Barclays - Reserve/Had Enough

grace

*Sigh* if only we were all a perfect as the Financial Institutions... never going overdrawn...never spending money they dont have...always taking responsibilty for the actions ... never expecting other people to bail them out... Oh wait!!!... you do....

Redemption

BarclaysManager wrote: »

I'm hardly the world's smartest person

Well, at last you have said something I can agree with !!

Can you really not see beyond the Barclays Gospel you spout on here from dawn to the early hours of the next morning? Do you really have no concept of why there is such a ground swell of hatered for the Banks (not just yours, it must be said)? Indeed you even had the temerity to call me a liar in another thread when I printed a true account of problems I had experienced with another part of your holy organisation. An apology would be nice but of course you won't do that! You are a bank manager so how can you possibly be wrong?

You seem to feel it is OK for the bank to do anything it likes as long as it is hidden somewhere, usually in complex language, on page four of seven of the t & c. Even you must understand that there are principles of fairness and common law. Let's take a simple example.....

A car park will no doubt display a sign saying it takes no responsibility for any damage to you car. However, as we all know, if they are negligent they are responsible regardless of the notice, t &c, etc.

You seem to feel it is OK to change the t & c whenever you like and the customer should accept whatever new wheeze you foist upon them unless they opt out. There is another basic principle that you cannot impose the terms of a contract by the silence of the other party. No doubt you try to get round this by some devious t & c, which MAY even be legal. Whether it is fair, honourable or a decent way to do business is apparenty of no concern to you.

You also seem unable to grasp the fact that customers come in all levels of intelligence. It is a sad reflection on our education system that in some cases this will be very low indeed. These days it is almost impossible for anybody to exist without a bank account. Forgive me using this phrase, but even the "lowest" manual worker probably no longer has the option of being paid in cash. He therefore has to have a bank account with one of a handful of institutions like yours.

In recent years the bank manager has moved from being the staid, wise, fatherly figure, that could give sound advice, to a money grabbing, bonus led and frequently dishonest salesman.

Your organisation has seen these "poor" people as easy targets to trick into paying excessive charges (actually penalties) out of all proportion to the service offered.

Next you decided to offer excessive lending paying little, if any, attention to an individuals circumstances. You were only interested in the "big picture". In other words it didn't matter to you if some defaulted providing the overall numbers stacked up. You couldn't give a damm about the individual misery this left behind. In the end it came back and bit you, or at least it should have done, but everybody else is paying the price.

Now you have the audacity to act surprised at the reaction. Of course you hadn't got the decency to put your hands up and say we got it wrong. No, you showed similar contempt for the FOS and the County Court system playing "the game" until it gound to a halt.

Finally, your own organisation is even too arrogant to accept the government's bailout. Instead you have got in bed with the Arabs so that you can keep your dishonestly obtained bonuses. Well, I hope they shaft you and the government lets you rot next time.

rlfan82

For a minute on this thread, I thought I was the only normal person here, but it turns out everyone else worked for a bank.

Then come the customers who have the same opinions and experiences of others. Of course, the banks won't accept this because they are perfect.....erm aren't they? Ah yes, our perfect financial system built on the strength of our perfect banks.

As for Mr BarclaysManager, striving to survive on 30% of his income, %'s mean nothing my friend. Could you survive on 30% of £100, or only on 30% of £100,000?

I think to sum up, we have all learnt why people always use a rhyming word, starting with a W, when naming Bankers.

LADY_A_5

hi, for whats it is worth i have had a few problems with this myself. now i am currantly on jsa as i am still waiting for my crb to come back (4months later) before i can start intended job. now since this new system has been in place i have had this 22pound fee about 4 times in 2 months, partly because my dd come out before my jsa goes in. i find barclays customer service uncapable of doing the simpilist of things like helping me with this situation, and having another long outstanding problem with them for allowing debits to be taken out when i have stopped them, saying there is nothing i can do! this whole mess has stressed me out and i shall try and sort it once more before i finally give in and close my account. they do not care how much you earn, how you will find the extra 22pound every time u go so much as a few quid overdrawn, 88 pounds in 2 months on jsa is a lot to find. they want there money simple, but what about when i try and claim my money back for the debits taken out for the past 11 months that i have stopped over and over again? no joy. its all ways to make these people richer in times of recession and job loss reguardless of who it affects. this is just my experience and do not wish to create an argument of any sort. thanks

new2civvystreet

Redemption wrote: »

These days it is almost impossible for anybody to exist without a bank account. Forgive me using this phrase, but even the "lowest" manual worker probably no longer has the option of being paid in cash. He therefore has to have a bank account with one of a handful of institutions like yours.

