Hi everyone

I am presently in correspondence with my bank about the 12.9%APR they quoted
(and I agreed, at the time, without checking its correctness) for a Personal
Loan. I've been repaying on that basis for a couple of years. Now, looking
back at old leaflets they issued, I've seen that for a loan of that amount
at that time, the rate quoted was 8.9%APR. The leaflet is clear: 'these are
the rates that will be applied to your account'. So I asked the bank to
recalculate my loan at 8.9%APR offered instead of the 12.9%APR that they do
not seem to be entitled to charge. It would make a big difference - at the
amount I'm paying per month, the capital sum would be well down by now and
all would be paid off much sooner.

Their reply was that advertised rates are only 'typical' and actual rates
offered are 'subject to status' - and I did agree it, didn't I?

I say that the leaflet made a clear offer of a certain rate that will be
applied to any Personal Loan that is granted, without any ifs or buts or any
hint that actually a different rate may be applied. I can see nothing in the
overall Terms and Conditions that would over rule this clear offer - no
mention of 'typical rates' or 'subject to status'. There's something that
says overdrafts will be 'at the rate agreed' but nothing like that for any
other types of loan. I'm asking them to point out where in the documentation
I was notified that the bank will actually set any rate it sees fit,
regardless of the rate it advertises. I'm saying I accepted the rate given,
in good faith, without checking its correctness, and the onus is on the bank
to act correctly within their powers, and to put right any breach of those
powers that may be discovered.

If they can't produce that 'chapter and verse', then I'd like advice and
experience about what to do next, after I've given them 14 days to comply by
registered post. Then what - the Banking Ombudsman, or a Small Claim in the
County Court? In USA, with others in the same position, we could bring a
Class Action against my bank, and many other banks too, I'd guess!


..

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:00:13 +0100, "fostertom"
wrote:

[Personal Loan APR]

Their reply was that advertised rates are only 'typical' and actual rates
offered are 'subject to status' - and I did agree it, didn't I?

I say that the leaflet made a clear offer of a certain rate that will be
applied to any Personal Loan that is granted, without any ifs or buts or any
hint that actually a different rate may be applied. I can see nothing in the
overall Terms and Conditions that would over rule this clear offer - no
mention of 'typical rates' or 'subject to status'.

Looking at various Banks and Building Societies, NatWest's website
states:

Rates are variable and correct at time of going to print. Overdrafts and
loans are repayable on demand and rates may vary.

LloydsTSB:

Written quotation available on request. All lending and the rate
available to you is subject to status and depends on our assessment of
your circumstances.

Barclays:

Interest rates are calculated on an individual basis and fixed for the
length of your loan.

HSBC:

When a loan is agreed, you will get the quoted rate. From time to time
we offer special rates and so you may even get a lower rate than the one
quoted. Many more lenders are advertising their absolute lowest or a
'typical' rate, which will in the majority of cases be increased before
the loan is granted.

Alliance & Leicester:

We will review your past credit history and other personal details and
the actual rate we offer may be higher depending on your circumstances

Halifax:

The rate you are offered will depend on credit assessment procedures,
your personal circumstances and other related factors.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that you don't have a leg to stand on
I'm afraid, as all of the Banks/Building Societies would appear to have
a suitable "get out" clause in the Terms and Conditions.

HTH,

Barry

--
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:00:13 +0100, "fostertom"
wrote:

[Personal Loan APR]

Their reply was that advertised rates are only 'typical' and actual rates
offered are 'subject to status' - and I did agree it, didn't I?

I say that the leaflet made a clear offer of a certain rate that will be
applied to any Personal Loan that is granted, without any ifs or buts or
any
hint that actually a different rate may be applied. I can see nothing in
the
overall Terms and Conditions that would over rule this clear offer - no
mention of 'typical rates' or 'subject to status'.

You would also have signed a Consumer Credit Agreement stating the terms
and conditions of your loan before they put the money into your account.
This would have included the APR , amount of interest charged over the term
of the loan , the monthly repayment and when the repayments were due. This
is binding on you as well as the bank. If you were not happy with the rate
then why sign for it?
Eric


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 04/06/04

Thanks Eric and Barry. I've posted my reply on uk.finance under the same
subject line, and look forward to your further comments, there if you
please.

"Eric Jones" wrote in message
...

