EEA card not accepted here

[hchad]

This incident is not like the most common here so moderator please move it if it is inadvertently in the wrong place.

 

This didn't hurt my wallet but it went deep so I can't let it go and I wouldn't want anyone else to do it either. It is a longwinded story. Just take a look at the post length down there. Be warned.

 

I was trying to open a basic bank account at Halifax at Coventry.

No credit, no fancy finance, just a basic cash account.

It all went as it is common until the point when they asked for id. I handed my EEA (European Economic Area) id card as usual. They took it away because their computer asked for a date of issuance and there is none on the card. After about 7 minutes starting to worry what have happened they return and say that the card is not valid, the layout is not right and has info missing. I protested trying to swallow that the guy implicitly said that I had a forged id.

 

"But this is the card that is accepted to cross national borders"

 

"Sorry..."

 

"But this is a government issued document. There isn't anything more official than this"

 

"Sorry but I cannot open the account".

 

After leaving a good chunk of my personal details and financial details on their computer system (I still blush when they ask me how much is my salary - this used to be one of the most personal questions to ask somebody, right on the level of with whom have you had sex with - I don't know how other people stand for this) so after that I asked to speak with the supervisor who called their support services and then confirmed that the card was invalid. After one hour there I raised a formal complaint and left.

Great, we're back in the 50's, discrimination wise.

 

The reply letter came quickly but the result was the same. "We don't accept 'citizen cards'". That is the name that happens to be on the card which still remains an EEA card which they say they accept.

 

By God I wouldn't let this rest so I duly followed the next step: the Financial Ombudsman Service. Yes, that will teach them a lesson. Reply letter came after about a week: "Sorry, but we don't deal with commercial decisions".

 

So I was about to accept that I live in a country where the odds of getting consumer justice are the same as betting. Yes, I was optimistic then.

 

I called the FOS back and after some insistence, they asked me ('invited me') to send the paperwork to them back again.

After some back and forth the girl called me saying that they could now let me know that I can use the card to open an account [thanks FOS] and that Halifax were prepared to give £50 for the inconvenience,

 

"do you accept?"

 

"So can you tell me what will be done so that this doesn't happen again?"

 

"Well, bla bla bla [gobbledygook]. So do you accept?"

 

"So you will write to them?"

 

"Yes, I have spoken with them and bla bla bla [more drivel]. So do you accept?"

 

This fixation with acceptance made me feel hustled and with an sudden urge to do a little search on the FOS. What I have found in the net confirmed my suspicions. Anyway, the settlement form never arrived.

 

So let's cut the middle man and go to court. If I have the 'right' to spend loads on taxes let's see what can I get in return. Not that the courts are 'free'. Actually according to them they are funded by taxes by just around a fifth to support the ones who can't pay and the remaining claimants or defendants pay for their own cases. But this case is so legally basic that I though it to be worthwhile.

 

The tell-tale signs came when the bank (Lloyds Group, the actual owner of Halifax) failed to respond after the 28 days maximum allowed. Two days after that I asked for a judgment. The day after that the bank's response came in, was accepted and my judgement request refused. The deadlines rules apparently do not strictly apply in the judicial system. Not a good omen for a system whose mission is to enforce rules.

 

Then came the Allocation Questionnaire and I duly filed it. The outcome came a few weeks after. The claim has been dismissed because there appears to be no legal grounds to proceed. And what a coincidence that the code articles the judge used to dismiss the case were exactly the ones that the bank's solicitor used to ask the court to dismiss the claim.

 

I am no lawyer and I thought I felt right to believe the government's own advice that the small claims are more informal than the regular claims and you don't have to lay down which particular legal code you rely on. Moreover I wouldn't think it takes much legal training to find out the legal basis for basic discrimination, particularly if you are one of Her Majesty's judges.

 

So, yeah...

Edited June 16, 2012 by hchad