & Cs.
So you see it is important as the legislation MAY make this distinction that Nationwide also make.
If you claim it exists then why not show it???
Otherwise it starting to look a bit like you can't back up your claims.

Therefore it is for you (or NW) to find legislation or regulation that would imply into the T+Cs the exception you claim exists.

No it's not.
Nationwide can do what they like (unless you can provide statute to claim otherwise).
Note this is not my opinion I'm stating here, it's Nationwides policy (as relayed to me).
I'm not defending or agreeing with anything, just passing on their stated policy as related to me.

But that's exactly the point - I am "going with the T+Cs" and explained my interpretation.

Exactly. Great, that's just your interpretation.

Now I can accept you don't agree with my interpretation

I never said I disagreed.
I don't particulatrly have an educated interpretation.
I'm relaying Natiownwides.

but I don't agree that in the absence of statute your interpretation should prevail.

Well we'll have to disagree.
No offence but you are a stranger to most.
You may have the legal training you claim, you may not but no evidence of any legislation has been offered so far.
In the case of Nationwide versus stranger off a forum who makes claims but refuses to back them up with references to legislation, then I think it's reasonable for most to go with the lenders interpretation of their own Ts&Cs.

If you think it's wrong I would positively encourage you put it right, as none of us wants false information perpetuated, but you do need something concrete to back up your arguments and so far you have failed to provide that.
As I said before this doesn't affect the premise that it's a bad idea to pre-load as worse case your card could be stopped whilst on holiday.

chattychappy

lisyloo wrote: »

In the case of Nationwide versus stranger off a forum who makes claims but refuses to back them up with references to legislation, then I think it's reasonable for most to go with the lenders interpretation of their own Ts&Cs.

You and Nationwide have also failed to back anything you say with legislation - since you feel this is so important.

Interpreting contracts is not an issue of legislation, though legislation can imply into contracts certain terms (eg Sales of Goods Act) or delete terms. Common law can also have this effect.

I think it's FAR from reasonable to go with a call centre operator's own interpretation of T&Cs. On that basis nobody with dispute anything with credit card companies.

So it's not for me to produce legislation to prove your interpretation of the T&Cs is wrong. It's for you to establish that the exception that you claim exists does exist. It seems you are trusting a call centre OP too much.

On your own admission, the excerpt of the T+Cs you quoted says nothing about credit balances.

Incidentally, you are a "stranger off a forum" too.

djc_uk

chattychappy wrote: »

The interest free period applies only to purchases if you pay the balance in full and on time. See section 3.4 of the terms and conditions for full details. There is no interest free period on cash advances, balance transfers or cheques.

I couldn't follow the link you gave (login required and I only login via links I know, no offence) but I found the above quote through the anonymous website so I see where you're coming from. Confusion reigns, for now, but in my actual credit card agreement the 'There is no interest free period on cash advances, balance transfers or cheques.' part does not appear. And section 3.4. just states that by paying the balance in full then 'we will not charge interest on purchases shown on your current statement'.

Now I suppose it could be argued that cash advances are not purchases but nowhere in the agreement does it say this. Also section 3.2 of the agreement, which covers interest rates, there is a table showing various rates. One of which is the 'Special fixed promotion rate per year' which is 0.0% for cash advances. Confusingly the row below shows the length of the promotion period as '00', which I hope means indefinite rather than non-existent.

Either the website info is generic and the Clarity card works on different terms or the agreement, which is what I actually signed up for, is not making some fairly important details as clear as it should. I'll ask for further clarification next time I'm talking to them.

chattychappy

djc_uk wrote: »

I couldn't follow the link you gave (login required and I only login via links I know, no offence)

No, I don't blame you! Strange - I didn't need to log in to get to that page but it asks me for a log in too.

I got there via: http://www.halifax.co.uk/creditcards/clarity.asp, then "apply now", then "summary box".

djc_uk wrote: »

Confusion reigns

Ironic really... for the "Clarity" card...

djc_uk wrote: »

And section 3.4. just states that by paying the balance in full then 'we will not charge interest on purchases shown on your current statement'.

Now I suppose it could be argued that cash advances are not purchases but nowhere in the agreement does it say this.

