B £250 Incentive not being paid!!!128547;

meer53

18cc wrote: »

Well glad everyone got their £250 (including me) well done - - but the OP didn't and a quick peruse through the main thread on he subject shows that others fell foul. The 5 examples below are just from pages 57, 58 and 59. I would bet there are LOTS of people (not necessarily on MSE) who didn't get their switching bonus.


chudlyette: I have been told that I can't have the £250 because I did not complete the switch within 31 days. However, I do not remember seeing this advertised prominently when I went on to the site.


mary223: Turns out I'm an idiot and messed up the dates to make the £1000 transfers so I actually sent the 2nd £1000 a day early meaning they were both within the first 31 days.


soulsaver: I made a similar mistake (paid the first £1000 3 days late as didnt count weekend in my 31 days )


alpinef30: Apparently I didn't deposit enough into the account between the switch date and the 62 days even though I switched on 28th November, deposited £1700 on the 19th of December and another £1100 on the 13th January. Told me that it had failed and there was nothing they could do.


isaadvice: Turns out I'm an idiot and messed up the dates to make the £1000 transfers so I actually sent the 2nd £1000 a day early meaning they were both within the first 31 days. They said sorry but I'm not eligible

So, they all show that the mistakes were self inflicted, nothing to do with B "trying to catch people out" There probably are people who didn't meet the criteria but there are far more who did. I don't understand your point ?

soulsaver

18cc wrote: »

Well glad everyone got their £250 (including me) well done - - but the OP didn't and a quick peruse through the main thread on he subject shows that others fell foul. The 5 examples below are just from pages 57, 58 and 59. I would bet there are LOTS of people (not necessarily on MSE) who didn't get their switching bonus.


chudlyette: I have been told that I can't have the £250 because I did not complete the switch within 31 days. However, I do not remember seeing this advertised prominently when I went on to the site.


mary223: Turns out I'm an idiot and messed up the dates to make the £1000 transfers so I actually sent the 2nd £1000 a day early meaning they were both within the first 31 days.


soulsaver: I made a similar mistake (paid the first £1000 3 days late as didnt count weekend in my 31 days )


alpinef30: Apparently I didn't deposit enough into the account between the switch date and the 62 days even though I switched on 28th November, deposited £1700 on the 19th of December and another £1100 on the 13th January. Told me that it had failed and there was nothing they could do.


isaadvice: Turns out I'm an idiot and messed up the dates to make the £1000 transfers so I actually sent the 2nd £1000 a day early meaning they were both within the first 31 days. They said sorry but I'm not eligible

The post you are attributing to me you've edited to look like mine but in fact is a quote from Mary223, as is your last example.
I didn't miss any deadline and did receive the £250.

18cc

@soulsaver yes you are completely right, my apologies.

18cc

No major 'point' here - just that the T&C seem to have caught a few people out and saying the mistakes were 'self inflicted' whilst true does not address the fact that the T&C were overly complicated. That's all I was saying (cf eg Natwest, Halifax et c who have simpler T&C).

ValiantSon

meer53 wrote: »

The terms were very simple and clearly explained. Thats why most people (me included) have received their £250 with no problem. How can they be designed to catch people out ? You read the t & c's, you follow them, hey presto, £250 !

Well done you!

The terms were convoluted and, I believe, designed to catch some people out. You managed to follow them to the letter, but some people haven't. If you honestly can't see how they could have been designed to catch people out then I'm puzzled as to how to explain it any more clearly to you.

I am unaffected by all this, but I sympathise with those who have been caught out and am disappointed at the smugness and condescension in some of the posts that have appeared here.

meer53 wrote: »

So, they all show that the mistakes were self inflicted, nothing to do with B "trying to catch people out" There probably are people who didn't meet the criteria but there are far more who did. I don't understand your point ?

No, that doesn't actually prove that the terms and conditions weren't designed to catch some people out. Neither does it prove that they were. People have different opinions on this, and unless any of us are privy to the discussions that led to the formation of the terms and conditions, we will continue to hold opinions rather than facts.

