Stung by halifax web saver reward scam. Advice?

helifox

talexuser wrote: »

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?

Th ombudsman - even though they accept that they did not receive all the evidence from Halifax - insist that their decision is final, and cannot be appealed. One can only appeal against the process - which, as far as I can see, will not re-open the complaint.

It strikes me as surreal that they make final decisions without reviewing all the evidence. In fact I have a letter from them, saying that the ombudsman would be reviewing all the evidence, which he clearly did not.
experience of them puts me firmly in agreement with Cuckoo_3 - even if, (Archi Bald) they come round and shoot my dog.

helifox

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.

Ok... ok - you're both right - and its my fault.
I could have been clearer about what I took to the FCA.
(Lucky it didn't cost you £1000...)
I'm just learning how to respond here - and there have been a lot of people to respond to , for which I thank everyone. This whole discussion has been tremendously useful for me.

helifox

jem16 wrote: »

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

Yep, I read that too, so I asked for copies of everything they got from Halifax. The first batch was entirely wrong. So I asked that they ask again. The second time out of 26 pages there was one that may have been relevant... the one uploaded in this thread. But no date to indicate when that was the live version for the application form. The banner advert. was never produced. I don't know whether the FO asked for it - I suspect not - but I asked them to.

helifox

Gaffy wrote: »

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.

Yes, actually that is what the ombudsman adjudicator said on the phone. That although it was sharp practice, it was not illegal - and therefore there was nothing they could do, as there remit is to challenge bank error. I challenged this, as his own letterhead says: 'The power to settle financial complaints' which a wider scope, but he just responded that their final decision could not be challenged, only rejected. I rejected it.

Dr_Cuckoo3

helifox wrote: »

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.

I can't read the wording in the screenshot you provided , it would be useful if you could provide the wording

I have had experience with the FOS where the bank has stated incorrect information either deliberately or because they are thick



FOS are incompetent rubbish see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15307444

FOS dismiss ATM complaint against ATM provider complainant contacts BBC and is told different

FOS = incompetent adjudicators

helifox wrote: »

The FO adjudicator who originally looked at our complaint took forever, and then apologised saying that he hadn't received voice messages and emails due to a technical error - and that he was now leaving the service, and passing our case on to another adjudicator. The second adjudicator also complained of issues with their server...

helifox

Dear Cuckoo_3
Although you can't actually see it the words read:

Variable Rate Web Saver Application
Thank you for your interest in opening a Variable Rate Web Saver account.
Before you continue with the application, please note that the following points apply:
- Open Variable Rate Web Savers from as little as £1 (without card) or £10 (with card)
- Interest paid annually
- Important: please note that if you are applying for a Halifax Web Saver Reward you must select the no card option within the application form.

Then lower down:

Would you like a cash card? Yes No

What occurs to me writing this out, is that if,as the heading states, I am applying for a Variable Rate Web Saver, why would I care about the terms of a Web Saver reward anyway?

helifox

Cuckoo_3 and Blind leading the Blind, many thanks for the BCOB info. That seems to be the best route to follow. If I pursue a case through the small claims court, though, I believe my claim has to be for a maximum of £300. Actually the discrepency is over £1000... Do I risk losing my entitlement to a full payout - preferably with some compensation for my trouble - if I go the small claims route?

Gromitt

helifox wrote: »

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

Considering my dad has dementia that would be no problem, but I fail to see why it needs to be discussed in a thread about Halifax's on-line account application forms.

rb10

helifox wrote: »

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.

Online adverts for bank accounts don't have to have an asterisk, or a note that T&Cs apply, provided they link directly to a page that does have these further details. It's considered 'good practice' to have this further information 'above the fold' (i.e. you don't have to scroll down the page to see it - it's straight there in front of you).

So in marketing terms, it would be considered completely acceptable to have an advert saying that they have a 2.8% savings account, with no further detail.

It is fair to assume that the advert you clicked on either linked you to the product page (which had the 'Important' message at least once on it, and it was above the fold), or directly to the application form (which, as you have already posted, also had this message, right at the top).

So I really can't see how seeing the advert can help. There's no requirement for the advert to describe the mechanics of what boxes to tick when applying. That' what the 'important information' at the top of the application is for.

Archi_Bald

helifox wrote: »

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

It doesn't make it it someone else's problem if you didn't see it (or were in a hurry, or were under stress because you were the carer for people with dementia etc etc).

It also occurs to me you seem to want to claim all sorts of mitigating reasons for yourself, but expect total perfection from the people that are behind Halifax's website.

helifox wrote: »

I believe my claim has to be for a maximum of £300.

You can take cases for up to £100K to MCOL https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees. For a claim value of £1,000 to £1,500, your initial fees will be between £70 and £80. You should, of course, allow for losing the claim, in which case you might face a bill of possibly tens of thousands if you have to pay Halifax's costs. You might also want to allow for the costs of your own Solicitor, unless you believe you can represent yourself. Going by the evidence you presented in this thread, I would think it is in your interest to take advice from a Solicitor before you open a Court case. Not least because you can be 100% certain that Halifax would respond to any Court case exclusively through their Lawyers.