Barclays Personal Reserve

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

What else would one expect of the Fobbing Off Service?

A truly independent ombudsperson service is needed, not one owned by the banks and run largely for their benefit.

[leclerc]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

The FOS adjudication arrived in the post this morning. I wanted to post it up but the scanner on my printer has decided it won't work, so to paraphrase:

When I wrote to Barclays advising them I was unhappy about Personal Reserve fees and requesting an overdraft as an alternative, I made the mistake of referring to "account management difficulties" and did not use the wording "financial difficulties." As a consequence, I was not deemed to have raised hardship with the bank at the time. In light of this, the FOS finds that the Bank have acted "reasonably."
I think account management difficulties/financial difficulties is very similar in terms of semantics. If the rest of the letter made reference to fees that were causing hardship then that an interpretation that should not be taken by the bank.
The FOS takes the Bank's word over mine concerning Barclays' efforts to 'phone me. The Bank says it tried to call, I know they did not.
As them what number they called and the date that they called because clearly, if that is the case then they should have some record of these attempts. Furthermore, the bank simply saying we tried to call is insufficient since their number would come up as private number.
Apparently I should have telephoned the Bank's Customer Review Team to discuss my financial difficulties with them, as writing to the Bank was insufficient. The same Customer Review Team that, when I contacted them on my Barclayloan, said they had called me when, in fact, they did not. Nonetheless, FOS happy with the Bank's account of itself.
Did they write to you to tell them to contact their Customer Review Team?
The FOS are unable to accept that the £30.00 charges I endured prior to the £8 charges being introduced were excessive. The FOS quotes the court case and says that charges cannot be challenged, "we are generally unable to compel the bank to refund them."

The FOS agreed with me that:

1. The Bank's Customer Review Team could have called me but didn't
2. The Bank should have processed a manual overdraft application on my request overriding the automated system, even though it was foregone conclusion I wouldn't get one(they agree with you on this point and that the bank is at fault)
3. The Bank withdrew my Personal Reserve without notice and (to quote the FOS) "I am persuaded that, given the length of time that you have used the Personal Reserve facility, trying to manage your finances without the facility would have been difficult for you."

Barclays have offered £150.00 for distress and inconvenience.

The glass is either half full or half empty. They haven't exactly come across as smelling of roses since the £150.00 still has to be paid. Considering my initial thoughts on this thread, ie that you'd get nowt the fact that they are having to pay out £150 regardless of the reason is at least something.


CC, imho, it wasn't a financial hardship case in the end. Payments were made, no priority debts racked up and they have offered £150.00 for distress and inconvenience(plus it cost them £500 for the case as well.....a double win excluding costs to the bank to look into the case which would have doubled the £500.00).

[Turboman]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

Tough one DS

..but anticipated I suspect mate.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

The glass is either half full or half empty.

Or it could just have twice the requisite capacity.

CC, imho, it wasn't a financial hardship case in the end. Payments were made, no priority debts racked up and they have offered £150.00 for distress and inconvenience(plus it cost them £500 for the case as well.....a double win excluding costs to the bank to look into the case which would have doubled the £500.00).

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I dare say that many or most former plods would claim that the largely discredited IPCC (or the previous - and wholly discredited - Police Complaints Authority) was "truly independent", whilst most newspaper hacks are quite convinced that the Press Complaints Commission offers all the redress needed in the "very few" occasions a newspaper makes a mistake or libels someone.

The £150 offered was derisory.

[leclerc]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

Or it could just have twice the requisite capacity.


Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
I would because AFTER I was sacked as a branch cashier, so not working in financial hardship departments, I learnt the lending code, I spoke with the FOS with regards to how they deal with cases and I had success based on the advice I gave in that regards. I knew eventually someone would pull out the "you worked for a bank" card. I also leaked stuff as well so does that make me bankified loyal or a bankified traitor? Does it make me trustworthy or dishonest? Different people would view myself in both camps.
I dare say that many or most former plods would claim that the largely discredited IPCC (or the previous - and wholly discredited - Police Complaints Authority) was "truly independent", whilst most newspaper hacks are quite convinced that the Press Complaints Commission offers all the redress needed in the "very few" occasions a newspaper makes a mistake or libels someone.
There is NO redress through the courts CC so considering that from what I viewed there was no case to answer on financial hardship, any payments is better than nothing
The £150 offered was derisory.

Why do you see there being a case? How does that tie in with the rules surrounding financial hardship?

Perhaps a slightly off topic question, but how do you make the FOS independent or a banking regulator independent? Do you get people who have never worked in the industry to work within it?
It's very easy to say the regulator is biased but not easy to suggest solutions that does not involve criticisms that the regulator cannot ever be unbiased from certain people's perspectives.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

I think the point is that the FOS should not be financed by the Banks. They won't bite the hand that feeds them and on 'policy' areas like the personal reserve charges and bank charges generally the FOS aren't interested.

