A frugal life is an easy life!

I believe that some bank charges are in breach of the fraud act 2006.

A real example:
You have £100 left in your account.
You make an authorised card payment for £60 (leaving a £40 balance on your account)
A direct debit, of £50 is due out of your account before the business calls for your authorised card payment.
The bank takes the funds to pay your direct debit of £50 from your authorised card payment funds, currently being held off your balance, in a "holding account."

The company calls for your authorised card payment funds, the bank pays them.
You are now over your balance and subjected to two bank charges.
Bank charge one - £35 for "an unauthorised card payment"
Bank charge two - £25 for "an unauthorised overdraft fee"
Total charges: £60

Take into account:
Who gave the bank permission to "reuse funds held in a holding account?"
Had the bank NOT reused the funds and returned the direct debit unpaid, the only charge applicable would have been £35, for non payment of a direct debit.
When you bought something for £60 on your card, the funds were in your account to pay for it - the bank also issued an authorisation number for the sale - how can you now be charged "an unauthorised card payment fee"?
The bank reused your funds to pay the direct debit, not you! Surely the bank cannot bill you for charges which was a result of THEIR actions?

Additional:
When you the customer contact the bank by telephone, complaining about "reusing funds" - you are told that the money remains in your bank account but just comes off your available balance for three days.
When you the customer contact the bank by telephone, complaining about "paying a direct debit with money for an authorised card payment" - you are told that the card payment money is moved to a holding account.
The response the bank gives changes, depending on your complaint. Reading from a menu the advisor maybe, but each menu contradicts the other.

Where the fraud act 2006 should apply:
Section two:
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

A - Changing excuse dependant on complaint, ie. holding account or not? To obtain higher charges against the customer.
B(i) "Another" - being the bank the advisor works for.
B (ii) "Another" - being you the customer.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

Section three:
Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

A - Is there a holding account or not? Why won't the banks tell their customers?
B(i) - This information changes to prevent the advisor from having to refund charges on behalf of the bank
B(ii) - This causes the customer to lose money.

Section four:
Fraud by abuse of position

 (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b)dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

1A - Is it not the case that the bank is supposed to act in the account holder's best interest?
If so, why manipulate customers accounts, like in the example given above, to extract £60 in charges instead of £35 had the bank acted honourably?
Is this not clearly "acting against the financial interests of another person (ie. their own customer)
1B - The bank abuses its position, by giving conflicting reasons for the operations of accounts and gaining financially from it, in the form of higher charges.
This is applicable also to subsection C(i) and C(ii).

How much longer must the humble customer be forced into parting with more of their money than they need to?

Let me know what you think...

Bank's love to charge for each unpaid direct debit (and knock on overdraft charges, etc), it makes huge profits from them, it knows this, their customers know this, the powers that be know it.

So avoiding running up unpaid direct debit charges (and knock on overdraft charges, etc) is fair game as far as I'm concerned.
Not only is this tip fair game, but it's also a frugal way of saving YOU some of your hard earned cash!

Banks charge you for:

• Standing order non payment - even though it's automated and doesn't pay anything out at all and have to claim it back because funds are unavailable
• Insufficient funds to cover a card payment - even though the card transaction has been authorised at the time you made the purchase and the bank have reused the money taken off your available balance (without your permission) and used it for a direct debit/standing order, leaving you with not enough money to cover your card payment, that the bank themselves have authorised!
• Unauthorised overdraft fees - I have known banks issue a £25 charge for a person going over their limit for just one day to the amount of £3
• Often a combination of some or all of the above!

The tip is simple - if you have a direct debit coming out of your account and for whatever reason, you won't or don't have the funds to cover it, then contact your bank, by telephone banking and tell them you are in dispute with the company that has the direct debit set up and to cancel it.

Then make sure that the banking advisor puts a note on the account that the direct debit is NOT to be paid.

Should they pay it and you incur a charge, most calls are recorded so they can listen in, and have it confirmed by the advisor at the bank that you spoke to - hence the charge is removed.
This will also prevent any knock on charges like an unauthorised overdraft fee.

This process will give you a few days to arrange funds to be in your account to pay the direct debit. When the company notify you that the direct debit has been cancelled, simply fob them off by saying that you've been having problems with your account and your direct debits keep being cancelled.