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:00:13 +0100, "fostertom"
wrote:

[Personal Loan APR]

Their reply was that advertised rates are only 'typical' and actual
rates
offered are 'subject to status' - and I did agree it, didn't I?

I say that the leaflet made a clear offer of a certain rate that will
be
applied to any Personal Loan that is granted, without any ifs or buts
or
any
hint that actually a different rate may be applied. I can see nothing
in
the
overall Terms and Conditions that would over rule this clear offer - no
mention of 'typical rates' or 'subject to status'.

You would also have signed a Consumer Credit Agreement stating the terms
and conditions of your loan before they put the money into your account.
This would have included the APR , amount of interest charged over the
term
of the loan , the monthly repayment and when the repayments were due. This
is binding on you as well as the bank. If you were not happy with the rate
then why sign for it?
Eric


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 04/06/04




..

Thanks guys this is very helpful. As Original Poster, I'm replying here,
including to people who replied to my similar posts on uk.finance, and on
the chat forum of Martin Lewis' www.moneysavingexpert.com, which is a
fantastic site, take a look and see.

A bit more background. Been with this bank for 13 years now and found them
reasonable enough to use for all purposes without shopping around.

The present loan was the third consolidation/renegotiation of a loan that
started 3 yrs previously. First and second times I got 11.9%APR, exactly as
advertised, no problem. Come the third time (the present loan) I got 12.9%,
again no problem with acceptance, after 2 yrs healthy balance and no
misbehaviour on my account. Yes, my fault - though surprised and worried, I
just assumed that was the correct advertised rate at the time. Then just
recently I checked and found that the advertised rate for that time was
8.4%APR. I rang and said 'there's been a mistake - can you put it right' but
no - apparently there are no mistakes - it must be due to my 'status' at the
time. But having spent some time looking through my statements and personal
information, she could see nothing wrong, so suggested I should write in.
The written reply says "our advertised rates for Personal Loans are
'typical' and subject to status" (which was news to me), gave some very
ordinary reasons (which don't look like black marks to me) for the punitive
rate, and as I did accept the rate offered, that's it.

As Eric Jones is telling me, also Tiddyogg, Zoe Brown and D.A.L. on
uk.finance - thank you, but I'm not so sure. And to answer Shano on
uk.finance,
thanks, I don't think I was a particular risk (that's not my point anyway),
and the 8.4%APR is as advertised in the leaflet dated for the time of the
loan.

Having received year after year an update list clearly stating "these are
the rates that currently apply to your accounts (as from such and such a
date)" and never having seen any suggestion that these rates are in fact
merely 'typical' and subject to status, I truly didn't know that any other
rate might be applied - why should I, the bank didn't tell me, back then.
Nowadays they do say a bit more clearly "rates may alter, but once taken,
the rate is fixed for the duration" (thanks to Barry Salter for his survey
of various banks' clauses). But back then,
the only thing I can find, deep in the Terms and Conditions is "we may vary
rates, and give you notice no later than 30 days after, and/or advertise it
in the press". It's a long stretch to make that mean "advertised rates are
'typical' and subject to status".

So Ronald Raygun on uk.finance, thanks to you - I was relying on the clear
honest "this is
our tarrif" message of the leaflet (though I admit I didn't take note of the
actual rate offered), and the lack of any statements from the bank to
qualify or contradict that message. I had no doubt that, if the bank offered
me the loan, it would be at the currently advertised rate. Wouldn't a Small
Claims Judge hold that to be a reasonable and correct belief, given the
bank's published material, supported by my past experience? Why should I
think to doubt the correctness of the rate offered?

And D.A.L., if this was just an invitation to treat, then I agree with
Ronald Raygun it comes close to misrepresentation. Maybe I ought to take it
to the Trading Standards guys?

If a store advertises goods at a particular price for a given period, they
don't have to sell it to me if they don't like my face, but if they do, they
have to honour the advertised price. If they'd also stated, somewhere I
could reasonably see: "advertised price is 'typical' and subject to status",
then they could indeed offer me any other price they wished. But in this
case the bank didn't state that.

Thanks, Ice on www.moneysavingexpert.com, I think the cooling-off period is
for me to change my mind, it's not for me to spot the lender acting outside
their powers (ultra vires - or does this only apply to public bodies and
quangos?) or contrary to their Terms and Conditions. If found to be ultra
vires, doesn't the lender have to put matters right whenever?

Looking forward to your further comments!


