Paypal called me a crook and froze my £435
I AM a retired photographer aged 67. I sold my equipment on ebay in May last year.
The money was credited to my Paypal account. When we moved home in October, my wife sold more items on ebay.
In December, Paypal told me by email it had frozen my account under an EU moneylaundering directive because it had exceeded its trading limit of £1,900.
It said I would have to register as a company to reopen the account. Until then, I could continue selling items and have funds paid into my Paypal account but would not be able to draw on them! Paypal is holding £435 of my money and I can’t get it back.
K.C., Kent. THE good news is that your account is unlocked and you have your money back.
Paypal has to comply with the EU money-laundering directive — it’s the same one that has resulted in people in their 90s being asked for a driving or gun licence to prove who they are when they want to open a savings account.
Paypal lets people open accounts with only essential information. But if their activity exceeds certain limits, then it must ask for more detail about their identity and, if applicable, their business.
The reason Paypal was asking for business details is that you originally registered as a business, perhaps by mistake. I’d like to tell you more but despite requests from Paypal and me, you haven’t given the company permission to speak to me.
Other readers please take note: I can only help you if you help me — and that means providing written permission for the companies you are complaining about to speak to me. Without this, their jaws are clamped by the Data Protection Act and my ability to help you is constrained. WHEN I retired last September, I asked for an annuity quote from Aviva for my £285,294 pension fund.
On September 12, Aviva offered a tax-free lump sum of £71,324, plus an annual pension of £11,652.60.
I accepted this on September 21. The next and only contact I had from them was to confirm the fund was now worth £286,360. I would receive a tax-free lump sum of £71,590 and they would pay an annual pension of £11,488.44 starting on September 28.
They neither sent a new quotation nor asked if I wished to reconsider based on this lower pension. I would certainly have checked other providers to see if I could get more.
P.S., Pontefract, W. Yorks. WHEN an annuity quote is offered, most firms keep them open for 14 days and some allow as long as 45 days, says Tom Mcphail, a pensions expert at financial adviser Hargreaves lansdown. You certainly replied within that period. When you complained to Aviva, they admitted their mistakes but refused to put you back into the position you would have been in if they had honoured their quotation.
Aviva’s excuse was that you had originally asked for an illustration on September 6 and then asked for a second one, including a spouse’s pension, on September 12.
Aviva cut annuity rates on September 7, but in the second quotation mistakenly used the higher annuity rates that had been in force from August 23 to September 7. It then compounded the error by setting up your pension to be paid based on even lower annuity rates.
Aviva’s compromise is to offer you a pension of £11,583.72 a year based on September 7’s rates. I don’t think this goes far enough. The crux of the issue is you entered into a contract based on misleading information.
As things stand, you will still be £68.88 a year worse off. Both you and your wife have suffered a loss which is likely to add up to well over £1,000 during your lifetimes. Aviva appears to be placing your case in the category of an erroneous quotation you could have put right. But this is entirely different.
Once an annuity is bought, there is no going back. Aviva invested your money without bothering to check whether you were happy with the lower income, depriving you of the chance to look elsewhere.
Without hesitation, I suggest you take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I’ve already sent your initial documents to them. But you should call them on 0300 1239 123 to formally ask them to investigate.
I OPENED a two-year savings bond with Santander with £30,000 in August, but it was issued to my husband in his name. I contacted the branch, following which a new bond was issued in our joint names!
I complained again, and was promised a new certificate would be issued. Once again it came in joint names. Can you sort this out please?
J.H., Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim. THIS may sound trivial, but it could have had important implications. First, if you were a non-taxpayer and your husband was a taxpayer, the interest you received could have been severely reduced.
In addition, some couples prefer to keep aspects of their financial affairs private. By sending out your bond to your husband in his name, Santander breached your privacy.
To compound the error, when you complained, it replied to your husband. This may have been standard practice in the Fifties, but it certainly should not be today. A bank spokeswoman has apologised, but you have — not surprisingly — decided to close your bond having become completely exasperated with Santander.
The bank has now sent a cheque for the closing balance and added £100 as a goodwill payment.