Stung by halifax web saver reward scam. Advice?

Archi_Bald

atush wrote: »

Some of us out there believe you that the screen shots were different inside your current customer internet banking helping lead to your error. While I don't personally believe it was a scam, I do think Halifax was misleading and certainly should have provided the information you requested for your complaint.

Not sure how anyone could really end up with that believe. How do you explain that a fair number of others (possibly tens of thousands of people) managed to fill in that fairly simply application form correctly, from inside our internet banking as it was at the time, and ended up with the 2.8% reward saver? And all that around the same time as the OP claimed the "scam" was taking place?

I am one of the successful applicants and I can assure you that the application form wasn't exactly brilliant but it was absolute child's play to fill it in correctly. Moreover, it was absolute child's play to check the interest rate of the resultant savings account since it is (and was) prominently listed when you look at your savings account transactions online.

Hominu

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Moreover, it was absolute child's play to check the interest rate of the resultant savings account since it is (and was) prominently listed when you look at your savings account transactions online.

Yes but don't forget the OP's other complaint: He's shouldn't have to check his interest rate (as he doesn't have time), the bank are supposed to look after him as a valuable customer and let him know as soon as anything changes.

The application form was also far too complicated for someone who is as busy as him, it should have simply been "Do you want this account [Yes] [No] [Maybe]".

helifox

For those who want to assist:

Halifax p.a. to commercial director passed complaint to Executive Complaints team.telling me they would call day before yesterday or yesterday. I cancelled appointments to be here for them. they didn't call, but a member of the bereavement team informed me that they had written into our file that they had looked at it, and would take no action. Email sent to them asking them to call. No response.

Should I resist writing 'a little extra help' at this point?

I have written out the whole issue again, attempting to make my position absolutely clear - and sent it to someone relatively high in the Lloyds HQ establishment, who has promised to review it and report back.

For Crispy_chris:

Crispy_chris: I don't quite get why you're so hung up by the banner.

I, like you, am quite confident it just said "Earn 2.80% AER variable for 12 months with our Web Saver Reward." It probably also mentioned bank account customers get 3%.

I'm quite sure it didn't mention anything about the application process so why are you harping on about it.

I'm 'hung up' about the banner because advertising has a duty not to be misleading. It is not the 2.8% bit that is intrinsically misleading, it is the 'Click here to apply', implying that if you click you get 2.8%. Not mentioning that if you also click 'there' you reduce the rate to .25% is ( at the least) misleading... I'm also 'hung up' about the title of the application form: Variable rate Web Saver. That is the application form for the 2.8% offer, but a Variable rate Web Saver is what we got. we just didn't get the rate, that is not mentioned in T & C's either.

Archi_Bald

I dread to imagine you driving from Edinburgh to London, helifox. You'd probably end up in Carlisle because your passenger said they liked to idea to stop of in Carlisle. There's a big sign saying that if you leave here you can't get back on the motorway for the next 72 hours. You do as your passenger suggests, leave the motorway and go into Carlisle.

24 hours later, you are still in Carlisle because you can't get on the motorway. You would then complain to the Department of Transport that motorway signs are misleading because you didn't end up in London even though the signs on the motorway said you were on the road to London.

I know this is an utterly ridiculous scenario - - but it is in fact no less ridiculous than you harping on about it being someone else's fault if you have read an ad for one thing but ended up signing up for another because you decided to ignore the clear instructions on the application form and instead went with something your Mum liked the idea of.

helifox

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

A couple more links for you:

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/community/charity_of_the_year.asp
https://www.moneyforlifeprogramme.org.uk/money-management/living-with-dementia/

This deserved a special post just to say thank you, thank you!

rbn

I have registered just to post in this thread.

I’ve looked at the fax posted and the possible advert. Helifox, in your favour I’d say:

• You answered a question about a cash card. It should have no bearing on which account is opened. And, it did not state it would anywhere on the application form (the one in the fax).
• If it was meant to, it is the wrong question. The correct question would be something like: Which account are you applying for? [ ] Web saver reward (without cash card) (2.8% AER) [ ] Web saver (with cash card) (0.25% AER)
• The advert did not place any conditions on the interest rate. Significant conditions are supposed to be mentioned.
• No other interest rate was mentioned in the path you took to apply for the account. It’s not your responsibility to check Halifax are applying the correct interest rate to your account.

My advice would be to focus on those points and keep it concise.

On legal action, the small claims track isn’t a separate court, just a different track for cases and will up at the county court. Unlike other posters would have you believe, you don’t generally pay the other side’s solicitors’ costs in small claims. However, it depends on things like reasonable conduct. I will PM you some links (hopefully) as I can't post them.

Archi_Bald

rbn wrote: »

Unlike other posters would have you believe, you don’t generally pay the other side’s solicitors’ costs in small claims.

I was awarded my costs, as well as a sum for disturbance, when a small claim against me was turned down.

The claim was for £1,800. So it cost the claimant some £30 to get the case to Court. They lost the case. I was awarded the entire costs of the Solicitor who represented me, as well as a significant sum for disturbance. This was a whole lot more than the £1,800 the claimant went to Court for. The claimant initially refused to pay, but the Sheriffs were able to liquidise sufficient assets of the claimant to cover the full sum the Court had awarded to me.

The claimant had also ignored the advice of the Judge to get the advice of a Solicitor, and insisted in representing themselves. The entire matter caused the claimant very significant hardship but they had inflicted all of it onto themselves.

It is quite ridiculous to suggest that costs of the winning side would not normally play a part in a small claims court case. If the claim is ridiculous, and the defense is worth their mettle, they will raise a counter-claim (as my Solicitor did in my case) and get their costs paid. It's probably safe to assume that the Halifax solicitors, who would be responding to any court case, will be worth their mettle.

Hominu

Indeed, I would think that the solicitors working for Halifax are not going to be cheap or friendly and will do everything in their power to ensure they win. Once you get to that state the amount claimed goes out the window.