Courts should be returning all bank charges (of any kind) to customers - if their charges reflect "actual loss" as the law states they should, then all the court needs to ask is for proof that each bank charge is the bank's actual loss - if the bank cannot give evidence that the charges are for actual loss, then I don't see how the court can fail to find in favour of the customer.
Any charge/fee that makes profit for the company/person that applies it, (ie, it is not a charge to recover an "actual loss") is classed as a "penalty charge" - penalty charges are unenforceable in England and Wales under common law.

Play one off against another, this is what they would do to you should a bank charge be issued on your account for a mistake by the bank or a company claiming a payment from your account!

*IMPORTANT:
Common sense should be used as regards this post.
OBVIOUSLY, do not cancel a direct debit that pays your mortgage or a loan, as the company will charge you for it!

This post refers to companies that DO NOT issue their own charges for non payment of a direct debit, like mobile phone companies, gym memberships, etc. Companies that you pay a monthly amount for a service usually.
If in doubt, read your terms and conditions or don't do it!

In principal, the warm front scheme is a reliable way of bringing boilers up to date, improving heating in homes, improving insulation to retain heat and save energy.

In practice, from start to finish in this case, warm front has been completely inept, failed totally and the manner with which any information request or timescales have been met, has been nothing short of disgraceful!

From application to completion - warm front proudly state that completion for fitting a new central heating boiler and replacement radiators is between four to six months. Posted here, are details of our case.

In October 2009, an application was made for a replacement boiler and radiators, under the warm front scheme.
The application was completed and passed without issue.
In November 2009, an advisor for the warm front scheme came out to the house, checked all the relevant paperwork, filled out all the information and verified that the application was ok to proceed.

Next, we were told, a head honcho would come out and plan out the work required, this could take up to four months.
Nobody came over the next six months. We received just two letters from warm front, stating that we were just waiting for the assessor to come out and plan the work needed.
We waited until August 2010 (Some TEN months later) before this assessor appeared at our house.
He measured up, he looked around, he finalised everything. On leaving he stated (In front of witnesses) "You will be looking at between four to six WEEKS, for the work to start."

That was almost twelve weeks ago.
I have contacted the man himself, via his office, twice. The first time he "couldn't come to the phone, but would call back" - no call came.
The second time he "was out of the office for the day but would contact me as soon as he returned, later that day" - again, no call came.

Today, instead of ringing his office directly, I rang the warm front "customer service team" - the reply I got, was pathetic!

• Could you please give me a time when the work will start?
  No, I'll have to read your account notes (put on hold for 10 minutes)
• Can you now give me a start date for the work?
  No, I will need to ring the warm front head department who are dealing with it, to find out what's going on (put on hold for another 15 minutes)
• Can you now give me a start date for the work?
  I'm afraid the installation has been cancelled! The fitting company tried to ring you once but were unable to get a reply so the job has been cancelled.
• Are you seriously telling me that a household's future heating requirements for the next decade at least, have been cancelled because the company fitting the boiler were unable to contact us by phone, on one occasion?
  Yes - but they did say they will reinstated the job now they know that you want it doing!
• You make it sound as if I've invited someone around for a cup of coffee! How dare they treat us like this!
  Our phone has been working, on the same telephone number for more than 20 years, if they cannot dial a simple telephone number correctly, it hardly inspires confidence in their ability to install a gas boiler and pipework!
  I'm sorry I can understand your frustrations! One of their assessors will contact you to let you know when they will visit your property!
• This has already been done. How long will this take?
  I wasn't given a timescale for this, they told me that the job will be reinstated today.
• Am I looking at another six month wait or will they get in touch within a week?
  They didn't tell me...
• Did you ask them?
  No!
• So I just have to sit tight and wait?
  Sorry, yes.

Utterly useless, the whole process!

It could be another week, it could be another six months, not a single person has got a clue.
One thing that is certain though, when the paperwork was verified and filled out, EVERYONE involved in the chain, warm front, eaga, the company supposed to be fitting the boiler, will all have already been paid!

UPDATE:
I phoned in with a formal complaint to warm front today (after reading their "customer charter") regarding the whole process and the complete failure to actually install a new boiler, which is the whole point of the scheme.