Barclays is the biggest contributor to the FOS - I believe - and from purely personal experience on my complaints against Barclays over the past couple of years I have noticed that the FOS have wriggled around and backed the Bank where they can. I have had different experiences when complaining about other banks.

The hardship issue is tricky. I fail to see how anyone, like me at the time, who relies on the personal reserve facility to survive and is being swindled out of a minimum of £88.00 per month and who ends up in a cycle of dependence of it, as a result, and who is refused any alternative of any kind, cannot be described as in "hardship." However, as there are regulatory guidelines on what "hardship" constitutes the lesson learned is to be fully au fait with them and to do the homework first.

However, it is clear to me that what Leclerc says is 100% spot on, sadly, because financial hardship claims are difficult to successfully bring and must be handled correctly and its essentisl to use all the correct terminology and jargon from the get go.

In any event, in my case financial hardship was not used as a reason for the compalint initially, simply because at that time I did not know about it, and originally I was appealing to the Bank's sense of fair play. Yeah, I was naive back then. That was nearly a couple of years ago and a lot of water has passed under the bridge for me since then, not least discovering these forums and becoming better informed.

I think the lessons here are that charges aint gonna be recovered by the FOS; the personal reserve cannot be challenged; and hardship claims need to be researched and planned thoroughly.

[leclerc]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

I think the point is that the FOS should not be financed by the Banks. They won't bite the hand that feeds them and on 'policy' areas like the personal reserve charges and bank charges generally the FOS aren't interested.
How should they be financed? They work in a role similar to mediation to avert court action so clearly one side does pay for the service(@£500 per case). Should the consumer pay for the service?
Barclays is the biggest contributor to the FOS - I believe - and from purely personal experience on my complaints against Barclays over the past couple of years I have noticed that the FOS have wriggled around and backed the Bank where they can. I have had different experiences when complaining about other banks.
On most cases the FOS side with the consumer so perhaps Barclays contribute due to having more complaints or more areas of their business regulated by the FOS(I doubt that part but it might be true)
The hardship issue is tricky. I fail to see how anyone, like me at the time, who relies on the personal reserve facility to survive and is being swindled out of a minimum of £88.00 per month and who ends up in a cycle of dependence of it, as a result, and who is refused any alternative of any kind, cannot be described as in "hardship." However, as there are regulatory guidelines on what "hardship" constitutes the lesson learned is to be fully au fait with them and to do the homework first.

However, it is clear to me that what Leclerc says is 100% spot on, sadly, because financial hardship claims are difficult to successfully bring and must be handled correctly and its essentisl to use all the correct terminology and jargon from the get go.
I'm not so sure of the terminology but it is imho a pity that useage of the Pesonal reserve does not constitute an element on financial hardship since for £88 per month you are servicing the account.
In any event, in my case financial hardship was not used as a reason for the compalint initially, simply because at that time I did not know about it, and originally I was appealing to the Bank's sense of fair play. Yeah, I was naive back then. That was nearly a couple of years ago and a lot of water has passed under the bridge for me since then, not least discovering these forums and becoming better informed.

I think the lessons here are that charges aint gonna be recovered by the FOS; the personal reserve cannot be challenged; and hardship claims need to be researched and planned thoroughly.

I think the issue of whether the personal reserve can be challenged is questionable but if someone builds up debts then I cannot see how it cannot be challenged. I still think that perhaps the FOS should perhaps be looking at the fact that if a customer is using the reserve which is in effect an unauthorised overdraft that they are showing signs of hardship, be it severe or otherwise.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

I honestly don't know how the FOS should be financed. The issue isn't really about how they are financed of course but about a conflict of interest. Perceived or real.

Certainly perceived.

I concur with your observations. The personal reserve is challengeable, I am wrong to say it isn't, but it will take a better constructed complaint than the one I put together.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would because AFTER I was sacked as a branch cashier, so not working in financial hardship departments, I learnt the lending code, I spoke with the FOS with regards to how they deal with cases and I had success based on the advice I gave in that regards.

Yesterday, I downloaded and read the current version of the Lending Code; it was certainly interesting, but only to the extent that a student of ethnology might view the Book of Genesis.

The Lending Code, as an effective means of self regulation, is about as much use as a lace watering can.

I knew eventually someone would pull out the "you worked for a bank" card.

Yes, but not in the way that you seem to think, as it was a point made to suggest why you still seem to worship at the altar of Mammon, or otherwise cleave to the banks' particular theology or pecuniocentric (money-centred) cosmology.

I also leaked stuff as well so does that make me bankified loyal or a bankified traitor? Does it make me trustworthy or dishonest? Different people would view myself in both camps.

