Yes, the SoGA 'enpowers' the contract by filling in default implied terms.
I take the point that certain services could vary. But the point is what would be reasonable for a consumer to construe from the branch opening hours advertisement when it comes to simple bank accounts. Personally I think it would be quite reasonable for a consumer to expect counter services for a simple bank account to be available during those advertised opening hours. In which case, if the bank were to vary this, the bank would have to make this *explictly* clear to the consumer in the contract. I don't know whether this is an explicit term or not in the OPs case.
Just transfer your business to another bank, then send a shitty letter to the CEO of NatWest. Tell him/her about your experience. I would also copy the letter to as many other intestested paties as possible, including BBC Watchdog - make sure you let the CEO know who else your sending copies to.
I moved from NatWest to Cahoot last year and have been very pleased with all aspects of banking with them ever since, especially the extra interest I receive and the 250 charge free credit zone.
In early November 2003 I was walking up to my local Natwest branch of 4 years just as they were closing the door, literally in my face. I checked my watch and it was only 4.28, not 4.30 : the official closing time. I knew my watch was accurate because it is synchronised to radio-controlled clocks in my house, and therefore felt I should point out the bank's error straight away. As someone was leaving I slipped in and informed the staff their clocks were wrong and they were unnecessarily refusing entry to customers who were still in time. They refused to do an on-the-spot time check by telephone which would have resolved the matter immediately and proved their clocks were 2 minutes fast.
Two days later I received a telephone call from the bank informing me their clocks WERE correct and that if I came in late like that again they would call the police and close my account. DUH!!! I phoned Natwest's customer service line and related the story. The lady was very sympathetic and said they would investigate.
Meanwhile the clocks slipped to 2 minutes and 30 seconds fast. Two weeks later I received a letter from the regional manager stating that our banking relationship had "irretrievably broken down" and that they were closing my account in 30 days. DUH!!!
I had had no other problems with this bank, ran my account in an orderly fashion, and was merely trying to correct their timing for the benefit of staff and customers.
Show me how you can deduce this from the terms and conditions that are issued by a bank. I think you'll find loads of get out clauses enabling them to alter branches and opening hours at will.
In another post you make the point about implied terms not needing to be displayed.
By the same token do you see huge notices on bank walls explaining the credit and debit clearing systems and the procedures relating to bounced cheques, direct debits and standing orders?.
Another thought. In the case in point, any transaction after 3.30 would likely be regarded as the next day anyway.
I really do think you are going overboard here especially as it is quite apparent that you havent read a bank's T&cs
1) We are talking about 2 minutes of disputed opening time.
2) I have yet to see any evidence form any source EVER in which a banks opening hours, which are over and above the statutorily defined 'hours of business' hours, can possibly be construed as being binding in the way you describe.
Correct, I have not contradicted myself. It depends on what the customer would reasonably expect to get for a service called "a current bank account at a high street bank". Say that to most people and they will expect as standard: A cheque book, counter services, ability to pay in and withdraw monies within a reasonable time, clearing services etc. and all the other things you mention below. If the service actually provided differs from this expected norm then those differences must be noted in the T&Cs, and moreover prominently so, or at least not hidden away in the small print. If they conform to the norm though (or what could reasonably have been expected) there's actually no need to state it. All of this stuff eventually ends up as both explicit and implied terms in the final contract, which by the way is much more than just the T&Cs, and also includes statutory stuff such as that provided by the SoGaSA.
Just to affirm this notion, imagine if you changed your electricity supplier. You can expect to get 220V AC 24 hours a day, that's normal and what people expect from the service. If they then only supply 190VAC and switch off for 10 minutes every day you'd complain right? I bet there's no T&Cs that state the actual voltage and time coverage. No need too, it's expected, and an implied term in the contract, which they are violating and which gives you the right to complain.
See above.
Not the point, the customer might for example have been around that area anyway, and would then require yet another journey to the bank the next day if the bank were not open, even though they should have been.
I'm looking at this purely from the SoGaSA point of view. I have already stated that I don't know whether the OPs T&Cs actually cover this, it's all hypothetical, but what *should* be in the T&Cs if the bank were to vary things from the norm can be predicted. One such thing is the varying of opening hours at will, this would potentially over-ride a sign outside showing opening hours (i.e. when a customer could expect counter services to be available to him/her given no other information).
I have also already noted in a previous post that 2 minutes would not IMO be considered a reasonable discrepency to make a complaint about. Half an hour would, if not covered by the T&Cs.
On the contrary, there are statutory rules laid down for the provision and continuity of the domestic electricity supply. I
Nope, its explicit.
Eh? The rules of the clearing systems etc., are contained in the T&Cs.
Banking code requires 8 or 12 weeks notice for the closure of a branch, if that helps, but other changes can be made at will.
Elsewhere there is a thread about Marvles going completely down for a long time. There is a clause in their T&Cs which allow them to do that. Similarly EGG can delay a withdrawal by up to 90 days without notice.
I don't recall signing anything with this information in it when changing my supplier. I don't recall any reference to statutory obligations either. Unless of course that such compliance would be assumed by a consumer and not necessary to state?
They may well be, all I said is it's not necessary to be there if they are what could normally be expected, not that they wouldn't be in the T&Cs at all! (BTW they don't need notices up in the branch to publicise these things, putting them in the T&Cs would suffice. But if they alter a service from what can normally be expected they have to make this more prominent in the T&Cs than just small-print, especially so if it is onerous to the user).
They can alter what would be considered normal in their T&Cs. This is consistent with what I've been saying.
I don't recall signing anything with this information in it when changing my supplier. I don't recall any reference to statutory obligations either. Unless of course that such compliance would be assumed by a consumer and not necessary to state?
They may well be, all I said is it's not necessary to be there if they are what could normally be expected, not that they wouldn't be in the T&Cs at all! (BTW they don't need notices up in the branch to publicise these things, putting them in the T&Cs would suffice. But if they alter a service from what can normally be expected they have to make this more prominent in the T&Cs than just small-print, especially so if it is onerous to the user).
They can alter what would be considered normal in their T&Cs. This is consistent with what I've been saying.
Indeed not, they only form part of the overall contract for services, which includes implied terms and statutory rights. Some of the latter cannot be altered by the T&Cs, and some rights cannot be altered or could be considered unfair under the unfair terms act.
I'm not aware of any other business which is obliged to display its opening hours, or which is committing any kind of offence by failing to keep to the hours that it displays. It seems that banks are no different.
A high street bank account would require counter services, which by definition means the customer must have access to the bank. The customer is entitled to know when those services will be made available. This information can be gleaned from the T&Cs, or in the absence this from a sign showing opening hours. If there is a sign up, if not varied by the T&Cs, these times will form an implied term in the contract of services that access to the bank and hence those counter services will be allowed within those hours. The customer would IMO have right to redress if these services are denied within those hours. This is actually based on quite basic consumer law, I can't quite see how it can be argued against.
This is unlike a shop who normally provide goods not services, in which case there's no need for the consumer to have access at known times and therefore no obligation for the shop to open within any advertised opening hours.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.