Packaged Bank Accounts - Hop on the Bandwagon Folks

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T&C's can't be used as a get out clause for selling a product you will never be able to use.

If the banks were going to argue anything, they would have already done so, but they have been prepared for this for a while. Someone high up in Barclays was stating they were aware of this miss selling and making provisions for it a few months back now.

They accepted it was sold en-masse to people it would never have suited. T&C's don't cover for that.

I agree that there will now be a bandwagon, and people who have used the products successfully will be all over this like a rash. However, that's no excuse to try and suggest this practice was OK.

I am not suggesting it was OK but lots of companies sell overpriced or rubbish products why should Banks be singled out.

Banks will never lose, I never thought I would say it but it wouldn't surprise me that account fees now become the norm for all. I am sure the those that take products and or leave healthy credit balances will get free banking.

Jo(e) Punter will just have to pay through the nose or do without.

I might just go and borrow Hamish's signature for this post.

michaels

I bought some condoms the other year, the pharmacist never asked me if my sperm had any mobility and then being as I am so ugly they expired before I got the chance to use them...can I have my money back?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know someone who had a laptop, which wasn't covered by the accidental insurance under her bank account package, as the item was was a portable item...and it so happened, indeed, so was every other electrical item as it could be moved.

When did banks sell laptops?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T&C's can't be used as a get out clause for selling a product you will never be able to use.

T&C's set out the, well, terms and conditions - they should be read by the buyer - don't like them? Don't buy the product.

I'm working on a new insurance product with Martin Lewis. If it turns out you don't use it then you get a full refund (because it turns out you didn't need it). You'll only need to pay the premium if a claim is made in excess of the premium.

There are a few things to iron out but the government love it because it puts money straight into the pockets of the people most likely to spend it i.e. those lacking financial skills.

Ciderarmy1987

We have a packaged deal with our bank account and we have made 2 claims on the insurance and both times they have paid out in full and been incredible helpful, ie not even needing full receipts for everything we claimed for. It is also had a nominal excess as well.

I don't think that these packages are blanket bad, people just need to take more responsibility of their own money.

I can go into a shop and by a jumper that is never going to fit me. Doesn't mean I should be able to claim my money back a year late because it doesn't fit!!!

Generali

It's a dangerous road if there is no principle of caveat emptor any more.

I realize it fits into the whole Labour thing of not trusting people but the Tories have had time to reverse some of this crap and frankly should have done so.

If it becomes too hard to do business in Britain, people will stop doing business there and then you actually will see some austerity rather than the current tinkering around the edges.

Fella

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am not suggesting it was OK but lots of companies sell overpriced or rubbish products why should Banks be singled out.

This is bang on.


Here's an anecdotal. The other day I was in Homebase & on a whim I allowed the double-glazing rep their to arrange a visit to quote for some work we're considering.


The sales guy turns up, assesses the work & quotes £4.5K. I say we'll think about it & let him know. He fiddles with his phone for a few minutes, does some calculations (lol) then says "I'm having a thought, I'm having a thought. If you can agree to this work NOW I can get it done "trade" for £4k."


I say thanks but we need to discuss it so I can't say yes now & that if that leads to us missing the "deal" so be it. So he says he can hold the price until 9pm that night.


The next day I'm working & can't answer my phone. He leaves a message in the morning saying he needs to know immediately if we want to proceed. Several hours later someone else from his Company leaves a message: "Um, somethings cropped up, without going into too much detail it's possible for us to do the work for £2.5K if you ring back immediately". We didn't call. A couple days later we got a letter saying the £2.5k deal had been extended indefinitely.


So there you go, this Co (a large Company) were happily going to deceive us out off at least £2,000 & quite possibly more (who knows how much they'd have gone down to if I'd actually uttered one word of negotiation?) Undoubtedly this is their standard procedure & 2 minutes of googling will demonstrate this is in fact standard procedure for pretty much every double glazing company in Britain. "Attempt to overcharge the customer by at least 50% initially & hope they fall for it."


No consistency whatsoever in the approbation being handed out to banks.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

T&C's can't be used as a get out clause for selling a product you will never be able to use.

You're right but you did muddy the water a bit with some of your examples. Obviously using travel insurance as an incentive to sell to someone who doesn't fit the criteria is dodgy, however selling someone credit card insurance that only covers their home nation isn't the same; they are still covered for that circumstance.

What I'd argue is that the regulations on selling products like insurance etc are insufficient. Surely it should be a requirement that the customers requirements and circumstances are both agreed and thus whether they are eligible and covered for their needs would be clear. Obviously this would make applying for an account with loads of add-ons more work but it should because you're buying lots of different things.

It sounds like the banks broke the current rules and that is why they are in trouble.

I would hope that if Gregg's was running a promotion where for each two meals you buy you can have a third but: not at the same time, from the same store, on the same day of the week, on the same date in another month, of the same type, only coppers accepted and within 5 minutes of the last paid for meal, then they'd get in trouble for it as well.

Masomnia

My mum ended up with the most expensive packaged account from Lloyds.

The main benefits being phone insurance (she has a phone worth a tenner), car breakdown cover (which she already has elsewhere), worldwide travel insurance (she never goes abroad), commission free currency (as above never goes abroad & they'll still get you on the spread), home cover (which she has elsewhere), and a £500 interest free overdraft (she never goes overdrawn).

She's just crap at saying 'no' to salesmen. I had to pester her for months to go in to get it downgraded to the free one.

No sympathy, really.

ILW

Fella wrote: »

This is bang on.


Here's an anecdotal. The other day I was in Homebase & on a whim I allowed the double-glazing rep their to arrange a visit to quote for some work we're considering.


The sales guy turns up, assesses the work & quotes £4.5K. I say we'll think about it & let him know. He fiddles with his phone for a few minutes, does some calculations (lol) then says "I'm having a thought, I'm having a thought. If you can agree to this work NOW I can get it done "trade" for £4k."


I say thanks but we need to discuss it so I can't say yes now & that if that leads to us missing the "deal" so be it. So he says he can hold the price until 9pm that night.


The next day I'm working & can't answer my phone. He leaves a message in the morning saying he needs to know immediately if we want to proceed. Several hours later someone else from his Company leaves a message: "Um, somethings cropped up, without going into too much detail it's possible for us to do the work for £2.5K if you ring back immediately". We didn't call. A couple days later we got a letter saying the £2.5k deal had been extended indefinitely.


So there you go, this Co (a large Company) were happily going to deceive us out off at least £2,000 & quite possibly more (who knows how much they'd have gone down to if I'd actually uttered one word of negotiation?) Undoubtedly this is their standard procedure & 2 minutes of googling will demonstrate this is in fact standard procedure for pretty much every double glazing company in Britain. "Attempt to overcharge the customer by at least 50% initially & hope they fall for it."


No consistency whatsoever in the approbation being handed out to banks.

Don't think it will be news to anyone that double glazing companies tend to use rather aggresive sales techniques.