What happens if I tell the bank I don't accept the account T&Cs

colsten

soulsaver wrote: »

I suspect the OP meant that if the financial entity changes the T&Cs they signed up to, and they don't accept the changes, then what's their legal standing.

And the answer to that is you tell the entity you don't accept the changes and negotiate from there.

If they won't budge go through the complaints process and get it to the FOS if you feel aggrieved.

I have challenged a material change in the terms from a Bank and got them to revert to the original terms.

Have you got any examples of when you, or another customer of a bank, negotiated with a bank when they changed their T&Cs? Which bank reverted which of their T&Cs upon your negotiation?

soulsaver

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I have no idea how you managed to do that. But they're absolutely not going to make a general policy of doing so. Do you have the DRN from FOS so we can see this case, as I frankly can't believe that FOS would ever accept that it'd be fair for a bank to revert back to its old T&Cs after issue of new ones.

It didn't go as far as the FOS.

I already see that people in this thread
a) Disrespect the OP.
b) Want to wander off topic.
c) Appear to want to wander further off topic & doubt peoples word...
d)...and then they get thanked for it.

My point is OP hasn't said what terms were changed. The on topic responses so far mostly just take the P.

So for the OP ( and for other posters who make assumptions) if you think that the change in terms is unfair or isn't within the terms originally published then complain & go through the process.

What's so difficult about that?

eskbanker

soulsaver wrote: »

So for the OP ( and for other posters who make assumptions) if you think that the change in terms is unfair or isn't within the terms originally published then complain & go through the process.

What's so difficult about that?

I don't think anyone would argue with the concept of complaining if you're unhappy about something that's changed, but in the context of a heavily regulated industry it is something of a surprise to hear someone claiming to have actually got a material change reversed (as opposed to, say, negotiating some 'go-away' money), so it's only natural for posters to be curious about such an extraordinary turn of events.

If you're going to make such an assertion and recommend that OP follows suit, why wouldn't you be prepared to be more specific about the very much on-topic matter of exactly how this has worked for you in the past, what's so difficult about that?

soulsaver

eskbanker wrote: »

I don't think anyone would argue with the concept of complaining if you're unhappy about something that's changed, but in the context of a heavily regulated industry it is something of a surprise to hear someone claiming to have actually got a material change reversed (as opposed to, say, negotiating some 'go-away' money), so it's only natural for posters to be curious about such an extraordinary turn of events.

If you're going to make such an assertion and recommend that OP follows suit, why wouldn't you be prepared to be more specific about the very much on-topic matter of exactly how this has worked for you in the past, what's so difficult about that?

I recommended a logical course of action from a different start point than the other posters assumptions.

And I answered 'Has anyone told a financial institution who they have a product with that they no longer accept the T&Cs? What happened?' - albeit I was answering regarding 'changed' T&Cs.

The institution I negotiated with didn't change the new T&Cs.

They reverted to the original T&Cs for me and offered the same to existing customers of the product. New customers would have got the new T&Cs, if the product was still available.

Lets see how many more arrogant doubters we can attract.

eskbanker

soulsaver wrote: »

The institution I negotiated with didn't change the new T&Cs.

They reverted to the original T&Cs for me and offered the same to existing customers of the product. New customers would have got the new T&Cs, if the product was still available.

You're still studiously avoiding the question asked above (by colsten) about "Which bank reverted which of their T&Cs upon your negotiation?" though - if the concession was made for all customers then it's presumably a matter of public record so it's not as if you'd be breaching any confidentiality?

soulsaver wrote: »

Lets see how many more arrogant doubters we can attract.

Seems unnecessarily defensive to be castigating those asking for clarification in those terms - do you not think it's more credible and useful to OP to share some specifics regarding what can be achieved?

masonic

mgdavid wrote: »

If I explained you wouldn't understand.
Another for the ignore list.

That's not very nice, mgdavid. I still feel that my response to the OP was perfectly reasonable and I'm being attacked merely for my choice of wording. I should have realised that MSE titled its article "Best Bank Accounts" not "Best Current Accounts" for a good reason. I'm happy to be enlightened if you'd be willing to indulge me.

I'm also concerned that my use of "current account" instead of "bank account" has distracted you from making a useful contribution to the OP's thread, which was surely your intention when clicking on it.

colsten

soulsaver wrote: »

The institution I negotiated with didn't change the new T&Cs.

They reverted to the original T&Cs for me and offered the same to existing customers of the product. New customers would have got the new T&Cs, if the product was still available.

come on, spill the beans - which bank did this when, with which T&Cs?

soulsaver wrote: »

Lets see how many more arrogant doubters we can attract.

Asking you questions based on what you posted has got nothing to do with arrogance, or with doubting what you said. It is merely an attempt to obtain additional information from you on the matter you posted.

societys_child

As we only have half a story, I'd say the op should tell them, and then he can report back and tell us what they say. We'll all be wiser then

masonic

soulsaver wrote: »

I recommended a logical course of action from a different start point than the other posters assumptions.

And I answered 'Has anyone told a financial institution who they have a product with that they no longer accept the T&Cs? What happened?' - albeit I was answering regarding 'changed' T&Cs.

The institution I negotiated with didn't change the new T&Cs.

They reverted to the original T&Cs for me and offered the same to existing customers of the product. New customers would have got the new T&Cs, if the product was still available.

Lets see how many more arrogant doubters we can attract.

In fairness I've seen this on a number of occasions. In all cases of which I am aware it's been in relation to the introduction or variation of charges. Although it's a little off topic for this board I've successfully rejected a change to custody fees imposed by a well known investment platform and also successfully negotiated the waiver of an earlier introduction of exit fees, allowing me to leave penalty free under the earlier T&Cs. Others were able to negotiate lower fees than those specified in the T&Cs. Another investment platform did something very similar and waived exit fees for all customers, rather than as individual gestures of good will on a case by case basis.

Is your example anything like those?

masonic

I've just thought of another example, this time relating to bank accounts: at least 2 banks I'm aware of allowed multiple accounts to be opened initially, then changed their terms to restrict the number to one sole and one joint. They allowed those who opened more accounts than that under the older terms to keep them.