The response I got was stunning:

• I was asked for a run down of the complaint - I started by stating that the application went in, in November 2009 - immediately, the woman jumped in with "The government stopped all work in November 2009 for upto six months, so your complaint is all about timescales and your wait, you have to put your complaint in writing and send it in to our installation department at our head office!"
• I haven't finished yet, I have mentioned just one date so far - "you told me that it's a timescale complaint!" - No I did not, I told you when the application was first put in...
• "It doesn't matter, you still need to put your complaint in writing and send it to us" - can I tell you what my complaint is about? - "Please do not shout at me" - well stop talking over me then and allow me to tell you the details of the complaint!

It turns out that in yesterday's phone call, the reason I wasn't given any information after the lady had read through my notes, was because I have no account notes to read through - so why keep me hanging on hold for 10 minutes whilst, "I read through your account notes"?

The lack of information about fitting times and times to contact us was because they lady did not phone the installers - so why keep me on hold for another 15 minutes whilst she "Just rings the installers to see what's going on"?

As for our job being "reinstated" and "the installers will contact you" - this was a complete and total lie!
According to our account notes, the job remained cancelled and the installers would not be contacted, the lady should have contacted their warm front scheme head office (I know a head office full of incompetant people!) and asked them to sort it out with the installation company. Sadly, the lady did neither, so what exactly was she doing whilst I was put on hold?

This explains why the lady could give me not a single bit of information with any accuracy!

UPDATE 2:
The installers contacted me today, confirming they have at long last (after 10 months) received the job from the warm front team - I was advised to contact warm front myself, as the installers send off a quoted price to the warm front team and we must wait for it to be authorised by them and confirmed back with the installers - then they can order the parts and arrange for the work to be done.
I was advised that it can take anything up to 3 months, for warm front to authorise a job to go ahead.

Alarmed by this, I rang warm front's "customer management team" (I use this term loosely) only to be confronted by an abrupt (I am being polite) lady with a major chip on her shoulder.

I asked for confirmation that they had received the authorisation request and wanted to know how long it would take to go through - a fairly straight forward request?
Not according to the lady at warm front!
"I don't know why the installers are advising it can take up to three months to authorise a job, that's simply not true!" Said warm front,

So how long will it take, roughly?
"We don't give out a timescale for authorising work!"
Just roughly, two weeks? a month?
"We don't give out timescales but it's definately not as long as three months!"
So how do I know it's not true?
"You will have to trust us!"
But winter is coming and for the second year running, you will have held up the paperwork and leave us without a boiler and heating, with respect, I have a young baby in the house and this needs sorting out!
*sigh* "Give me your address then I will check we have received the authorisation request..."

Before I could even give our address, she put the phone down on me!

Nothing but hassle dealing with the warm front team, they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard!

Update 3:
After a year of waiting, we now have one shiney new boiler installed.
Just  few points to note;

• Promised a Baxi boiler - they fitted an ideal logic boiler, saying, "We have never fitted a baxi boiler, we always fit ideal logic!" - Not true, as confirmed by warmfront.
• On the inspection, the fitters were warned of an exceptionally good water pressure here - reminded of this just prior to fitting - they went ahead and fitted a 24 watt boiler. The result is having to trickle the hot tap to get piping hot water (which uses twice the gas to heat) - if the hot tap is ran as we did with our old boiler, ie, normally, then running a bath gives only lukewarm water (wasting yet more gas as the boiler tries to heat water that's going through it too fast) - had they fitted a 30 watt boiler, we could have had piping hot water.
• "A new boiler is more efficient" - our old back boiler was more than 30 years old, it's fair to say that a new boiler would be more efficient?
  WRONG!
  This time last year, we had used gas worth £80 via our prepayment meter - this month with new boiler, we have used £140 from our prepayment meter.
  It's ok, this is because British Gas have just put up their prices?
  WRONG AGAIN!
  This is before the 9% British gas price increase - our gas price has remained identical for two years, yet the amount of credit taken from the meter with the new boiler has exceeded the amount we paid last year, by almost DOUBLE!
• British gas informed me that the installers should have fitted a 30 watt boiler - the installers who put in a 24 watt boiler say they are wrong.

We are left in a rediculous position of having a boiler that cannot produce piping hot water (unless the hot tap is running at a trickle), uses more gas than our 30 year old back boiler system (uneconomical) and the installation company, whom warm front continue to refer us back to when we point out what is wrong say, "As long as the boiler is fitted to manufacturer's instructions we will not change the boiler. You should fit a device that will enable you to turn down your water pressure!"

