Gary (Aberdeen) v Halifax

[garyhay]

Couple of questions

 

HBOS say that Current Accounts are not covered and continue this line with me. I hope in am right in thinking these are just fob off tactics.

 

They recently paid just over £500 for a direct debit that was setup on the wrong account in error. I only have a £200 overdraft and because of this incurred over £150 in charges. Now they are calling me every other day demending payment as I am overlimit by £470 without authority. If they paid authorised this payment way above my overdraft limit then how can it be "without authority" as they authorised it

 

I have also asked them to stop calling me as I feel they are harrasing me and just tonight I said I would call the police if they persisted as I have the matter in hand. Can I call the police or do they have the right to continue to call me?

 

p.s. HBOS have cashed my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) cheque so I guess I should get my statements in the next few days.

[garyhay]

Can anyone confirm my thinking above

[Cazziebo]

Yes - according to the threads here that's a standard fob off

 

Good luck, Gary

[garyhay]

Crafty those banks but I love a fight so I'm in for the long haul

[buzby]

No, you can't call the police until/unless you've served them with a Section 40 Harassment letter, all they're doing is contacting a customer and you've probably signed an agreement allowing them to do so. Demand they write to you only, as you refuse to discuss financial matters over the phone. State in writing to them that you find the calls alarming and obtrusive and give them 7 days to stop - quoting the S40 Act.

 

As to the authority - they're talking about their agreement to an overdraft, NOT that they OK'd a payment that made your account go over.

 

As to accounts 'not being covered' I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[debt_mountain]

I was lead to beleive that if you quote the telegraph and Wireless act of 1949 you can state to them you only want to be contacted by letter. Follow this up with a letter confirming the conversation, who and when. Sned this recorded. If they call you again they are then in breech and I think you can contact the Trading Standards office and the Police.

 

I have inform the CRAs who used to call me....not a peep since I did this.

[buzby]

If you mean the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, although on the statute books it has been largely superceded by other legistlation so using this as the criteria for rerjection will not allow complaint to the Police, who do not act on WT transgressions.

[garyhay]

As to accounts 'not being covered' I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

The bank are telling me that the OFT report only covered Credit cards and current accounts were not covered.

 

Just a fob off I think

[buzby]

I'm still not any the wiser! You had money taken from your account by DD that rersulted in you having charges levied on your account, and you want them back? Are they claiming your complaint is a Section 75 response - if so, that's correct, but its hardly relevant. You don't care what the OFT says, you'd rather have a judge decide - put in your SAR and get ready to do battle!

[garyhay]

Sorry maybe I am not giving the full story and I am also not sure what a Section 75 is.

 

I have had lots of charges over the years so was "reclaiming my rights" anyhow and had already sent away my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

I got really annoyed as shortly after sending off my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) I paid £150 of debit card payments over a weekend leaving me with about £150.

 

On the Monday the Halifax paid a DD for £580 (the first time it had to pay paid and from another account as set up in error by our IFA) meaning I was on the Monday £430 overdrawn.

 

So they charge me something like £29 for paying the DD + £35 charge for now being over my limit.

 

On the Tuesday they clear my Saturday payments and issue 2 more £35 charges but that night I used my debit card (still unaware that the £580 had been paid and that I was already overlimit) and it was accepted in the store and Halifax then charged me £35 for this and also addede another 2 x £35 charges for my Sunday transactions.

 

Thats a total of £239 in 3 days

 

I call them and say their has been a mistake and they explain that its up to me to make sure I have money to pay things (when I paid I did have the money). I try and explain that if they never paid the DD as I never had the money I would only have that charge and as I had previously asked for a higher overdraft but being refused then how can they now, without my permission increase it.

 

They tell me they did this because I always have money coming in. Of course, I already know I have switched everything so they can't just take the charges anymore.

 

This is just my most recent run-in with the bank and I wonder if they have a flag that goes up when you send an SAR.

 

They have been quite nasty in tone to me on the phone because they want the money owed for DD they paid and also all the charges as I have been told before.

 

A a bank looked after it's customers it would call them before making the payment to let then know.

 

 

All banks should take a look at how John Lewis run their Mastercard operation. If you miss a payment they tell you and call you but they never as much as mention a charge.

 

 

BRING ON THE HALIFAX

[Giveitback]

So the bank paid something out of the wrong account? Did you give them the wrong instructions? If not, it's a separate issue, and I'd have a quick chat with your local CAB.

[garyhay]

Yes we gave the wrong instructions (well our IFA did). I realise that it is a seperate issue but I think it's a good example of how these penalty charges mount up.

 

I am looking forward to this battle. It's been long overdue

 

Thanks for the help folks. Might need it in the coming months

[buzby]

Ah - now I see. Their approach is high-handed, and irrespective of your IFA error, the bank did nothing to mitigate your potential losses so they're not squeaky clean in this. Again, DDMs are a cash cow for financial institutions and the lack of control you experienced is evidence of this. As to their comment you should manage your account better - clearlu clairvoyance isn't your strong point ESPECIALLY if (as I suspect) your signed a unspecified amounts/dates.

