Stung by 0% transfer offer on existing CC

CLAPTON

JosephWatkins wrote: »

Well, that's one spin on it. Not a particularly helpful one though.

The thing I'm aggrieved about is not that I didn't get a good deal (it was similar to other balance transfer deals out there), but that I was suckered into a particularly bad deal by a bank I've used for many years.

you can choose to learn from my observations or you can choose not to.


did you really believe that you were specially chosen to receive a 0% deal because you were good person?

you really believe that having a long relation with a bank gives you special consideration?

grow up

in any event was it, in fact, a BAD deal or merely not as good as you believed.

tell us how much you saved and how much it cost you.

Missmarple

I thought the guidelines were to be nice to new people. No need for the harsh comments CLAPTON. Joseph please don't let this put you off using MSE.
We are a nice bunch really....your point is very valid and of course your bank thought you were a special person because you are

JosephWatkins

CLAPTON wrote: »

did you really believe that you were specially chosen to receive a 0% deal because you were good person?

you really believe that having a long relation with a bank gives you special consideration?

grow up

in any event was it, in fact, a BAD deal or merely not as good as you believed.

tell us how much you saved and how much it cost you.

Wow, I've really wound you up somehow, and you seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying.

I assume you're not a troll from the number of Thanks you have, but you certainly come across that way. Anyway, enough for me.

zerog

JosephWatkins wrote: »

I assume you're not a troll from the number of Thanks you have, but you certainly come across that way. Anyway, enough for me.

The thing is, this sort of problem/complaint comes up over and over again all the time, you're not the first or the last person to fall for it.

So you were a customer for 30 years, maybe that's the only reason they decided to pay you the interest back.

Lesson for the bank is not to offer customers like you anything at all, as it probably cost them a lot of money and you may even stop being a customer

chattychappy

JosephWatkins wrote: »

Of course this was hidden in the small print, which I didn't read, and I feel a bit of a fool. I class this as mis-selling. The offer was completely inappropriate for me on a credit card that I use for all my purchases,

If it was "inappropriate", why did you go for it? OK...because you didn't read the "small print".

Well... I have to be a bit harsh too.

First of all, it is not buried in the small print. People often say something is buried in the small print because they didn't read it or it wasn't brought to their attention at the time they made a decision. Reality is, the rule about no purchase interest if paid off in full is usually in the summary box. You took up the offer without referring back to what you agreed to. In fact, CC agreements are quite readable - yep it might take 10mins, but they are quite understandable and are written in plain English.

Secondly, "misselling" is irrelevant here. It is up to you to determine if something is appropriate for you and decide whether to buy it. That is the general rule in contract law. There are PARTICULAR exceptions where there is a special duty put on sellers to determine appropriateness - mostly particular areas of financial services (eg pension selling). Your mistake here is to assume it applies more widely.

Finally, I'd note that:
1) sometimes it is worth mixing purchases on a BT card
2) it may have been "appropriate" anyway - even if they see you put your purchases on this card. Because you might decide to take the offer and put purchases elsewhere. Certainly I've done that.

So this is the lesson:
1) You must famliarise yourself with T+Cs so that when you get an offer you can interpret the offer properly.
2) There is no duty on a CC to offer you "appropriate" offers. There is no "misselling" concept, only "missbuying".

I think the outcome is sensible. People do sometimes make the same mistake and they did a deal with you.

Missmarple

The same thing can be said in many different ways. I guess some people don't have any people skills. Perhaps it's because they have made so many posts they get above themselves. I thought troll too, I have been on here many years, before Clapton in fact. This is the new me because of trolls....
If as stated the same thing has been said over and over and you can't reply nicely then don't reply at all just stew in your own grumpy head.
Welcome to MSE joseph and please don't be put off, offer advice where you can and take it when needed. That's what its all about supporting each other.

chattychappy

The OP is probably ahead of his time.

The trend (like it or not) is towards more regulation. The FCA has taken over from the FSA in regulating most financial services. The OFT regulates credit cards but this is likely to change next year. The plan is that the FCA will take over CCs too.

Following the various scandals of the 1980s and 1990s (Maxwell pensions etc), it was felt that "people who handle your money" had to be regulated more carefully. In particular, products are complex and risk difficult to manage. So it became incumbent on sellers to take (share) responsibility for the buyer making the right decision and back this with compensation funds. This was felt to be less important in the case of CCs because, put simply, your money is not at risk.

I am quite certain that credit providers will find themselves in a similar situation soon - probably starting with the pay day lenders. Even with CCs there has been creeping regulation. Obviously the CCA1974 has been around since 1974 (!) but this has been beefed up since with requirements for APRs to be given, summary boxes, positive payment hierarchies etc.

CC operators routinely give out bad "advice" when people call up - for example fobbing off S75 claims or telling people they can't cancel a CPA (though we seem to be over that now and people can reclaim). Under an FCA type regime, simply giving out wrong information or poorly training staff could result in fines from the regulator even if no loss has been suffered. The FCA is out to prove itself and even the FSA in its dying days took a firmer line. Nobody feels sorry for the banks at the moment.

Back to the OP - I can well imagine that in the future there will be "warning boxes" accompanying BT offers. Indeed the CCs may simply stop making some of these offers - particularly if part of the model is to make money out of those who of misunderstood them. In the future changing regs could give these "victims" redress rights.

CLAPTON

Missmarple wrote: »

The same thing can be said in many different ways. I guess some people don't have any people skills. Perhaps it's because they have made so many posts they get above themselves. I thought troll too, I have been on here many years, before Clapton in fact. This is the new me because of trolls....
If as stated the same thing has been said over and over and you can't reply nicely then don't reply at all just stew in your own grumpy head.
Welcome to MSE joseph and please don't be put off, offer advice where you can and take it when needed. That's what its all about supporting each other.

In my view there is a big difference between posting up a rant about being unfairly treated and coming and asking for advice/information.

There is absolutely no reason why the poster can't have rant if they wish but I consider it quite reasonable to reply a rant with a different view.

If he had asked how best to deal with the resulting situation and info about other banks/CCs then the response would be very different.

I note your own contribution hasn't offered any advice to the OP but has been critical of others.

I'm sure we will continue to disagree.

Herbalus

CLAPTON wrote: »

In my view there is a big difference between posting up a rant about being unfairly treated and coming and asking for advice/information.

There is absolutely no reason why the poster can't have rant if they wish but I consider it quite reasonable to reply a rant with a different view.

I'm not sure it was a rant. I read phrases such as "to be fair" and "I feel a bit of a fool", and understand phrases as "I consider this to be misselling" as misguided, but it wasn't a rant.

Read posts like Chatty's - there is a measured and composed response to someone who hadn't understood what he'd got into. Kudos to him. Your contribution is welcome, but on this particular thread it would have been better if you'd adopted a similar approach.

JosephWatkins

Interesting stuff all, thanks. I didn't come on to rant, but there probably was some unwarranted search for sympathy, alongside what I hoped might be a warning to others. Apologies if the same thing has been said many times before, I didn't search for the same issue that thoroughly (probably the same failing that caused me not to spend 10 minutes reading small print)

As has been pointed out, I probably am lucky (perhaps I really am "special") to get a refund, so any complaints on my part unjustified.

Cheers