Yep... I'd say a cash advance is not a purchase - I don't think the agreement needs to expressly say that, though it might do in a definitions section. (Where it might also say that gambling transactions or purchases of travellers cheques/forex are "cash advances", just to be clear.)

djc_uk wrote: »

One of which is the 'Special fixed promotion rate per year' which is 0.0% for cash advances. Confusingly the row below shows the length of the promotion period as '00', which I hope means indefinite rather than non-existent.

OK.. not sure what the promotion period of 00 means, but feel sure they don't mean "indefinite". Could it mean no promotional period?

In summary, I think what they want to say is that cash interest is always applied at the applicable rate from the date of transaction. Purchase interest is only applied if the balance isn't paid off in full (and then from the transaction date). The rates applied may be different (and even 0%) during a promotional period. But I have only seen the excerpts that you've quoted.

lisyloo

You and Nationwide have also failed to back anything you say with legislation - since you feel this is so important.

Huh? You are the one that's claiming their Ts&Cs are wrong and don't comply with legislation.
I am saying show me.
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve you, but I need to check it, to see the details and check for distinctions.

I will take what Nationwide say about their own product as correct until anyone shows me otherwise.
If you passionately believe it's wrong, you should demostrate it so that people like me don't unwittingly spread information that is incorrect.
Why can't or won't you do that?
It's looking more like it's because you can't back it up.
It can't be a lack of time as you're clearly spending it posting on here, so there must be some other reason you aren't willing to back up your claims?????

I think it's FAR from reasonable to go with a call centre operator's own interpretation of T&Cs. On that basis nobody with dispute anything with credit card companies.

I agree. But you do have to prove your case.

On your own admission, the excerpt of the T+Cs you quoted says nothing about credit balances.

Yes it did.
It stated "our loss".
Nationwide interpret the loss of a credit balance as not their loss.
It'#s come off the cardholders credit.

Incidentally, you are a "stranger off a forum" too.

Yes, but quoting from Nationwide.
This is not my interpretation as I've said many times.
Incidentally my own interpretation would have been quite different.

Come on, play fair.
I am saying I'll change my mind if you show me the evidence and prove your case.
I think that's a very reasonable and fair stance.
I am open to the possibility that the person I spoke to was incorrect.
If you don't want me (and others) spreading false information then why won't you provide the evidence as to why it's wrong.
Surely that would be the correct and honourable thing to do for the common good.
I don't understand why you won't help here???

I really don't get it?????
I've offered to go with the evidence but you just won't show it or answer my questions about the law.
In that case I have no option but to go with what Nationwide have told me and believe you just can't back it up.

I do also have a recollection that Martin agreed with me in the past (as Liverpool Victoria were different).
I haven't mentioned it before because it was some time ago and I'm not positive I could find it (can't remember if it was forum or article) and don't have loads of hours to spend finding it.

Biggles

lisyloo wrote: »

It stated "our loss".
Nationwide interpret the loss of a credit balance as not their loss.

This seems to be critical. Do we know this?

If a bank is held up and the safe emptied, does the bank say, "We have been robbed" and call the police or do they just shrug and say, "It seems our customers have been robbed. They ought to call the police". I would have thought the former.

lisyloo

This seems to be critical. Do we know this?

Absolutely we need facts.
If you pre-load your card against the terms and conditions is the lender liable???
Any concrete info on that is welcome.

Money accepted by a bank and taken into their care is quite different to you forcibly putting your card in credit against the Ts&Cs (which they may noy accept and will probably pay back).
Let me give follow your an analogy.
Cash that the bank accepted and that was put inthe safe/vault would be covered against theft. If you stuffed it through the front door which is not part of their procedures and they never accepted it and it got stolen, then I think you'd find it wasn't covered.
There is a difference there.

What we need now is factual information and not interpretations.

I have said I will go with the facts if they are provided, which I think is quite fair and reasonable. I have no axe to grind either way.

If money in credit where you've gone against Ts&Cs is the lenders loss then please show me.
If anyone can stop the discussion with facts, then I invite them to do so and want nothing more than to know the truth.

I have a feeling we may never know the truth until there is a test case, where the bank claims it was agasint Ts&Cs, they never accepted the money and were in the process of sending it back.
If that's the case and the outcome is currently unknown, then I claim it is still a risk (a very small one if pre-loading for a few days).