Bank Accepts no liability for declining legitimate payment

Rincewindwiz

For me at least, a new extreme to banks ducking responsibility.
My home insurance is paid by Continuous Payment authority and has been for the last 3 years.

This year (year 3) the bank decided to decline the payment. I did not find out about this until 10 days later when I collected a letter from my insurers telling me that, despite several attempts, the Halifax had declined payment and, as a result, I was uninsured.
At this stage:-
1. All credit card payments due had been made
2. The balance + insurance payment was well below the credit limit
3. The same transaction had been made twice before
Fortunately, disaster failed to strike in the 10 days; I paid the insurance premium and no lasting damage was done.

I asked the Halifax why they had declined the payment and they said there were a number of fraudulent payments relating to insurance recently and 'to ensure safety and security' or 'following policy' or some other such unhelpful noises I gave up.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I wrote to the Halifax who confirmed that
- they reserve the right to block any payment at any time for pretty much any 'reasonable' reason (under the heading of 'policy')
- they do not accept any responsibility for loss or suffering incurred by the card holder when a transaction is stopped.

So in short, if the house had burned down in that period when it was uninsured, the Halifax would have washed their hands and I would have been left in a 'bit of a mess'!!

Doesn't really seem fair or reasonable dies it?
Or am I being unreasonable in my expectations

yangptangkipperbang

1. Take your business elsewhere.
2. If you have been with the same home insurer for 3 years, suggest you shop around for as better deal - you will find one !

meer53

Rincewindwiz wrote: »

For me at least, a new extreme to banks ducking responsibility.
My home insurance is paid by Continuous Payment authority and has been for the last 3 years.

This year (year 3) the bank decided to decline the payment. I did not find out about this until 10 days later when I collected a letter from my insurers telling me that, despite several attempts, the Halifax had declined payment and, as a result, I was uninsured.
At this stage:-
1. All credit card payments due had been made
2. The balance + insurance payment was well below the credit limit
3. The same transaction had been made twice before
Fortunately, disaster failed to strike in the 10 days; I paid the insurance premium and no lasting damage was done.

I asked the Halifax why they had declined the payment and they said there were a number of fraudulent payments relating to insurance recently and 'to ensure safety and security' or 'following policy' or some other such unhelpful noises I gave up.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I wrote to the Halifax who confirmed that
- they reserve the right to block any payment at any time for pretty much any 'reasonable' reason (under the heading of 'policy')
- they do not accept any responsibility for loss or suffering incurred by the card holder when a transaction is stopped.

So in short, if the house had burned down in that period when it was uninsured, the Halifax would have washed their hands and I would have been left in a 'bit of a mess'!!

Doesn't really seem fair or reasonable dies it?
Or am I being unreasonable in my expectations

Did Halifax contact you about the payment to see if it was genuine ?

RichardD1970

Given your user name shouldn't it be "Inn-Sewer-Ants"?

scootw1

to reiterate meer53, halifax should have phoned not just declined. i think you have a good case for complaint here. you did all you could and you expect your bank to do the same. i would contact the ombudsman to complain as halifax are clearly in the wrong here

g6jns_2

scootw1 wrote: »

to reiterate meer53, halifax should have phoned not just declined. i think you have a good case for complaint here. you did all you could and you expect your bank to do the same. i would contact the ombudsman to complain as halifax are clearly in the wrong here

Before the Ombudsman will consider a complaint the banks own complaints procedure has to be exhausted first. The OP needs to take the matter up using this first.

Rincewindwiz

Thanks for your thoughts.
Yang . . . . Business will go elsewhere (because of other problems with the Halifax) - shamre really after 20+ years of reasonable service. Still I expect they think its progress!
Meer53. Contact. Not as far as I am aware. They claimed to have called. I did have a call (no message) from a withheld number (another complaint) so it may have been them.
Richard Sadly I dont know a 'twoflower!!
scootw1: Complaint in progress (which is how I come to have much of this information. Purpose of this post was to see if I was being 'unreasonable'. Now to fill out the Ombudsman's forms!!

If I ever get a response, I'll (try to remember to) post it here.

Thanks

scootw1

g6jns wrote: »

Before the Ombudsman will consider a complaint the banks own complaints procedure has to be exhausted first. The OP needs to take the matter up using this first.

it sounded as if the op had already complained to halifax which is why I said to go to the ombudsman. maybe i misread

dealer_wins

I would be very peeved if this happened to me. Any half competent fraud dept would see that this client has paid the same company for the last 3 years.

It should be blindingly obvious that the payment was genuine!!

PeacefulWaters

dealer_wins wrote: »

I would be very peeved if this happened to me. Any half competent fraud dept would see that this client has paid the same company for the last 3 years.

It should be blindingly obvious that the payment was genuine!!

I'd also expect the insurer to leave a short time window open for an alternative method of payment.

I'd expect FOS or court to ensure the customer wasn't out of pocket should an insurable event occur.

Albeit the FOS cannot enforce a payment over £150k.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/compensation.html

If we believe that fair compensation exceeds £150,000, the ombudsman can tell a business that it has to pay up to this limit and can recommend the business pays any additional amount as well.

chattychappy

My view is that there is no liability on the CC and no compensation due, whatever happens.

When you take on a CC, it is always clear that payments can be declined and this can happen for fraud prevention or simply as a result of IT problems. It is not YOUR money, simply a a line of credit. When there is a decline, I do not think that the CC is obliged to tell the cardholder - afterall the whole point is that they seem to believe (albeit wrongly) that the transaction is fraudulent. It is the insurer that initiated the transaction - so they should (of course) be told by the CC that it was rejected. Despite that, however, it does seem possible that in this case the CC tried contacting the OP.

This is an issue between the OP and the insurer. The OP wants insurance and is happy to pay for it. The insurer wants to provide a service and collect the money. The OP has tendered card details. The transaction failed. It is for the insurer to contact the OP and arrange alternative payment. If they (=insurer + cardholder) did not allow sufficient time to fix any payment issue then that's their mutual responsibility.