Yes, but people who used to be paid in cash never had an overdraft facility. People now winge about their overdraft facility and the way the banks manage it (and about the banks themselves) but without the banks they wouldn't be able to spend money they don't have in the first place. Anyone who doesn't want this problem can just take out a current account with simple facilities and no overdraft. Hell, they might even be able to earn a little interest - you can't do that with cold hard cash.

Not all banks have lended irresponsibly so I think it's wrong that people are tarring all 'bankers' with the same brush.

Extant

Redemption wrote: »

Well, at last you have said something I can agree with !!

Ho ho ho.

Can you really not see beyond the Barclays Gospel you spout on here from dawn to the early hours of the next morning?

I'm actually one of the people who comes up with what you call "gospel", so it's not really an issue of seeing past it.

In the interest of full disclosure, though: I have a bank account with Natwest and am currently opening up a First Direct account, so perhaps you have the wrong impression of my loyalties.

Do you really have no concept of why there is such a ground swell of hatered for the Banks (not just yours, it must be said)?

I understand why the "hatred" exists, I just find it to be petty and unjustified. The number of irrational customers who scream and shout, and literally stomp their feet in banking halls up and down the country is unbelievable.

Indeed you even had the temerity to call me a liar in another thread when I printed a true account of problems I had experienced with another part of your holy organisation. An apology would be nice but of course you won't do that! You are a bank manager so how can you possibly be wrong?

Because you are a liar, and you are lying about policy and areas of the bank that I help to develop and am currently partially responsible for.

Send me a private message with your complaint reference, or even the name of the person you claim you dealt with. I'll go have a look, and if there's even a shred of proof to your claim, I'll send you a nice apology on paper from my office.

You seem to feel it is OK for the bank to do anything it likes as long as it is hidden somewhere, usually in complex language, on page four of seven of the t & c.

Terms and conditions are provided at the opening of an account. You have a responsibility to read them. If you read them and do not understand, you can visit the bank and we will tell you exactly what it means. If you do not agree with our terms and conditions, you have at least 14 days - sometimes more depending on the product - to end the contract with no cost and no penalty.

This is perfectly fair and is fairly standard across service providers.

You seem to feel it is OK to change the t & c whenever you like and the customer should accept whatever new wheeze you foist upon them unless they opt out. There is another basic principle that you cannot impose the terms of a contract by the silence of the other party. No doubt you try to get round this by some devious t & c, which MAY even be legal. Whether it is fair, honourable or a decent way to do business is apparenty of no concern to you.

Customers always have the opportunity to opt-out regardless of the change, even the smallest one in our T&Cs.

You question whether this is fair, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that customers were contacted at least twice, notifications posted in numerous business areas, and the run up to this change took over three months - one quarter of the year.

We changed our charging structure specifically to make it fairer and more transparent. Customers now know exactly what they will be charged for and when.

You also seem unable to grasp the fact that customers come in all levels of intelligence. It is a sad reflection on our education system that in some cases this will be very low indeed.

Yes, it is a sad reflection. That is why we spend a significant amount of time ensuring that our product literature is clear and coherent, it's why we invest more in training and compliance training that any other bank to make sure that we can back this up with a well informed and well trained service staff.

In recent years the bank manager has moved from being the staid, wise, fatherly figure, that could give sound advice, to a money grabbing, bonus led and frequently dishonest salesman.

Less than five years ago, the FSA took over regulation of insurance sales. The impact of this on customers was that most banks switched to selling insurance on a "yes or no?" basis, often with simply a tick box.

Barclays remains the only high street bank that trains their staff to be able to advise on insurance and other regulated products.

We developed our training and compliance structure in co-operation with the FSA, to their satisfaction. Along with a rigourous training structure comes a rigourous compliance structure. Every branch manager has access to detailed reports on each and every seller, and it is a specific part of both the seller's and the branch manager's performance development plan to ensure that they sell compliantly. This does affect their salary.

