Package account reclaim legal advice

PatriotDave22

After reading advice on here I sent a letter off 3 days ago, got a phone call yesterday saying they'd looked at my claim of claiming back unplanned overdraft fees aswell as mis sold package account. I had opened a Platinum account in April 2010 and then upgraded to a Premier in December 2010. They said I didn't have a case for the unp;anned overdraft fees but that I did for the package account and I was offered around £1900 including interest. I accepted the offer over the phone and the manager said he would close the complaint.

He then called me back an hour later saying he had made a calculation error and that the actual amount should have been £600 and not £1900 because it was the difference between a Platinum and Premier account instead of the total amount of a Premier account over the 5 years in question as he said I was missold the Premier account and not the Platinum one.

So does anyone here have any idea if the original offer has any legal binding and that they should have stuck to it? Should I call back and try and haggle or just accept the £600? In the first phone call he never said it should be the difference between the two accounts and just gave me the figure, asked if I accepted it and after I did he said the complaint was now closed.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

grumbler

PatriotDave22 wrote: »

....I had opened a Platinum account ...and then upgraded to a Premier....
...
... he said I was missold the Premier account and not the Platinum one.

And what do you say?
Looking at your post I don't see that you were missold any of two.

PatriotDave22

Sorry I missed that part out as they admitted that the missold the account to me and aren't disputing that.

Basically I originally said I had been missold it on the grounds of being told I had an increased chance of getting an overdraft and that was my reason for changing from HSBC(as they wouldn't give me one) and also because the Sentinal Card Protection was missold to me at the time(and gave the jargon off here about it). The guy looked into it and said because I had signed an agreement in Branch for the first account(Platinum) he couldn't refund from March 2010 to December 2010 but he admitted the Premier account had been missold to me and he could refund it from when I upgraded to that account so the refund would be from December 2010 to November 2015.

During the first call he didn't once mention the refund would only be for the difference between the price of a Platinum and Premier account. He told me the figure and asked if I accepted which of course I did. He said it was complaint closed and that i'd get the money within 2 working days and i'd get a letter confirming all of this.

He then rang back saying he'd made a mistake calculating it and it should only be for the difference of the two and not the whole amount of a Premier account and gave the new figure.

I'm just curious as to whether his first amount is legally binding? I am positive it is. It isn't like he told me it would only be for the difference in the first call and then gave me the wrong figure, he made no mention of that so a layman would not be expected to realise the figure was wrong. If he had told me that then it would be pretty obvious that the amount is way higher than it should be an an error has probably occured.

Steve_xx

I have real difficulty with right thinking people who say that they were missold something like this. Surely the onus, in part at least, must be on the buyer to read the respective terms and conditions of the product that they are offered and understand what that offer includes?

If a person is mentally compromised in some way and has a product foisted on them by an over-zealous banker, then yes there is cause for redress. But joe average simply stating that they didn't know what they were buying is simply a tad too much to bear.

Steve_xx

PatriotDave22 wrote: »

Sorry I missed that part out as they admitted that the missold the account to me and aren't disputing that.

Basically I originally said I had been missold it on the grounds of being told I had an increased chance of getting an overdraft and that was my reason for changing from HSBC(as they wouldn't give me one) and also because the Sentinal Card Protection was missold to me at the time(and gave the jargon off here about it). The guy looked into it and said because I had signed an agreement in Branch for the first account(Platinum) he couldn't refund from March 2010 to December 2010 but he admitted the Premier account had been missold to me and he could refund it from when I upgraded to that account so the refund would be from December 2010 to November 2015.

During the first call he didn't once mention the refund would only be for the difference between the price of a Platinum and Premier account. He told me the figure and asked if I accepted which of course I did. He said it was complaint closed and that i'd get the money within 2 working days and i'd get a letter confirming all of this.

He then rang back saying he'd made a mistake calculating it and it should only be for the difference of the two and not the whole amount of a Premier account and gave the new figure.

I'm just curious as to whether his first amount is legally binding? I am positive it is. It isn't like he told me it would only be for the difference in the first call and then gave me the wrong figure, he made no mention of that so a layman would not be expected to realise the figure was wrong. If he had told me that then it would be pretty obvious that the amount is way higher than it should be an an error has probably occured.

What was your response to him after he made the reduced offer?

PatriotDave22

Steve_xx wrote: »

I have real difficulty with right thinking people who say that they were missold something like this. Surely the onus, in part at least, must be on the buyer to read the respective terms and conditions of the product that they are offered and understand what that offer includes?