As soon as it can be afforded, this great efficient boiler is going on the scrap heap and a new more powerful boiler will be put in its place.

Update 4:

Ten months after being fitted, nine months after all the faults with the installation were reported, we are still getting nowhere with the fitters that warmfront sent out to our house.

After phone calls to the officer who inspected the property originally, we finally got someone to come out and inspect the work done.
On arrival, the bloke showed me the form for their records, listing all the faults that needed correcting.
The sheet was blank - showing me that the new engineers who took over the maintainance of our boiler, had stood, seen and "inspected" the work previously hadn't taken a blind bit of notice of all the faults and given the job a clean bill of health. (No doubt the company that take over maintainance of warmfront boilers are associated with the Eaga group of companies as well?)

The bloke the fitters sent out went through all the duff wiring - earthed the boiler up running wires straight down the middle of a wall and dangerously wiring the boiler itself up to a temporary plug socket instead of its own fuse in the mains electric unit.
He agreed with me on the need for this to be changed "urgently" and also acknowledged that the removal of support under part of the upstairs flooring, that had been removed and not put back when they re cemented it up, also needed to be changed immediately.

The back room radiator, that has been turned off for months, was found to be leaking from a poor standard of fitting the radiator, whenever it is turned on, causing damage to the floorboard underneath if left unfixed.

The bloke assured me that the original workmen no longer worked for them, he left promising that workmen would be here Thursday or Friday of that week (his inspection took place on the Tuesday) as Wednesday his men were already booked for a job.

Thursday and Friday came and went, I spent two days of my holiday sat around the house waiting.
Another three weeks have passed without so much as a phone call from the warmfront fitters.

As it stands, we cannot heat our back bedroom, we have a boiler wired in to a temporary plug socket, which could start a fire, we have a partially concreted bathroom floor that could give way at anytime, causing the heating pipes underneath to be stood on. We have earthing strips running unsecured down the middle of a front room wall, when they know we have a toddler running around the house.

Shabby, unprofessional and rude is how I would describe warmfront and its contracted fitters. Not acceptable for a taxpayer funded scheme.

One of my biggest failings, is being unorganised. As anyone who knows me will tell you I am forever running out of time.

Being frugal/thrifty, can be helped by organising your time more effectively. It could be shopping a month earlier for christmas presents or christmas food, allowing more time for a job, not spreading yourself too thin.

Another problem thrown up by my lack of organisation, is the time I get with sprog2.
All too often, I end up running around like a headless chicken and I miss everything around me.
One of the joys of looking after a baby, is the escape from the "rat race" - I had to nip out for a loaf last week, I walked down to the shop rather than drive, as it was bang on school run time, I walked past the long queue of cars of drivers, sat with their noses up against the windscreen, waiting for a gap in the traffic to get out or another driver to get on to the roundabout, etc.
I smiled on the inside, picking the loaf up, then walked back, safe in the knowledge that I am not a slave to the rush hour every morning and night, wasting money on petrol to sit and watch the bumper of the car in front as the minutes tick by before the daily grind starts.

Of course, I am very very lucky to be able to do this, I realise that, but I could smell the fresh autumn air, I looked up in the trees and the sunshine passing through them, etc, is this the kind of thing we should strive for in life?
Careers are all well and good, but do we really need to run around doing mundane tasks, with less support as business squeezes another pound of profit out of us, to line the pockets of the suits upstairs?
I don't recall at school being told that if we work hard, keep our heads down, we will be able to grind our lives out, with the occasional night out, until we pass on?
Sprog2 benefits (I hope) from having me around, I could not palm her off to a child minder whilst I run around trying to earn enough to pay for the childcare.

I know of a couple of people who work fulltime just to cover childcare costs, why not just look after your own children?
Why not spend time with them instead of at work?
When you are a child, you have time by the bucket load, everything moves in slow motion, until you reach 16, then it gets serious and the chain-gang like work to live routine kicks in and you are stuck.

By organising my time better, I find I not only benefit frugally more from being better prepared, but my family benefit, from the quality time I get to spend with them.
In return I am more relaxed, not stressed out and I am not wasting money by sitting in a car chasing my tail trying to get to a job that lines the pockets of others.

