Stung by halifax web saver reward scam. Advice?

jem16

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

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

It also says on the same page;

Please be aware that we can not resolve individual disputes you have with a firm or arrange compensation. If you are unhappy with a financial product or service you should find out how to complain.

So as far as the OP is concerned nothing much is going to come of reporting the advert to the FCA.

jem16

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

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!

How do you know what Halifax did or did not provide? The FOS were obviously happy as they stated.

To decide what is fair and reasonable in this complaint, I have considered everything that Mr J, asattorney for Mrs J, and Halifax have provided.

Dr_Cuckoo3

jem16 wrote: »

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.

At the time of reading the post I was aware of the FCA advert remit and thought it likely that the contact was about this bearing in mind the FCA response did not deny remit

Dr_Cuckoo3

jem16 wrote: »

So as far as the OP is concerned nothing much is going to come of reporting the advert to the FCA.

There are ways of finding out eg FOI

helifox

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The banner is irrelevant because you didn't apply using the banner.

The banner still has an obligation not to mislead. to be legal, decent, honest and true. That's why I would like to see it.

You applied using the application form you posted. You decided to ignore the "IMPORTANT" notice on that form.

I didn't "decide"... I just didn't see it.

You now want to hold Halifax responsible for your decisions, and you accuse them of a scam (ref your thread title).

I would be less likely to accuse them of a scam if they hadn't refused to show me the original ad. - and hadn't sent me the wrong screen application forms twice. Seeing that they knew that their application was misleading people, had admitted it could have been clearer,and throughout this period spent well over a million quid persuading people that they were the ones who give a little extra - yes, I think it was a scam. Only a month after they had finally clarified things on the application form, and thus I suppose, weren't catching anyone out - they withdrew the product.

Anyway, whether it is a scam i.e. a deliberate trick, as opposed to inept business practice and unclarity, is beside the point. Which is, it was misleading - and they knew it, but despite crowing that they give a little extra help, they did the opposite.

Gaffy

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.

If you had mentioned this in your first post I'm sure we wouldn't have had 6 pages of arguing.

However to slightly defend you, I wouldn't be surprised if the original application form was actually designed like that so as to catch people out, it may be classed as sharp practices but definitely not a scam.

Personally, I think you're wasting your time writing complaint letters to everyone.

helifox

Gromitt wrote: »

I can just imagine that in court:
"Did you read the text at the top of the page where it says IMPORTANT in bold letters?"
"No, I didn't have time, I was in a hurry"
"Case closed"

Your never going to get your £1000 back, forget it and move on.

Next time don't apply for things whilst your in a hurry.

...I'd be keen to get your advice on how to deal with dementia while you're at it.

helifox

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

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

I have experience of the FOS

The cases on http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk are consistent with my experience

I have used the courts where the FOS has been rubbish

I received the full amount sought using the court , the awards on the FOS site are rubbish compared with the courts

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/personal_information/compensation

In respect of at least two complaints I have proved that the bank had mislead the FOS (one bank due to being thick and the other deliberate)

FOS are rubbish

This forum has more BCOBS information
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?824-Does-your-bank-play-fair


I am aware as "atush" states that the application may be different when logged in and a clearer screenshot would be useful http://tinypic.com/

Agree a clearer screen shot would be useful. Unfortunately the Halifax didn't send me one. What I posted was scanned at 600 dpi... I could enlarge the file... but it doesn't get much clearer.

helifox

jem16 wrote: »

Therin lies the problem. Yes you should have read what is on the screen as it's designed to help you.

what was on screen was contradictory. The big type said 2.8%. Click here to apply. No asterisks or T's & C's. (..As I remember... I wish Halifax would make things clearer by letting me see the banner.

Whilst it could have been clearer to those in a hurry, it is clear for those that take due care and attention.

I expect to be able to trust the bank. I don't expect to have to watch out for pitfalls when I am already a customer inside my (...well, my Mum's) on-line account. I might feel less determined to get justice in this case were it not for the fact that we forgave the bank for frequent errors which cost us time and money. There has to be some consonance.

BlindLeadingTheBlind

jem16 wrote: »

How do you know what Halifax did or did not provide? The FOS were obviously happy as they stated.

Then why not supply it to their CUSTOMER too?