If a person is mentally compromised in some way and has a product foisted on them by an over-zealous banker, then yes there is cause for redress. But joe average simply stating that they didn't know what they were buying is simply a tad too much to bear.

That is all irrelevant though, I only found out I could make a claim because of this website which I am very thankful for.

The bank has admitted that they did missell me the account, that's not the issue. The issue is that they gave me a settlement figure which I accepted only to go back on it an hour later claiming a calculation error.

I have done some digging around but all I can find is consumer law and it relating to buying goods that are mispriced. It basically says that is an item is priced at £10 instead of £1000 and it's obvious that it's a mistake then the company doesn't have to honour it. But if it's priced at £900 instead of £1000 it isn't so obvious and the average person would not know it's a mistake. I am just wondering if this applies here as the average person cannot know(as I wasn't told) that I would only get a refund for the difference and not the full amount. If I had been explained that then it would be obvious a mistake had been made in calculation and I'd leave it.

PatriotDave22

Steve_xx wrote: »

What was your response to him after he made the reduced offer?

I said I'd think have to think about it and get back to him within a couple of days. The original claim I put in for was for £2000 so the £600 I'm unsure whether to accept it based on how low it is anyway but as he already offered me the £1900 I am wondering if the bank now has to honour it.

Steve_xx

PatriotDave22 wrote: »

I have done some digging around but all I can find is consumer law and it relating to buying goods that are mispriced. It basically says that is an item is priced at £10 instead of £1000 and it's obvious that it's a mistake then the company doesn't have to honour it. But if it's priced at £900 instead of £1000 it isn't so obvious and the average person would not know it's a mistake. I am just wondering if this applies here as the average person cannot know(as I wasn't told) that I would only get a refund for the difference and not the full amount. If I had been explained that then it would be obvious a mistake had been made in calculation and I'd leave it.

This is not the same a buying goods in a shop. Goods on sale in a shop are what is known as "an invitation to treat". The price on the goods is actually an invitation for you to make an offer to the shopkeeper. You do this at the point that you take the goods to the till and he/she accepts the amount of money that you offer for the goods. The shopkeeper is not actually obliged to sell you the goods. They can refuse to do so, and it's likely that they would do if the price on the shelf was say £100 instead of £1000.

The contract to buy the goods isn't made until the money has changed hands. At that point both parties are said to have agreed the respective terms.

Steve_xx

PatriotDave22 wrote: »

I said I'd think have to think about it and get back to him within a couple of days. The original claim I put in for was for £2000 so the £600 I'm unsure whether to accept it based on how low it is anyway but as he already offered me the £1900 I am wondering if the bank now has to honour it.

It's difficult since there is no written proof here of what was said.

You could say that you will not accept the revised offer and see where that gets you. But in the absence of anything written then you run into immense difficulty in proving the original offer.

PatriotDave22

Steve_xx wrote: »

It's difficult since there is no written proof here of what was said.

You could say that you will not accept the revised offer and see where that gets you. But in the absence of anything written then you run into immense difficulty in proving the original offer.

All calls are recorded so surely that will prove what the original offer was? And if so I cannot see how they can go back on that original offer as it was accepted and deemed closed by both parties. Verbal agreements can be as legally binding as written ones and if we had both signed a written agreement only for an hour later them to say "actually, I miscalculated something" the signed agreement would still be valid. There is no going back on it, not to my knowledge anyway.

Steve_xx

PatriotDave22 wrote: »

All calls are recorded so surely that will prove what the original offer was? And if so I cannot see how they can go back on that original offer as it was accepted and deemed closed by both parties. Verbal agreements can be as legally binding as written ones and if we had both signed a written agreement only for an hour later them to say "actually, I miscalculated something" the signed agreement would still be valid. There is no going back on it, not to my knowledge anyway.

Yes, a good pointed re the recording of calls.

Verbal agreements are as binding as written. But without written agreement there is a burden of proof. I'm sure that you understand that this burden can be somewhat cumbersome to establish?

Also, to my mind you are likening it to being a type of contract and I'm not sure that you can actually liken it to contract law. In contract law there needs to be several elements present and one of those elements is 'consideration'. For example, you get someone in to paint the ceiling and the cost is £100. So in this contract instance you agree that someone paints the ceiling for you and the consideration is £100. You are effectively exchanging a skill for some money.

In the case of compensation there is no consideration present, so I'm unsure that it would have contract status.