Come the special times, halloween, bonfire night, christmas, etc, I should be better prepared and as I am better prepared, I will also save money by not running around at last minute.

I have looked around online for your email address and contact details. Many websites state they have your contact details, but on visiting them, they do not.

Andrew Strong wrote to me via an automated letter, so here is my reply.

"When a breakdown occurs, they can be inconvenient and expensive, especially when parts need replacing. Fortunately, because you have breakdown repair cover as part of your AA membership, you saved £74.99 when your car broke down in July 2010.

We hope you were satisfied with the service you received and that it met the standards you expect from the AA."

Actually Andrew, I am not happy with the service given since taking out my membership, here's why;

Breakdown repair cover enables me to claim up to five times per year for repairs, when I bought it with my AA membership, I was told it would "cover all non wearable parts."
This is not the case!

Breakdown number one - My vehicle would not move forwards, I called out the AA, they found that the brake cylinders had leaked, jamming the brakes on in the process.
Unfortunately, as the mechanic was attempting to free the brakes up, he inadvertantly knocked off my immobiliser. I was then towed to my local garage to have the brakes fixed.
Unfortunately, for more than two months, the garage could not repair the brakes as the immobiliser was now broken and they could not drive the vehicle into the garage to fix the fault.
I could not find any garage nearby that could repair the immobiliser, even dealers in the make of vehicle would not repair it.
Finally after around 10 weeks and four visits by various auto electricians, I found a garage that could repair the immobiliser.
On contacting the AA, I was offered a tow from where the vehicle was, to the garage that could repair the immobiliser, as a "goodwill gesture" - which I later found out was not a goodwill gesture at all, but used up one of my five call outs (resulting in any future call outs costing me £99 each!)

The garage fixed my immobiliser at a personal cost to myself of 10 weeks without a vehicle and £110.
The work on the seized brakes was more than expected, as the wheel cylinders had leaked into the brake drums and contaminated the brake shoes, which must be replaced as well.
I contacted the AA and was told that they cannot cover the cost of any brake work (which is advertised with the letter I am replying to here) as brake shoes are wearable parts, add to this the labour charges for taking the drum off and cleaning it of brake fluid, also not covered by my AA breakdown repair policy (even though the brake shoes have to be removed to fit the new wheel cylinders which the AA were paying for anyway!)
The total bill for repairing the brake cylinders and cables, plus replacing contaminated brake shoes, came to £320 - of which the AA would only  pay out £185 (£210 minus the £25 excess) leaving me another £135 out of pocket.

Breakdown number two - I nipped out to get some petrol and returned home. Not 15 minutes later I had to nip out again, but when I went to start the vehicle, nothing, it was dead.
Out came the AA, they checked various things and concluded it was a battery fault. The battery was tested and said to "be fine"
Booster cables were attached and the engine was started, I was told to take it for a run to get some power into the battery, which I did.

Breakdown number three - Just two weeks later, the same problem occured, wouldn't start. Out came the AA and the battery was tested, completely dead, cells had gone, a new battery was required. The words of the AA man were, "I don't know why they didn't change your battery last time we came out, it's obviously faulty as it's not putting out enough amps as some of the cells have packed in!"
I paid the £25 excess for a new battery, which I was told was £125 to buy new (I know they are only £80-£90 new) which is not the true price, as Andrew's letter confirms that they are £100.

I received a letter some weeks later warning myself that I only had one call out left and all call outs after this would incur a hefty charge.
I called the AA, after being passed around four departments over 30 minutes on the phone, I finally got through to the right person.
Call out number two, was not a call out, it was "a goodwill gesture" in the respect that the AA had broken my immobiliser during call out number one.
Call out number four would not have been required, if on call out number three, the AA had done their job correctly and replaced the faulty part, which your patrol man completely missed.

So the reply to Andrew Strong, chief executive of the AA, is no I am not satisfied with the service. What are you going to do about it?

UPDATE:
AA contact details found so far;

The automobile association - AA
Head office,
Fanum House,
Basing view,
Basingstoke,
Hampshire.
RG21 4EA.
(Unchecked, please let me know if it is inaccurate)

Complaints addresses and procedures:
http://www.theaa.com/aboutaa/complaints.html

As yet, I am still unable to find an email for Andrew Strong.