 

Firstly, I would use this example as a reason to cancel all your DDMs and advise your creditors until this dispute is resolved, you'll resort to sending cheques (you can also challenge any additional fees this action may cause you).

 

Secondly, have a fallback bank acount available should your present banker prove difficult - it is easier whilst you still have banking facilities, and before your credit record is trashed by them.

 

Thirdly, once you've calculated your charges (from the SAR), calculate what you think is reasonable for the actions taken then approach the bank in WRITING, saying you are far from happy and ask what their proposals are. If they make you an offer that comes close to what you wanted, accept it and move on. If not, resort to the courts.

[garyhay]

Cheers for the info okonski.

 

I have already got another account with a different provider and swapped all my DD's to them

 

Should get my SAR info this coming week

[CJ&theBOS]

HBOS say that Current Accounts are not covered and continue this line with me

 

well for something that isnt covered they paid me £2341 plus costs!!!!!!!!! they must be running scared!!!!!

 

[buzby]

Cheers for the info okonski.

I have already got another account with a different provider and swapped all my DD's to them

 

Pleasure - although I'd still be careful with the new DDMs, as your simply replacing one problem with another potential one! A useful standpoint is you can write to firms you have DDMs with stating that due to fraud, you are having to modify these agreements and from 1st January 2007, no DDM that operates under 'unspecified dates/amounts' regime are being cancelled. Only specified dates (and/or amounts - depending on supplier). That shuld put you back in control.

[garyhay]

I had a letter from HBOS on 30th October saying they woud send my requestewd information under seperate cover and I am still waiting.

 

Will I send them a reminder or should I call them.

[buzby]

Technically, their 'holding letter' has no legal standing and there is a statuatory 40 days defined to permit them to provide the data - counted from the day they receive the request + any relevant payment. Send a follow-up letter once the 40 days are up, acknowledging receipt of their holding letter, but as the relevant period has now passed they are in breach, and you reserve the right to make formal representations to the ICO for non-compliance.

[garyhay]

Thanks for staying with me on this one Buzby.

 

I have bitten the bullet and paid up to take my account back into it's agreed overdraft limit and payed in to cover the next lot of charges that I was informed I would get.

 

The thing is I issued a 2nd SAR and the 7 extra days I gave have now also come and gone. I cc'ed my 2nd 2nd request (after 59 days) to the Information Commisoner as a back up.

 

What should I do now as I just see this as stalling tactics?

[buzby]

Is your 2nd SAR for additional info, or was your 1st SAR ignored. Also, did you pay any fee at the time of your SAR application, and was it acknowledged?

[gordieboyglasgow]

Hi Buzby

 

I have been reading your post with intrest. it is a scarily similar situation to mine (especially the HORRENDOUS amounts charged for a minor 'breach')

 

I also have had the 'current accounts are not covered' story, but this was after they settled my first claim. So it is just a stalling tactic that propably works on those people who have not had the good fortune to have discovered this site as yet.

 

Keep at it. Follow the great advice on this site and don't let their standard 'fob offs' put you off getting what is rightfully yours.

 

Good luck.

 

G

[garyhay]

Is your 2nd S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for additional info, or was your 1st SAR ignored. Also, did you pay any fee at the time of your SAR application, and was it acknowledged?

 

 

No additional info just repeating my request as orginally sent. They cashed my cheque for the fee and sent a "we are dealing letter"

[buzby]

In that case, a follow-up letter pointing out that they are now in breach of the terms laid down (40 days from the original request), and to prevent additional enforcement action, you urge them to comply with your SAR within the next 10 days.

[gordieboyglasgow]

I have to agree with busby. Don't give them an inch (they will never give you one!!) I think any future letters I have to send will be in the same 'tone' they send them to me - i.e. borderline aggresive and threatening - why should we be gentle with them and give them extra time when they don't respond after we have made clear what we are expecting and in what time limit? they would / have never given any of their customers that sort of leeway.

 

G

[garyhay]

God I am getting nowhere with this. I sent my 2nd letter to them (Halifax) and it was delivered on the 17th Nov but still no details recieved. copy letter below. I did also send a copy to Information Commisioner.

 

Should I now lodge a complaint or can I call someone?

 

 

 

 

Your Ref: *******

**

My Address

**

 

 

Halifax Plc

Trinity Road

Halifax

West Yorkshire

HX1 2RG

 

Sunday, 12 November 2006

 

Data Protection Act 1998

Subject Access Request

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: ****************

 

I originally wrote to you on 20th September 2006 with a Subject Access Request and received a letter dated 30th October 2006 from yourself. Although this letter states that the requested information has been ordered and will be sent under separate cover I have yet to receive the information.

You received my request on 22nd September 2006 and my cheque was cleared into your account on 28th September 2006. As you will be well aware you are under a statutory obligation to provide the requested information within 40 days and this has not happened.

I hope this matter can be resolved speedily and request that the requested details are sent to me within 7 days. If I do not receive within 7 days I will exercise my rights to make formal representations to the Information Commissioners Office for non-compliance.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Gary Hay