..

"fostertom" wrote in message
...
Thanks guys this is very helpful. As Original Poster, I'm replying here,
including to people who replied to my similar posts on uk.finance, and on
the chat forum of Martin Lewis' www.moneysavingexpert.com, which is a
fantastic site, take a look and see.

A bit more background. Been with this bank for 13 years now and found them
reasonable enough to use for all purposes without shopping around.

The present loan was the third consolidation/renegotiation of a loan that
started 3 yrs previously. First and second times I got 11.9%APR, exactly
as
advertised, no problem. Come the third time (the present loan) I got
12.9%,
again no problem with acceptance, after 2 yrs healthy balance and no
misbehaviour on my account. Yes, my fault - though surprised and worried,
I
just assumed that was the correct advertised rate at the time. Then just
recently I checked and found that the advertised rate for that time was
8.4%APR. I rang and said 'there's been a mistake - can you put it right'
but
no - apparently there are no mistakes - it must be due to my 'status' at
the
time. But having spent some time looking through my statements and
personal
information, she could see nothing wrong, so suggested I should write in.
The written reply says "our advertised rates for Personal Loans are
'typical' and subject to status" (which was news to me), gave some very
ordinary reasons (which don't look like black marks to me) for the
punitive
rate, and as I did accept the rate offered, that's it.

As Eric Jones is telling me, also Tiddyogg, Zoe Brown and D.A.L. on
uk.finance - thank you, but I'm not so sure. And to answer Shano on
uk.finance,
thanks, I don't think I was a particular risk (that's not my point
anyway),
and the 8.4%APR is as advertised in the leaflet dated for the time of the
loan.

Having received year after year an update list clearly stating "these are
the rates that currently apply to your accounts (as from such and such a
date)" and never having seen any suggestion that these rates are in fact
merely 'typical' and subject to status, I truly didn't know that any other
rate might be applied - why should I, the bank didn't tell me, back then.
Nowadays they do say a bit more clearly "rates may alter, but once taken,
the rate is fixed for the duration" (thanks to Barry Salter for his survey
of various banks' clauses). But back then,
the only thing I can find, deep in the Terms and Conditions is "we may
vary
rates, and give you notice no later than 30 days after, and/or advertise
it
in the press". It's a long stretch to make that mean "advertised rates are
'typical' and subject to status".

So Ronald Raygun on uk.finance, thanks to you - I was relying on the clear
honest "this is
our tarrif" message of the leaflet (though I admit I didn't take note of
the
actual rate offered), and the lack of any statements from the bank to
qualify or contradict that message. I had no doubt that, if the bank
offered
me the loan, it would be at the currently advertised rate. Wouldn't a
Small
Claims Judge hold that to be a reasonable and correct belief, given the
bank's published material, supported by my past experience? Why should I
think to doubt the correctness of the rate offered?

And D.A.L., if this was just an invitation to treat, then I agree with
Ronald Raygun it comes close to misrepresentation. Maybe I ought to take
it
to the Trading Standards guys?

If a store advertises goods at a particular price for a given period, they
don't have to sell it to me if they don't like my face, but if they do,
they
have to honour the advertised price. If they'd also stated, somewhere I
could reasonably see: "advertised price is 'typical' and subject to
status",
then they could indeed offer me any other price they wished. But in this
case the bank didn't state that.

Thanks, Ice on www.moneysavingexpert.com, I think the cooling-off period
is
for me to change my mind, it's not for me to spot the lender acting
outside
their powers (ultra vires - or does this only apply to public bodies and
quangos?) or contrary to their Terms and Conditions. If found to be ultra
vires, doesn't the lender have to put matters right whenever?

Looking forward to your further comments!#
As someone who has worked in a bank for over 25 years, the first question I
must ask is why was the loan you are disputing your 3rd renegotiation loan?
This info together with your statement that you had a healthy balance on our
account makes no sense.
To qualify for the best rates on personal loans firstly you must borrow
quite a large sum (eg 7500 or more) and you must have an A1 record with that
bank and also with the credit search agencies such as Experian to whom the
bank would have checked your file prior to granting you the loan.
I must agree with the other poster that any loan granted would ( and still
is the case today) have been granted subect to terms and conditions and to
status. Not knowing which bank we are talking about I cannot comment
further.
Eric


.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 04/06/04

"Eric Jones" wrote in message
...

