Packaged account claim

SRT

Hi,
I recently took up a claim regarding a packaged account with Lloyds using the resolver facility. I received a call from bank next day and they asked a few questions etc and asked me to email them as they seemed to have lost the resolver claim! I did so and it is now getting close to escalation point with ombudsman. Thing is I noticed that the facility to downgrade my account from platinum to a regular free account is denied me on the website.Part of my claim was associated with my not knowing about the free banking account I just assumed this was the norm, yes I know:o
However,its also denied me the option of upgrading it too but of course thats not going to happen anyway. I just wondered if anyone else had experienced this denial oddity or is it an oddity?
Thanks.

Mersey_2

Have you had this in writing, or do you mean there's a glitch with their website/portal you sign in to?

dunstonh

I did so and it is now getting close to escalation point with ombudsman.

Try it get is resolved before going to the FOS as the FOS are only currently upholding around 1 in 10 cases. Most go in favour of the bank.

Thing is I noticed that the facility to downgrade my account from platinum to a regular free account is denied me on the website.Part of my claim was associated with my not knowing about the free banking account I just assumed this was the norm, yes I know

website functionality is not a reason for mis-sale. Also, what you assume is not a reason for mis-sale unless they have created that assumption by telling you something incorrectly.

If you personally had no website functionality to change type of account but they offered it to others then you may have some success on that. However, if they just didnt have that level of functionality across the board then that complaint is doomed for failure (on that particular point).

I bank with Lloyds and the ability to change account type online was not always available. However, it is currently available and I can select platinum, silver and classic as well as joining club lloyds (I am on classic). Are you saying that the option to select classic account is not currently available to you?

SRT

I am seeing the message "sorry but we are currently unable to upgrade your account" when I check.

The original reason for claim was way back in 2002 when we (Wife and myself) were encouraged to upgrade from gold to platinum in a local branch review under advice that it was superiour for our needs and enabled me to have a premier credit card!
Never used any of the added benefits except I think AA was called once but I was already enrolled with AA and before that RAC. I was not told there was a free account and dont remember much of what was said tbh.
My query was really to see if anyone else was seeing this message and it would seem not. So I am just a little puzzled. The guy from Lloyds (when they phoned) said would I be happy to just have the free bank service and I said yes as I dont need the other stuff. Ive been with Lloyds for over 40 years. I dont hold out much hope of recompense but dont want to keep forking out £17.00 per month. I dont need car cover and can get travel insurance elsewhere. Phones cover is also not that important and we only had one mobile back when this was sold to us.

Mersey_2

Two separate points then: (i) potential reclaim of packaged account fees due to mis-selling and, a separate point/complaint: (ii) website faults.


Re (i) every complaint turns on the individual facts; but, worth pursuing as a lot of staff weren't properly trained and/or had targets to sell upgrades etc. When you email your complaint, mention you wish to transfer to a fee free current account and you had tried to request this online - but some banks prefer you to do this over the 'phone once the complaint has been dealt with. But I agree it seems silly to continue to pay the monthly fees as you didn't want or need the attached 'benefits.'


If successful, you'll receive back the monthly fees plus 8% pa statutory interest (minus a benefit used eg possibly the AA callout).

SRT

Just to say I have already emailed the bank regarding the potential mis-selling via the "Resolver" facility with MSE.hence their contact but nothing further since. I was asked if I would prefer the no fee account and said yes but nothing heard from them since.
I noticed the upgrade facility not working for me later.
I await another week before its all escalated to FSO and will mention the inability for me to downgrade then.

[Deleted User]

SRT wrote: »

I await another week before its all escalated to FSO and will mention the inability for me to downgrade then.

Please do realise that the Bank have eight weeks in which to respond to your complaint. After than you can, if you wish, refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, the eight weeks is just a fair period of time for the bank to consider your complaint, it's not a deadline after which you must refer.

I'd continue chasing the bank until you have a full and final response from them, otherwise all you will do is succeed in delaying the outcome even further and with no guarantees that FOS will side with you...

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

Two separate points then: (i) potential reclaim of packaged account fees due to mis-selling and, a separate point/complaint: (ii) website faults.


Re (i) every complaint turns on the individual facts; but, worth pursuing as a lot of staff weren't properly trained and/or had targets to sell upgrades etc. When you email your complaint, mention you wish to transfer to a fee free current account and you had tried to request this online - but some banks prefer you to do this over the 'phone once the complaint has been dealt with. But I agree it seems silly to continue to pay the monthly fees as you didn't want or need the attached 'benefits.'


If successful, you'll receive back the monthly fees plus 8% pa statutory interest (minus a benefit used eg possibly the AA callout).

The problem of course with i) is that it is not, in any way, provable and thus hearsay. A complaint that the staff *may* not have been trained and *may* have had sales targets are easy to refute by the bank and if the complaint mentions this it will be easy for the bank to provide sales scripts from the time or simply deny any sales targets existed ("he who asserts must prove"). With ii) as above, it is not a miss-sale reason, the fact you can't downgrade online is irrelevant as you could do it in writing or over the phone - there will be no proof that there was a glitch (and of course if there was you could just try the next day or next week) and if the bank has a blanket policy of not allowing downgrades online then it is irrelevant.

OP needs to focus on the benefits not being used / suitable (e.g. the duplicate AA cover, never using / registering for phone insurance) and be aware the use of AA would count against (and prohibits the "didn't know about the account" line)

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

T the fact you can't downgrade online is irrelevant as you could do it in writing or over the phone - there will be no proof that there was a glitch and of course if there was you could just try the next day or next week

Yeah, neither the Bank (nor the Ombudsman) will be interested in an additional "complaint" that downgrading is not possible online. The two are completely unrelated.

If the OP does end up referring the complaint to FOS without a proper full and final response, he should simply forward the original complaint, not try to find additional faults to add to his concerns.

Of course, all of this will be moot if (as might reasonably be expected) the Bank actually responds within the eight weeks.

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

The problem of course with i) is that it is not, in any way, provable and thus hearsay.

However many times you repeat that the claimant's evidence is "hearsay" does not make it true.


I realise what you are trying to say though. Uncorroborated third party evidence would be.


[Of course with many of these historic claims neither the bank nor the claimant can 'prove' what they contend, but they don't have to. It's on balance as with civil disputes, not a higher - eg criminal beyond doubt - burden]

dunstonh

Unprovable allegations require something to tip the scale. If there is nothing to support that allegation or make it likely to have taken place, then it will usually get rejected on that point (but there could be other things that see it upheld).

Outright evidence is not required but there has to be something that just nudges the balance of probability.

Credibility can often be the trigger point. I have seen ombudsman case reports where they upheld a case where there was no evidence and nothing specific to that particular point to suggest it happened. However, the provider had made so many errors in their rejection that turned out to be wrong, it cost them their credibility.

However, that does work both ways and you see many consumers lose credibility by making allegations that either contradict other allegations they made. e.g. 1) I never knew I had it.... followed by 2) I was told by the sales rep that I had to have it. Template letters downloaded from the internet are the worst offenders. Some claims companies use one-size-fits-all templates too and make the same mistake.