Packaged Bank Accounts - Hop on the Bandwagon Folks

Masomnia

Malcnascar wrote: »

Guess I'm just a numty.

I've been in hospital twice abroad with the travel policy on my account. I used the brakdown cover just before christmas when my son collected us in his car from a do.

I love my cover but made the crass mistake of reading the policy in advance, realising the bits i was paying for would be of use and declaring my health issues before signing up. Shame on me.

BTW my mobile operator charged me for the 0845 access number and I didn't feel the need to complain, I just did some research and got an 08 wizard app on my phone. Damm another opportunity to rant gone

If you use the benefits then it's probably worth it. Nowt wrong with that!

Fella

ILW wrote: »

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

And yet it seems to be such shocking news to everyone that banks do.

N1AK

Fella wrote: »

And yet it seems to be such shocking news to everyone that banks do.

Unless we start mandating a legal profit margin or price for specific goods there will always be variation in pricing. That isn't the same as selling someone a service which they won't be able to use when the only way they could tell is if they wade through the small print.

Fella

It's all double-standards & hypocrisy IMO. A gas company wouldn't be allowed to charge some of their customers 50% more than others so long as the overcharged group didn't question it. But for a double-glazing company that's considered perfectly acceptable. The treatment given to banks is equally hypocritical, they're just a soft target now. Which is most unfortunate for us since we own large chunks of them.

grizzly1911

Fella wrote: »

It's all double-standards & hypocrisy IMO. A gas company wouldn't be allowed to charge some of their customers 50% more than others so long as the overcharged group didn't question it. But for a double-glazing company that's considered perfectly acceptable. The treatment given to banks is equally hypocritical, they're just a soft target now. Which is most unfortunate for us since we own large chunks of them.

Energy companies do charge some customers more for the exactly the same product delivered over the same infrastructure. It is just the way that you manage the account that differentiates price.Nobody cares about the punters stuck on a prepayment card account.

Fuel companies charge people differing prices for the same product that bears no relation to the logistics or quality of stuff dispensed. They add all those detergents in some fuels that are better than someone else's allegedly. How do we know.

Bottled water companies charge wildly differing prices for exactly the same product - water.

Best not mention Apple v. PC/Smart phones. Perhaps they should be targeted because your voice and emails sound/look the same as a cheaper product

The list is endless. As long as someone is prepared to accept being ripped off they will be. To pinch a nother thread topic- perhaps you should have to pass an IQ test to have a bank account or to shop at all really.

Yes banks are soft targets, they are greedy, but then most capitalist organisations are that is life

This country is compo capital and as you say it is the taxpayer that will lose out.

Thrugelmir

If this action results in succesful claims. Then may the final nail in the coffin for free current account banking in the UK. As already under review by several banks.

michaels

I wonder if anyone has both succesfully cliamed for PPI mis-selling (perhaps on the basis that they thought a loan would only be available if they took the policy) and claimed on the policy following an insured event happening - I can't see that the two are mutually exclusive

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I wonder if anyone has both succesfully cliamed for PPI mis-selling (perhaps on the basis that they thought a loan would only be available if they took the policy) and claimed on the policy following an insured event happening - I can't see that the two are mutually exclusive

I don't think you could if you had a claim on the insurance, as it worked for you.

I'm on the side of the customer here, only because of experience. I've said before, my dad was laid off work due to a diability and the bank wriggled out of his PPI insurance on some really vague basis (basically that he didn't tell them he went to the doctors several months previously to being diagnosed with what laid him off work).

At the time he went to the docs, it was put down as a sprain. Why would he ring and tell his insurers this? But because he didn't do so, they denied his claim. In hindsight, the problem was linked, but at the time, it's not.

He successfully got FAR more back than he would of if they had settled the claim at the time. But in the meantime he was without work and paying a loan he thought he'd covered himself for AND still had to keep up the insurance payments, even though they would never again pay out.

Hence anything which has been shown up to be illegal, I'm on the side of the consumer. There will be many having paid money out to cover themselves, who went on to find they are not covered when it comes to claiming.

Fella

michaels wrote: »

I wonder if anyone has both succesfully cliamed for PPI mis-selling (perhaps on the basis that they thought a loan would only be available if they took the policy) and claimed on the policy following an insured event happening - I can't see that the two are mutually exclusive

I wonder just how many of the spivs that sold ppi now make a good living working for the companies claim back ppi.