Stung by halifax web saver reward scam. Advice?

helifox

opinions4u wrote: »

Have you considered asking the FOS to re-open the case and consider the actual screen shots you followed?

I don't know which screenshots/application I followed... Halifax, after sending me the wrong screen shots twice, sent me the one I posted with the help of Cuckoo_3. It was for customers who were loged in, and I couldn't prove it was wrong, so maybe it is the right one. I don't remember seeing any warning but... conditions weren't ideal when I was filling out the application, and I trusted the original ad. promotion. I hadn't experienced forms that were not specific to a particular product before.

Perhaps the FOS did consider the application screen I followed... They never looked at the ad. but others have said that it is not relevant. I fail to see how to write one thing in very large print and then undermine it in very small print, and at the critical point of card/no card application not to say anything - and not to mention the drop in rate - isn't dodgy behaviour. But I am not confident that the FOS are anything but time-servers for the banks anyway... a cooling off period to exhaust the energy in the complaint before rejecting it.

opinions4u

I am not confident that the FOS are anything but time-servers for the banks anyway

They are not.

A good 50% of cases go against the banks.

Which seems about right where a dispute exists.

The FOS is more likely to back the consumer than a court.

helifox

Thanks for the info. I didn't know. I have only read what the disgruntled 50% have to say e.g. Consumer Action Group, Ombudswatch...etc. I guess the contented 50% don't make such a noise..

helifox

opinions4u wrote: »

They are not.

A good 50% of cases go against the banks.

Which seems about right where a dispute exists.

The FOS is more likely to back the consumer than a court.

Thanks for the info. Id only read about them on Consumer Action Group, Ombudswatch, etc. - and of course have my own experience. I'll be complaining about their 'process' today.

Hominu

atush wrote: »

I still don't understand why the majority of posters here, cannot accept that the web application form, and all emboldened and indicated terms and conditions were changed AFTER the op took out the acct.

I did accept the fact.

I said it was really the OPs fault for not following instructions (If someone says "IMPORTANT: Choose black when asked" and you decide to choose "White" without knowing the consequences you should have at least asked what those consequences were without blindly selecting it), but I also agreed that the form should have been made more clear, which it was later on.

dunstonh

CAG is anti bank. It doesnt matter whether the bank is wrong or right. They always take an anti-bank stance. It is a very biased board and has a reputation for giving out duff information as well. Doesnt mean all that is said there is wrong but you need to be on guard that you are not being led down the garden path by people who want every single thing a bank does to end up in a court.

The FOS is slightly consumer biased. It considers things that a court of law would not. So, it is nearly always easier to get a result on a complaint against a bank using the FOS than using the courts. The FOS can be inconsistent at times and some decisions can appear strange. That does work both ways. However, I can somewhat understand why that can happen as often you get different stories and have to take guess at a lot of it. What you say happened, what they say happened, what the evidence suggests happened and then what really happened.

When you use the FOS, you get an adjudicator decision. If you disagree with that decision you can refer the case to the ombudsman stating why you disagree. So, if you believe there are flaws in the response, the FOS does allow you to discuss these with both the adjudicator and ombudsman. You are of the belief that the form changed sometime after your application and that the bank hasnt shown the FOS the right form. Have you raised that with the FOS?

With the courts, the size of the font on the message about the card is not likely to be an issue. The presence of a message is. So, was there actually a warning on what to do there? (sorry if you have already mentioned it, with 10 pages, information is hard to recap).

When you submit your evidence to the court, what have you got to support your allegations? When Halifax submit their evidence to the court, what have you got to back your allegation that it is wrong?

helifox

dunstonh wrote: »

CAG is anti bank. It doesnt matter whether the bank is wrong or right. They always take an anti-bank stance. It is a very biased board and has a reputation for giving out duff information as well. Doesnt mean all that is said there is wrong but you need to be on guard that you are not being led down the garden path by people who want every single thing a bank does to end up in a court.

The FOS is slightly consumer biased. It considers things that a court of law would not. So, it is nearly always easier to get a result on a complaint against a bank using the FOS than using the courts. The FOS can be inconsistent at times and some decisions can appear strange. That does work both ways. However, I can somewhat understand why that can happen when as often you get different stories. What you say happened, what they say happened, what the evidence suggests happened and then what really happened.