It merely shews that, unlike your colleagues, you still retained at least a vestige of conscience.

I dare say that many or most former plods would claim that the largely discredited IPCC (or the previous - and wholly discredited - Police Complaints Authority) was "truly independent", whilst most newspaper hacks are quite convinced that the Press Complaints Commission offers all the redress needed in the "very few" occasions a newspaper makes a mistake or libels someone.

There is NO redress through the courts

Don't you think there should be?

Why do you see there being a case? How does that tie in with the rules surrounding financial hardship?

Have a look at the current Lending Code (PDF link) and, in particular, paragraphs 182 and 183 which require pro-active help to be offered.

Perhaps a slightly off topic question, but how do you make the FOS independent or a banking regulator independent? Do you get people who have never worked in the industry to work within it?

1. Stop the service being funded directly from the banks
2. Set up the service on a statutory basis, paid for from the Consolidated Fund
3. To reduce public expenditure, all retail banks etc should be charged a tax or levy on their gross income
4. Replace the Lending Code with legal binding regulations via a Statutory Instrument
5. Make the Director of the service accountable to a Secretary of State at the Home Office
6. Require the Director to publish details of complaints upheld or rejected, with personal details redacted as necessary
7. Give aggreved customers a full and comprehensible explanation of why a complaint was rejected and details of what they can do next, including an automatic right of appeal
8. Pay realistic levels of compensation when a complaint has been upheld and charge realistic penlties from the banks etc involved; a penalty of only £150 could be lost in one day's petty cash account
9. To reduce the risk of regulatory capture, prevent any employee of the service from being given any post within the banks etc, whilst making any offer of pecuniary or other advantage to a member of the service, whether or not this would be to influence the course of a complaint, would be a serious offence contrary to section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010 (link).

It's very easy to say the regulator is biased but not easy to suggest solutions that does not involve criticisms that the regulator cannot ever be unbiased from certain people's perspectives.

That is a very poor and wholly inadequate rationalisation for not even attempting to set up an improved system.

[leclerc]

Re: Barclays Personal Reserve

Yesterday, I downloaded and read the current version of the Lending Code; it was certainly interesting, but only to the extent that a student of ethnology might view the Book of Genesis.
We haven't got any other way of defining financial hardship. As far as I know, there is no legal definition of financial hardship.
The Lending Code, as an effective means of self regulation, is about as much use as a lace watering can.
How would you define financial hardship(after all that is the issue here)

Yes, but not in the way that you seem to think, as it was a point made to suggest why you still seem to worship at the altar of Mammon, or otherwise cleave to the banks' particular theology or pecuniocentric (money-centred) cosmology.
If you understand how the enemy(if you feel that way) thinks then you can speak their language, understand their behaviour and find ways of being able to defeat them and keep them on the side of the consumer.

It merely shews that, unlike your colleagues, you still retained at least a vestige of conscience.
Definitely not, lol!

Don't you think there should be?
if there is a legal definition of financial hardship, then yes it would make perfect sense.

Have a look at the current Lending Code (PDF link) and, in particular, paragraphs 182 and 183 which require pro-active help to be offered.
I would read part 178. However with regards to 183 perhap DS could clarify with the FOS as to whether they viewed the personal reserve useage as "regular unarranged overdrafts or excesses on agreed overdraft facilities;" as most reasonable minded people would not view the personal reserve as an authorised overdraft facility.

1. Stop the service being funded directly from the banks
2. Set up the service on a statutory basis, paid for from the Consolidated Fund
3. To reduce public expenditure, all retail banks etc should be charged a tax or levy on their gross incomedoes that kinda contradict 1?
4. Replace the Lending Code with legal binding regulations via a Statutory Instrument
5. Make the Director of the service accountable to a Secretary of State at the Home Office
6. Require the Director to publish details of complaints upheld or rejected, with personal details redacted as necessary can I clarify if any other body does this ie individual complaints since that would require millions of complaints to be published.
7. Give aggreved customers a full and comprehensible explanation of why a complaint was rejected and details of what they can do next, including an automatic right of appeal
8. Pay realistic levels of compensation when a complaint has been upheld and charge realistic penlties from the banks etc involved; a penalty of only £150 could be lost in one day's petty cash account what levels and for what reason. DS was being offered £150.00 not for the refund of charges but for something different.
9. To reduce the risk of regulatory capture, prevent any employee of the service from being given any post within the banks etc, whilst making any offer of pecuniary or other advantage to a member of the service, whether or not this would be to influence the course of a complaint, would be a serious offence contrary to section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010 (link).

is there any such rule within other businesses similar to the above?

That is a very poor and wholly inadequate rationalisation for not even attempting to set up an improved system.

most of the list I would kinda agree with.