iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

coolfan

from free to charging a fee, without getting an agreement from customer, just giving a notice, is this a fair trading? Does someone know?

Whilst I understand that you did not receive the communication, as an online platform we communicate primarily by message and email to our client and it is your responsibility to administer the account

- This is what they said to me. I am gutted. It sounded like they charged me because I didn't do my job properly. How can they treat their customers like that?

If it is legal, all I have to say is it's a big flaw in contracting law!!!

miller

antonio1 wrote: »

The first issue being did they provide advance notice (ie was it received by secure message, linked by a separate email). It’s going too far to say because an individual may not have read the message received, it doesn’t constitute notice. That’s not the law.

Well there was some discussion on here that they only provided 19.5 days because they forgot about the extra bank holiday for the jubilee.

tonyhamm

Success! Got the illegally debited money back from iii.co.uk a day after posting the chargeback form back to my bank, Nationwide.

---

The other poster with 20 yrs legal experiance concluded the iii.co.uk contract is illegal, but argued about the reasoning I used to get there - specifically that I was too bullish on the notice the company needed to give. I have posted many links on how contract law works to show the iii.co.uk major change of terms is illegal because they did not ;

1. Inform the other party to the contract about the major change in terms in a fair and reasonable manner.
2. The other party did not accept the new terms. (Offer-Acceptance) in contract law.

The onus is completely on iii.co.uk to give Notice to the other party in a fair and reasonable way. (The other poster complaining about me being too bullish was right, but only in the sense that minor changes in terms may still be deemed enforcable by a court, if it can be shown that notice has been given to the other party, and the other party continued with the contract (i.e. can thus be deemed to accept the new terms).

But NOT for MAJOR changes in terms (from free to fees). Acceptance has to be given by the other party for major changes of terms. Silence is NOT acceptance (see link below in relation to all this).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/26/online_contract_changes/

The special communication method adopted by iii.co.uk, and requirement for a consumer to check in every day to see if terms have changed is never going to stand up in court as enforcable (see the above link).

I would argue only fair way showing good faith (essential to a contract to be binding) and full agreement to the new terms for a company, would be by use of a 'opt in' tick box to the new agreement!

---

Regardless - you should not be worried about claiming back through requesting visa/mastercard chargeback from your bank these charges. Its far easier than messing about with iii.co.uk and behind the curve regulators like the FSO and trying to get your money back that way. The chances of iii.co.uk taking you to court to try and enforce an illegal contract's fees are near-zero.

tonyhamm

The normal advisors will not usually know the chargeback procedure. Always ask for a supervisor because you want to do a debit card chargeback.
In the 1990s I worked for a merchant who held both visa and mastercard merchant accounts so he could process phone orders - called 'cardholder not present transactions'. One of the bugbears of the boss was the debit card chargeback procedure - which at least that time was totally biased towards the consumer, because the 'cardholder was not present' this meant any consumer disputes were *always* settled on the side of the consumer. Even if we had dispatched the goods, and could prove it - a customer could still claim a debit card chargeback.We then had to chase the consumer. I would have expect this, after over 20 years, would have become more balanced with actual goods, but in cases of virtual goods like this I still would expect all chargebacks to be automatic against the merchant.
When I had the chargeback applied a few days ago against iii.co.uk the only question asked by the bank was if I had had physical goods delivered to me by iii.co.uk. When I said no the chargeback went ahead and the money was back in my bank in a day.

lisyloo wrote: »

So in summary should banks have done a chargeback?
I've got my money back direct from iii, but my bank weren't helpful and it's something I would like to know to be informed about my choice of bank.
Nat West have seriously gone down hill in the last few years.

I knwo their call center people can't be expert lawyers, but neither should I be expected to be either.

sabretoothtigger

Someone on here mentioned owning AIG and other now worthless shares in their account.

This seemed relevant to that, mentions something I thought impossible which is offsetting capital gain losses vs income tax.

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/general/negligible-value-claims-for-capital-gains-tax-purposes.html

Just in case its of help to people forced to sell zero'd assets

in cases of virtual goods like this I still would expect all chargebacks to be automatic against the merchant.

Thats not the case always, it will depend on the bank policy and maybe even how nice the staff are on the day. Generally if you received nothing, they shouldnt be able to charge you but it might take months to sort out details

is this a fair trading? Does someone know?

Its not unprecedented. Smile bank said the same thing, they are online only. So one month they charged me 300 without saying a word, over 20 a day and never sent me a letter or even an email. They said its in contract all we have to do is an online message (and this is a monthly summary not a new communication).
I had to sue them and really it was mostly due to FSA changes that their lawyer gave up I think. They are still top of ranking for customer service :laugh:

To this day I believe they refuse to issue any customer contact in exchange for their exceptional charges so this matches iii I guess

tonyhamm

So, a month later iii.co.uk disputed my chargebacks. The Nationwide advisor took their side, saying if I give my debit card details over the company can do what it likes. Nearly bust a blood vessel with him.

Nationwide said that its not worth thier time to represent the customer in arbitration as it costs them so much, so they will roll over for iii.co.uk. Nevermind the hundreds of other Nationwide customers affected.

Anyway, already complained to iii.co.uk with no reply so - onto the FSO/FSA. And then court.

lisyloo

The normal advisors will not usually know the chargeback procedure. Always ask for a supervisor because you want to do a debit card chargeback.

I don't think that's the issue here.
I think the issue is expecting a call center operator to distinguish between unfair/illegal/unenforeceable activity and a authorised charge.
i.e. exepcting someone over the phone to category whether it's fraud or dispute when actually it take lawyers and a court case to settle.
It has taken quite a lot of investigation and discussion on here to come to the conclusion that this wouldn't be an enforeceable change of terms.
I don't think this is something a call center operation and customer could decide on the phone (unless they were a lawyer or had done a lot of research).

So my bank (Nat West) decided that this was a dispute between myself and a retailer whom DID have authority on my card as opposed to plain fraud.

The issue is that it wasn't open and shut from the beginning, but thanks for all the education. I will be better informed next time.

tenpac

Has anyone else had another quarterly fee charged when their account is supposed to be closed? It's the second time this has occurred!

Bootsox

tenpac wrote: »

Has anyone else had another quarterly fee charged when their account is supposed to be closed? It's the second time this has occurred!

Yes just noticed a £20 charge (I stopped bothering accessing the account once I closed it and withdrew funds many months ago, so have only just noticed).

They truly are a shower, glad I took the decision to get out :mad:

sabretoothtigger

I think I was lucky that my debit card expired.
Maybe they are doing the same to everyone and making alot of money as most wont notice, there are firms that set out to do just that.

Im not sure this really works but since they dont have permission anyway, it might be best to report the card lost/damaged and get another one.

I found a better broker for me who charge 50p a deal and 25 a quarter which seems worth it to me.