Stung by halifax web saver reward scam. Advice?

jem16

opinions4u wrote: »

I am quite impressed at the OP's methodical approach here.

I opened the Web Saver Reward via online banking and recall making sure I didn't select the card option. So something prompted me but I can't recall exactly what.

Yes I did the same. I also remember telling my son about the account and telling him to make sure not to click the card option.

The fact that an element of care was needed in opening suggests that the product design or screen flows were not ideal. That said I suspect the overwhelming majority of customers navigated through to 2.80% with success.

I agree.

jem16

helifox wrote: »

My issue is that the type in the banner saying 2.8% was clear. I clicked to apply for 2.8%. That is what I expected to get. Admittedly I should have read everything on the screen - but I thought I was following clear instructions. I was in rather a hurry, and alternating between doing on-line banking and dealing with a partially demented 88 year old.

Therin lies the problem. Yes you should have read what is on the screen as it's designed to help you. Whilst it could have been clearer to those in a hurry, it is clear for those that take due care and attention.

dunstonh

FOS are incompetent bank lovers who will agree with the bank's version of events in respect of it's T&C and literature

Yes. The massive ratio of complaints the FOS make the banks pay out on really indicates they love banks.

If the FCA uphold your complaint and inform you of this then this will be useful in court as is the case with an ICO letter (para 4) http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public...n/compensation

The FCA do not investigate complaints. So, there will be nothing to uphold.

talexuser

I think you are possibly on to a loser, as in my first answer. However with £1000 is at stake I would write to the ombudsman again asking if they took into account the revisions that Halifax made to the application AFTER you had filled your version in.

Enclose clearly marked copies of the application 1) you filled out, and 2) how it was amended later by Halifax with clearer warnings, together with the money article, highlighting the fact that Halifax told the magazine "they could have made it clearer", which is a part admission of error.

The point to get across is whether the original decision was based on the correct application form submitted by Halifax and whether Halifax had informed them that they had admitted to the magazine at that date that their process was NOT perfectly clear.

You've nothing to lose and maybe something to gain. At the end of the day it IS your responsibility but I think Halifax could afford a goodwill gesture, because they did change the advertising, and/or form?

pqrdef

opinions4u wrote: »

I would also suggest with absolute confidence that it's no scam. There is no deliberate attempt to mislead.

Well opening the wrong e-saver is fairly harmless if you aren't committed to putting any money in it. The trouble only starts when you don't find out what you've done.

They don't send out any paperwork for online accounts, and they don't send any emails. And if you go looking for online T&Cs, you get a generic PDF for all savings accounts, so you read the bit that applies to the account you think you've got, but you still don't know what account they think you've got.

It didn't help that this product had two names. It's not exactly obvious that a "Web Saver Variable without ATM Card" is a Web Saver Reward but a "Web Saver Variable with ATM Card" isn't.

They haven't really learnt that lesson either. There's a strong flavour of Judaean People's Front in their product names. The ordinary mortal who may be interested in a Fixed Online Saver and not familiar with the entire product range won't necessarly know that when they say Online Saver they're talking about something else entirely.

Whereas, when they say Fixed Saver, they're talking about something that's almost identical, so you could very easily think it's interchangeable, and you could easily end up looking at the wrong one.

In fact it escapes me why the Fixed Online Saver exists as a distinct product from the Fixed Saver.

But when I click on Apply, it still takes me to a form that gives no description of what I'm applying for. There's no header. Near the bottom it says "Accept T&C for blah", but when I click on the T&C link, it takes me to a generic page. So if I've got into the wrong form and the account I'm applying for isn't the one I want, I'm not going to find out that way. (Incidentally, if I actually download the PDF and read it, the application will time out while I'm doing that.)

There's also a link for interest rates, presumably supposed to lead to another generic page with added confusion, but I can't tell because it's a broken link.

Nothing changes. Look at this stuff for 5 minutes and you can find 5 problems and 10 improvements. It's amateurish and incompetent and it comes from an organisation that ought to be an example of excellence.

Serious cultural issues here. The impression is that senior management have no interest in the processes and products and think all that's just technical stuff which should be left to minions.

Dr_Cuckoo3

Archi_Bald wrote: »

You not worried that the FOS could take exception with statements like these? They can easily identify you if they want to.

I am aware

more money via the courts is a no-brainier for me , although it is a shame to waive the FOS fee for the banks (the downside being a letter dismissing the case from a FOS thicko)

At the end of the day FOS are an irrelevance

Dr_Cuckoo3

jem16 wrote: »

All of which, apart from the post by opinions4u were after my post.

I answered your post and opinions4u in the same post to save time - both posts denied FCA remit

OP was correct in respect of FCA remit and I confirmed this

Dr_Cuckoo3

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. The massive ratio of complaints the FOS make the banks pay out on really indicates they love banks.

looking through http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ at non PPI complaints , I find the FOS to be crap and the awards lower than via the courts and my own experience supports this

Pro FOS comments on this forum appear to pre-date the http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ website

Looking at the http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ - I would use the courts and have done so prior to the existence of the http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

dunstonh wrote: »

The FCA do not investigate complaints. So, there will be nothing to uphold.

Already been proved incorrect in respect to adverts http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/protect-yourself/misleading-adverts/reporting-form

jem16

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

I answered your post and opinions4u in the same post to save time - both posts denied FCA remit

Both posts denied FCA remit because at no time prior to those posts did the OP say he was putting in a complaint about a misleading advert to the FCA.

BlindLeadingTheBlind

The devil is in the detail here! It would seem Halifax can't or won't supply copies of the advertising banner and application form that were current at the time the OP opened the account! Why not? It has to be questionable whether the FOS saw them! If they didn't see exactly what the OP used how could they rule fairly? They should have ruled against Halifax if for no other reason than their lack of cooperation.

OP has said the account opened was shown to them as the one with the higher interest. Is it usual to receive no confirmation of what account has been opened? The chap in the journalist's article did which was the prompt for him to close the account.