Any complaint around mis-selling is treated incredibly seriously, and can and does lead to disciplinary and dismissal. Mis-selling is gross misconduct and a breach of the sales standards all our sellers accept and sign to.

Your organisation has seen these "poor" people as easy targets to trick into paying excessive charges (actually penalties) out of all proportion to the service offered.

We no longer have penalty charges, we have a set fee structure which corresponds to a product line. The customer is free to use or not use this product, so I fail to see how this is "tricking" anyone.

Next you decided to offer excessive lending paying little, if any, attention to an individuals circumstances. You were only interested in the "big picture". In other words it didn't matter to you if some defaulted providing the overall numbers stacked up. You couldn't give a damm about the individual misery this left behind. In the end it came back and bit you, or at least it should have done, but everybody else is paying the price.

Except my institution isn't actually guilty of this. For every £100 on deposit with us, roughly £6 of it is then leant out again, with £94 remaining invested in the back.

We have an incredibly strong capital ratio, and an incredibly strong deposit base. Sorry, but we are just not guilty of this.

Now you have the audacity to act surprised at the reaction. Of course you hadn't got the decency to put your hands up and say we got it wrong. No, you showed similar contempt for the FOS and the County Court system playing "the game" until it gound to a halt.

The current situation is actually no surprise to anyone who works in finance. And, as said before, we're really not guilty of over-lending. Sorry, but we're not Halifax.

Finally, your own organisation is even too arrogant to accept the government's bailout. Instead you have got in bed with the Arabs so that you can keep your dishonestly obtained bonuses. Well, I hope they shaft you and the government lets you rot next time.

Again, our bonuses are earned honestly. Anybody who isn't earning honestly should, rightly-so, be addressed and either corrected or removed from their position.

Ultimately, we have a responsibilty to our shareholders, and our shareholders alone. We believe that part of this responsibility is to maintain our operational freedom, which would ultimately not be possible if we accepted the bail out offered by the government. I am sorry to note the apparent xenophobia in your post.

I would also like to point out that we do not need the bail out, and we are only doing this because we have been instructed to improve our balance sheet above and beyond what is needed. We could easily survive without it.

Extant

rlfan82 wrote: »

As for Mr BarclaysManager, striving to survive on 30% of his income, %'s mean nothing my friend. Could you survive on 30% of £100, or only on 30% of £100,000?

I started out as a cashier for Barclays. I made £689.99 on my first pay cheque.

Any money above and beyond that, and the position I am in today, has been earned by working hard. I am never going to say sorry for that.

My success has only been relatively recent, everything before that was a struggle. But, of course, I am "one of them" now :rolleyes:, so you will surely never recognize that.

Extant

LADY_A wrote: »

hi, for whats it is worth i have had a few problems with this myself. now i am currantly on jsa as i am still waiting for my crb to come back (4months later) before i can start intended job. now since this new system has been in place i have had this 22pound fee about 4 times in 2 months, partly because my dd come out before my jsa goes in. i find barclays customer service uncapable of doing the simpilist of things like helping me with this situation, and having another long outstanding problem with them for allowing debits to be taken out when i have stopped them, saying there is nothing i can do! this whole mess has stressed me out and i shall try and sort it once more before i finally give in and close my account. they do not care how much you earn, how you will find the extra 22pound every time u go so much as a few quid overdrawn, 88 pounds in 2 months on jsa is a lot to find. they want there money simple, but what about when i try and claim my money back for the debits taken out for the past 11 months that i have stopped over and over again? no joy. its all ways to make these people richer in times of recession and job loss reguardless of who it affects. this is just my experience and do not wish to create an argument of any sort. thanks

Get them to remove the personal reserve from your account, and then change your direct debit dates. You should then either have the money there for your direct debits, or we will bounce them, and you will be charged no fee.

If you feel that we haven't helped you enough with canceling your direct debits or claiming under the direct debit guarantee, please call 0800 282 390, which is the direct number for the complaints department.

akashi

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Also, why shouldn't I feel as though I'm better, more adept at this than everyone else?

Sure, you have the right to feel however you want.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

I would also like to point out that we do not need the bail out, and we are only doing this because we have been instructed to improve our balance sheet above and beyond what is needed. We could easily survive without it.

That is interesting, may I ask who " instructed " Barclays to improve their balance sheet over and above what is needed?