As someone who has worked in a bank for over 25 years, the first question
I
must ask is why was the loan you are disputing your 3rd renegotiation
loan?
This info together with your statement that you had a healthy balance on
our
account makes no sense.
To qualify for the best rates on personal loans firstly you must borrow
quite a large sum (eg 7500 or more) and you must have an A1 record with
that
bank and also with the credit search agencies such as Experian to whom the
bank would have checked your file prior to granting you the loan.
I must agree with the other poster that any loan granted would ( and still
is the case today) have been granted subect to terms and conditions and to
status. Not knowing which bank we are talking about I cannot comment
further.
Eric



Thanks, Eric - good to hear from a banking insider. I don't want to reveal
which bank just yet, but I'd still appreciate your further comments.

I'm not really arguing about whether I was a good or bad risk, to explain
the 12.9%APR I was given instead of the 8.4%APR advertised. I'm saying the
bank hadn't given itself any powers to give any other rate than the
advertised rate, in any documentation I am aware of. It wasn't obliged to
offer me a loan, but if it did, all its proclamations stated the rate would
be 8.4%APR, and nothing, not even the T&C small print, contradicted or
qualified this, at that time (it does now, but it didn't then). Banking
people, both you and my bank's staff, take it as gospel that advertised
rates are merely 'typical' and subject to status. But where was I informed
of that? - I truly didn't know.

Having said that - does 3 renegotiations ring credit rating alarm bells?
Strange - I just needed more money, and I also kept my balance out of the
red - healthy in that sense, not fat! The loan was for £12,800 over 7
years - OK at the advertised 8.4%APR but not nice at the 12.9% given.
Experian had (has) nothing on me, as all my history for 11 years had been
entirely with my one bank.

Best wishes,

Tom


..

"fostertom" wrote in message
...
"Eric Jones" wrote in message
...

As someone who has worked in a bank for over 25 years, the first
question
I
must ask is why was the loan you are disputing your 3rd renegotiation
loan?
This info together with your statement that you had a healthy balance on
our
account makes no sense.
To qualify for the best rates on personal loans firstly you must borrow
quite a large sum (eg 7500 or more) and you must have an A1 record with
that
bank and also with the credit search agencies such as Experian to whom
the
bank would have checked your file prior to granting you the loan.
I must agree with the other poster that any loan granted would ( and
still
is the case today) have been granted subect to terms and conditions and
to
status. Not knowing which bank we are talking about I cannot comment
further.
Eric



Thanks, Eric - good to hear from a banking insider. I don't want to reveal
which bank just yet, but I'd still appreciate your further comments.

I'm not really arguing about whether I was a good or bad risk, to explain
the 12.9%APR I was given instead of the 8.4%APR advertised. I'm saying the
bank hadn't given itself any powers to give any other rate than the
advertised rate, in any documentation I am aware of. It wasn't obliged to
offer me a loan, but if it did, all its proclamations stated the rate
would
be 8.4%APR, and nothing, not even the T&C small print, contradicted or
qualified this, at that time (it does now, but it didn't then). Banking
people, both you and my bank's staff, take it as gospel that advertised
rates are merely 'typical' and subject to status. But where was I informed
of that? - I truly didn't know.

Having said that - does 3 renegotiations ring credit rating alarm bells?
Strange - I just needed more money, and I also kept my balance out of the
red - healthy in that sense, not fat! The loan was for £12,800 over 7
years - OK at the advertised 8.4%APR but not nice at the 12.9% given.
Experian had (has) nothing on me, as all my history for 11 years had been
entirely with my one bank.

Best wishes,

Tom

Tom I can only repeat my first posting, you say that you had an offer of a
loan at 8.4% but that you actually signed up for a loan at 12.9%. I know
with hindsight that you will check any future consumer credit forms that you
sign with a fine toothcomb, but the CCA does state the rate of interest, the
monthly repayment and any other terms and conditions. This is firstly signed
on behalf of the bank and then signed by you. You should also have been
given a copy for your records.
The only way forward as far as I can see (and your only chance of winning
the dispute in my opinion) is to ask the bank to see their copy of the CCA
form. If it has been mis-filed or lost?? say, then they might backtrack a
bit on the interest but it is only a slim hope. If they find their copy I do
not believe you can win. Hope you do not think I am being too biased with my
opinion - good luck and keep us informed.
Eric
.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 04/06/04