When you use the FOS, you get an adjudicator decision. If you disagree with that decision you can refer the case to the ombudsman stating why you disagree. So, if you believe there are flaws in the response, the FOS does allow you to discuss these with both the adjudicator and ombudsman. You are of the belief that the form changed sometime after your application and that the bank hasnt shown the FOS the right form. Have you raised that with the FOS?

With the courts, the size of the font on the message about the card is not likely to be an issue. The presence of a message is. So, was there actually a warning on what to do there? (sorry if you have already mentioned it, with 10 pages, information is hard to recap).

When you submit your evidence to the court, what have you got to support your allegations? When Halifax submit their evidence to the court, what have you got to back your allegation that it is wrong?

Oh no...Thank you for your advice. I wrote you a very long post in reply - which helped gather my evidence.... but my login timed out and I manage to lose the post... New here. Suffice to say, I have read the thread opinions4u (who works for the halifax) started to inform money savers about the product, ( ...the thread where greigster - who had fallen for the .25% catch happily told everyone that he had been re-imbursed for the lost interest...) and I've seen that there were quite a few others having issues with the bank and the changes in IT at that time. I've no way of knowing whether Halifax gave me the correct application screen eventually...

I have been in touch with the FOS, who are now having a look at any flaws in their investigative process...

But I have finally managed, via the commercial director of Lloyds, to get through to the Executive Complaints Team, who are now looking into my issues. Hopefully, I will get a better outcome from them.

atush

good news, keep us updated.

Make sure the Exec complaints dept has a print out or a link the thread in question where the other poster was reimbursed.

helifox

atush wrote: »

good news, keep us updated.

Make sure the Exec complaints dept has a print out or a link the thread in question where the other poster was reimbursed.

I will. But the news is not good I'm afraid. I called the Chief Executive's office on Friday - and left a message there. They promise to return the call within 48 hours, which they do, but effectively it is an adolescent game of ringing the doorbell and then running away. On Friday evening I got a message to call Customer Services, and an extension to quote - I called on Saturday and the original caller was not in. CS told me that they refused to speak to me about my complaint. Sunday: same scenario. Monday: same scenario. Tuesday: same scenario. Tuesday evening...and there's a message to call CS. I call and they tell me that they won't speak to me about the complaint.
!!!!!!! As they say on streetcorners... before kicking things.
I now await a return call from the Executive Complaints office, but CS, who finally spoke to me a little before saying that they wouldn't speak to me, said that any calls to the Executive Complaints office are passed back to them to deal with... and you guessed it, they won't speak to me.
Today I was trying to ask CS where I might find the T &C's for the Web Saver Reward, but they refused to help. I asked what the original name of the account might have been in our internet banking; they refused to help. I asked how I might check (by digital date stamp) whether the application form they had sent me was correct; they.... ( place best guess here)

I have discovered that the reason why our account was called Reward Saver, even though that product didn't exist when we opened the account - is because when we found out that the interest was only .25%, and moved the money to another account, that was the account we moved to - and they simply changed the name but retained the same account number.

I hold out some hope for tomorrow - but not much.

helifox

opinions4u wrote: »

On the basis of how it compared to other savings accounts on the market, the historical position of the BofE base rate and the overall economic conditions, it would be something that could be proved as beneficial.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what I feel, they could always argue that the card was the "extra".

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.

...It wouldn't have been working at Halifax for 15 years, would it?

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.

Ah well, as long as most people made it - and Halifax were only skimming - what - what's a minority...? 10% of customers... then that's alright is it?

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

Given my experience with Halifax it is hard to imagine that deliberation could result in such inept behaviour... But it is certainly misleading, you have only to look at the thread that you began to promote the rate on 1 April 2011 to see that quite a few people were hoodwinked/misled/ caught/tricked. Whichever term you use, the loss is the same - and it is difficult to see how such behaviour is 'committed to achieving long term success for the Company by being the best bank for customers' - Corporate Governance.

opinion(s)4u:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer, establish sound security on borrowed money, keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn, help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Rather than this sub-Nietzschean aphorism - is it Ayn Rand? - it would perhaps be more honest to write:

"I have worked for Halifax bank for 15 years. Thus my opinions are not opinions, but one occluded opinion that cannot be said to be independent no matter how much I would like it to be."

I notice that it was you who began the thread on 1st April 2011 promoting the Web Saver reward - or whatever it is called - here, and that consequently there were a large number of people who had difficulties comprehending which product they had signed up for, what rate they had etc. - but it is noticeable that you neglected to mention any of that in the context of our situation and complaint. That feels rather disingenuous.