Yorkshire_Pud

If it was me I think I would tell the bank that I switched to get a better account and of course the £250 incentive. Having switched accounts but being denied the incentive due to falling foul of some T&C I would tell them I fully intended to switch away ASAP IF they didnt honour the incentive as it felt wrong and a waste of time as they got my custom but I didn't get the reward.

Result unhappy customer.

I would then make a formal complaint. They don't like this because they HAVE to formally consider it, it looks bad on their stats, takes up their time and may incur a fee paid to the ombudsman if it goes that far and if you want it to it will:)

Whilst it is easy enough to say should have kept to the T&C, if the result of switching is they get a new statistic/customer but save themselves £250 through slight error then they aren't keeping to the spirit of the offer and any intransigence could indeed be seen as 'cheating' the customer.

Go on give it a try, COMPLAIN, and don't listen to the gloating did it 100% correct brigade and don't listen to YB if they don't listen to you and don't let YB tell you the result of your complaint on the ombudsman's behalf, call their bluff and go for it! It works, just work through the process methodically and you will get your money plus £50 for your time wasted chasing it up:)

meer53

ValiantSon wrote: »

Well done you!

The terms were convoluted and, I believe, designed to catch some people out. You managed to follow them to the letter, but some people haven't. If you honestly can't see how they could have been designed to catch people out then I'm puzzled as to how to explain it any more clearly to you.

I am unaffected by all this, but I sympathise with those who have been caught out and am disappointed at the smugness and condescension in some of the posts that have appeared here.



No, that doesn't actually prove that the terms and conditions weren't designed to catch some people out. Neither does it prove that they were. People have different opinions on this, and unless any of us are privy to the discussions that led to the formation of the terms and conditions, we will continue to hold opinions rather than facts.

Most banks had t & c's relating to incentives, the ones for B weren't any more "convoluted" than the others. They were clearly explained, most people managed to follow them, if people didn't, how does that make them "designed to catch people out" ?

ValiantSon

meer53 wrote: »

Most banks had t & c's relating to incentives, the ones for B weren't any more "convoluted" than the others.

They definitely were more convoluted. Please identify another switch incentive with terms similar in nature to this one.

meer53 wrote: »

They were clearly explained, most people managed to follow them, if people didn't, how does that make them "designed to catch people out" ?

I've already explained this to you. Just because some (even most - although you have no evidence to support that claim) were able to get the incentive, it doesn't mean that terms and conditions weren't intended to catch some people out. There is a logical flaw in your argument.

soulsaver

Well, I can't think of any rational reason to 'catch people out'. YB's clear intention is to attract & keep (at least for a while) new custom(ers) with switching DDs & SOs and cash etc., spin off CC business & raise their profile.
On the other hand I do believe their switching Ts&Cs were badly written and could confuse.. shown by several debates in the main thread.

So - middle ground?

YorkshireBoy

soulsaver wrote: »

On the other hand I do believe their switching Ts&Cs were badly written

They weren't as badly written as the ones they did 3 years ago!

So - middle ground?

I can see both sides of the argument too.

They wanted to attract new customers, who would genuinely switch their banking to them...so that's everything, income, bills, the lot. But they couldn't stipulate a BACS Direct Credit deposit, because some people will still be paid in cash or by cheque. They couldn't say the payment had to come from an employer, because that would exclude the retired and those on benefits.

Now ask yourself this...if your income (salary/benefits/pension) was >£1,000 per month, and it was paid into the account on the 20th of the month, and that started on the 20th of the month following switch completion...would you have received the incentive without even giving a second thought to 31 days, 62 days, after this, before that, within the other? The answer is yes, isn't it?

Same for those weekly paid >£250 on a Friday? Again the answer is yes.

But what we have are people who are trying to be too clever (and I include myself in that group), and some of them slip up. If they wanted to use FPs with this offer all they had to do was mimic their income credits wasn't it? Job done.