Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this but I had a letter from MBNA today and need some opinions. If you take the time to read the picture(thank you) it states that some information was missing from part of my credit card application. Then says what they are doing to make it right. Do I have a leg to stand on about challenging them in regards to being missold anything?
Does the card have any monthly/annual or one time ( ‘subscription’ )fees?
Nothing like that. I just done a money transfer which had a percentage fee for the transfer.
Basically according to the terms they can change terms of the agreement to your disadvantage by giving 30 days notice , you can reject this but it means shutting the account.
Although it does state ( section B8.4 iirc) that changing the interest rate to your disadvantage they have to give you 60 days notice and per the letter they’ve only given you 30 days.
Ultimately they would argue they aren’t changing it and are giving you 30 days as a goodwill gesture.
For misrepresentation you can claim damages and exit the contract, the only ‘damages’ there is the credit check which you can get them to remove as they’ve admitted that it was confusing, and also claim any fees for the money transfer etc but would almost certainly mean closing the account.
If you feel missold and feel some ££ would set that straight then call them up, and also argue that they should have given you 60 days because as far as you’re concerned they are changing the contract.
But as far as legalities I don’t think you would be due any cash as there was no losses because of this contract.
Although I’m not a lawyer. There may be some other laws that I don’t know about that they’ve broken which could change the situation.
Thank you so much for the detailed reply, i really appreciate it! Good to hear your thoughts!! Very interesting!
The mistake that MBNA is bringing to your attention has nothing to do with your balance transfer though.
If you’ve made purchases on the card you haven’t been mis–sold because MBNA is honouring the 0% deal on purchases even though the mistake was in the advertising of this offer, which is heavily regulated.
Your balance transfer would likely have always been subject to a fee (they always are) and will be done under whatever terms you agreed to in doing it, including the fee. To reiterate, a balance transfer is not the same as a 0% on purchases offer.
I totally agree with @j06. Looks like they made a mistake that is to their detriment.
But they aren’t honouring it.
No, I know…I was just explaining what I had done on my card. I realise that the balance transfer side of things has nothing to do with it. They aren’t really honouring the 15 Months though. They have said I have 1 more month to make purchases on my card. So I feel like there is some wrong doing here? I got the card thinking it was 0% for 15 months on purchases.
It’s not clear but I think it means you’ll get 15 months , but if you got the card more than 15 months ago then you’ve got 30 days from now.
I was under the impression you personally had the card for more than 15 months?
I took it to mean:
- The 0% offer was supposed to be: items purchased in the first 60 days are 0% for 15 months.
- After that, further purchases will attract interest.
- As the mistake was ours, we will honour the 0% offer on purchases you’ve made to date, and any purchases you make in the 30 days from receiving this letter.
- After that, further purchases won’t be covered by the offer.
It is perhaps complicated by not knowing at any point how long the OP has had the card. As the letter includes a paragraph saying “If you’ve incurred any interest on purchases we will ensure it is refunded”, they may have had the card longer than 60 days, but likely far fewer than the 15 month term.
If they’ve had the card for more than 30 days then adding on the 30 days after the letter would be over 60 days, so the offer period will be longer than intended by the bank, if not as long as expected by the cardholder.
My reading is that the bank made the mistake in the advertising, and they’ve rectified it in a way strikes me as being a reasonable compromise.