Barclays Bank - Watch Out!

TotallyBroke

Ok I'm only guessing here with dates, maybe OP can confirm if I am correct or not.
Account went into reserve at close of business on the 22nd December. Charged £22. Letter printed and posted on 23rd to say you have 5 working days to get your account into order otherwise we will charge you another £22. Working days being 23rd, 24th, 29th, 30th, 31st so by close of business today if account is not up to date £22 will be charged. This will probably happen and the OP will have to deposit money in account by close of business on the 8th January or another £22 will be charged.

So today at 4.30pm or whenever the day cut off is a letter will be printed off ready for posting on Friday. Telling the OP that they have 5 working days.
When Royal Mail will deliver that is anyone's guess but once it leaves Barclays and hits the sorting office it's down to Royal Mail.

The fault is actually the OP's. S/he chose not to check what was in the account before the 22nd. S/he chose to spend on the 22nd and therefore go over their account limit.

CLAPTON

Calchas wrote: »

Please feel free to make as many points as you wish CLAPTON.

May I respectfully request that you do not do so after quoting a singular point I make that you subsequently pay scant attention to and, judging from your remarks, show little understanding of!

Happy New Year:hello:

This is an open forum for people to express (politely) their views... if it's your wish not to have your views discussed then the obvious solution is available to you.

In any event I specifically adressed your point... if the Barclay's default had been not to opt in then the OPs transactions would probably have been bounced, which he may have found eqaully inconvenient.. you have chosen not to reply to the point which is fine of course.

Calchas

CLAPTON wrote: »

This is an open forum for people to express (politely) their views... if it's your wish not to have your views discussed then the obvious solution is available to you.

In any event I specifically adressed your point... if the Barclay's default had been not to opt in then the OPs transactions would probably have been bounced, which he may have found eqaully inconvenient.. you have chosen not to reply to the point which is fine of course.

I am more than happy to have my views discussed.

The point you think you specifically addressed was not the point I was making: the outcome is an irrelevance!

The principle concerned is that it is unethical to enrol someone in a scheme when they have a right not to join. The status quo should remain: the original situation should prevail unless or until an individual decides to alter it.

To do the opposite is immoral and naturally arouses suspicion, a point that you inadvertantly picked up on in your earlier ramble.

Happy New Year CLAPTON :hello:

YorkshireBoy

Calchas wrote: »

To do the opposite is immoral and naturally arouses suspicion...

Speaking of opt in/opt out...

My company, like many, is having a hard time at the moment. So much so that back in November they asked us to defer December's salary payment until the 3rd week in January.

The form had 3 tick boxes:

1. Not prepared to defer anything
2. Defer 100% of salary
3. Defer some other %age of salary - please indicate the amount

At the foot of the page was the message "if we do not hear from you we will assume you wish to defer 100% of your salary". :eek:

I joined a very long queue outside the Personnel Office! :rotfl:

Calchas

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Speaking of opt in/opt out...

My company, like many, is having a hard time at the moment. So much so that back in November they asked us to defer December's salary payment until the 3rd week in January.

The form had 3 tick boxes:

1. Not prepared to defer anything
2. Defer 100% of salary
3. Defer some other %age of salary - please indicate the amount

At the foot of the page was the message "if we do not hear from you we will assume you wish to defer 100% of your salary". :eek:

I joined a very long queue outside the Personnel Office! :rotfl:

I know I shouldn't, but laugh I did! Out loud!!! :T

Humour in the face of adversity? Very British, what!!!

Seriously, my best wishes to you, YorkshireBoy, in 2009.

You have cheered me so much I wish CLAPTON another happy new year as well.:beer:

CLAPTON

Calchas wrote: »

I know I shouldn't, but laugh I did! Out loud!!! :T

Humour in the face of adversity? Very British, what!!!

Seriously, my best wishes to you, YorkshireBoy, in 2009.

You have cheered me so much I wish CLAPTON another happy new year as well.:beer:

Since you have been so kind as to wish me a happy new year twice I thought I would share a true story with you.

In a previous employment (in the good old days) we used to get an annual pay rise.
When the increase was paid there was a letter explaining the pay rise and how this should be considered a change in out T&C of employment.

Now no-one, to my knowledge ever complained about this outrageous immoral unilateral change to their employment contract.
However, I feel confident that had you worked there you would have stuck to your principles and resolutely refused the pay increases year on year... maybe..

prosperous new year

Calchas

You've had it rough CLAPTON!

I personally have only ever worked in heavily unionised industries.

As a matter of principle!

hotpot1000

Barclays so called 'altered' the terms and conds solely to catch people out into paying all these extra fees. This is pretty poor taste considering the current economic situation. I opted out months ago but they should have offered the new terms as an opt in.

Extant

hotpot1000 wrote: »

Barclays so called 'altered' the terms and conds solely to catch people out into paying all these extra fees.

Except most customers will - and do - pay less in fees than they did in charges.

Take, for a example, a customer which a £150 reserve, who pays out £100 on a Direct Debit to cover their credit card.

Under the old system, this payment would have bounced, charging them £35, and then the credit card company would likely charge them as well - typical £12. So, nice easy example - the customer has been charged £47 in total.

Under Reserve, the payment is made. No charge is incurred from the credit card company. Barclays fee for this is £22. That's it for five days, and you've then got that time to repay the money before you even have to think about another fee. Indeed, you could even spend another £50 without having to think about another fee.

And if you don't want to use Reserve? Turn it off, opt out. We'll bounce it, and charge you £8. The credit card company will charge you your £12. Total £20.

So, how exactly is it more expensive...?

This is pretty poor taste considering the current economic situation.

Except we started planning this in 2007 and it was introduced ahead of the current troubles? Or did you think it's possible to cobble this together over night?

I opted out months ago but they should have offered the new terms as an opt in.

It was given as an opt out because it was a formalization of an existing arrangement with the bank - as you could previously go overdrawn in the same fashion. We informed our customers well ahead of time, through multiple channels, of the changes - in line with both the terms and conditions of the account and the Banking Code.

Merlinexcalibur

Had trouble with this a few months back. Barclays angle on this was 'we sent all information out in a mailshot in June/July' when I told them I'd never heard nor seen such documents. Which I never did. So unless the post office failed to deliver, am I meant to be psychic and know all this? First I knew of it was when the counter worker went on about 'Reserve' and I stood there 'what??????'. Totally threw me. Then, when I got the dreaded letter telling me I'd be charged nearly a £100 a month unless I paid in five days I phoned and cancelled it. Yes, I was losing the so called reserve tank thing - one thinks of mobiles here and top ups - but on the other hand, as five days hadn't elapsed since the account was overdrawn yet Barclays claimed it had, so their version of working days is different to the rest of us mere mortals it seems, on the other hand I wasn't faced with the terror of such astronomical fees. I really don't see how this can be fairer as they claim. It makes your situation worse if you are overdrawn by placing you into more debt. The only people who benefit is the bank.