Barclaycard taken old debt direct from my account!!

Alfie_E

See Banking: Firms’ right of ‘set off’. Also, in Banking Benefits, the CAB highlight “there is no limit on the amount a bank can take” under the right of set-off. I can think of three lines of attack.

Firstly, your mum could try to argue that she wasn’t given reasonable opportunity to pay the money. She made the arrangement with the collection agency, but they messed up. Barclays should have asked the collection agency what had gone wrong, and then asked them to carry out the arrangement correctly.

The second would be if taking the £750 has really messed up your mum’s finances. The banking code states:

We will deal quickly and sympathetically with things that go wrong and consider all cases of financial difficulty sympathetically and positively.

The third is if, indeed, the amount taken that was taken is far more than amount outstanding given by the collection agency. Was the original arrangement that all interest would be suspended? If there are extra charges, your mum would want to know what they’re for. It was hardly costly for Barclays to simply take the money from her current account. There are plenty of threads on the forum about unjustifiable bank charges. If the charges are for the collection agency, for work they did actually do, she won’t be able to successfully contest them.

Of the three, I think the first is the least likely to get anywhere. If you don’t get any joy form Barclays, especially if the third point is relevant, your mum could consider complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Dan29

Alfie_E wrote:

Firstly, your mum could try to argue that she wasn’t given reasonable opportunity to pay the money. She made the arrangement with the collection agency, but they messed up. Barclays should have asked the collection agency what had gone wrong, and then asked them to carry out the arrangement correctly.

Shouldn't she also have enquired about the arrangement though?

Alfie_E wrote:

The third is if, indeed, the amount taken that was taken is far more than amount outstanding given by the collection agency. Was the original arrangement that all interest would be suspended?

Does it matter what the arrangement was if it never came into effect, i.e. no payments were made, which would presumably have been part of any arrangement?

If the original debt was £300 it could easily be £750 five years later, just due to interest being added (i.e. no extra charges at all).

Dan29

fuzzyfuzzy wrote:

You are dead wrong, It is an agreement not a contract.

Barclays have no legal right to keep that money.

Part of the agreement states that 'if there iis any change to the date, amount or frequency of the direct debit we will give you 7-10 days notice in advance of the account being debited'

The money wasn't taken by direct debit - if you re-read the thread title you'll find it says

"Barclaycard taken old debt direct from my account!!"

not

"Barclaycard taken old direct debit from my account!!".

Alfie_E

Dan29 wrote:

Shouldn't she also have enquired about the arrangement though?

I did say that that one was going to be harder to argue. Yes, she should have enquired. We don’t know the circumstances; often people run into financial difficulties, when their life runs into problems in general. There may have been other more pressing matters.

Dan29 wrote:

Does it matter what the arrangement was if it never came into effect, i.e. no payments were made, which would presumably have been part of any arrangement?

From the way the OP worded it, it seemed more like a failure to collect. I’m assuming that the OP’s mum didn’t go out of her way not to pay the arranged amounts. The bank is a professional financial institution, and generally a higher degree of competence is expected of it compared to that expected of an ordinary customer.

kevin.philips

At which part in moneysavingexpert do we support financial institutions in being immoral...?

The whole concept so far as I understand it is to offer support to those who ask and/or need it. A tough luck response - she owed it so they can have it is neither supportive nor answering the question of "can they do this...".

With a view to the saving of money aspect the OP has every right under contractual terms to ask for a renegotiation of the final settlement, as has previously been mentioned the reasonableness is on the bank to act with a higer regard than the consumer and in all cases they must limit their losses - I could successfully argue in a court that they must have known when the account defaulted that the OP's mother had other accounts with them and despite of any breakdown of communications with a third party then they were in a better position to realise any losses, the balances of finances at that point should have been used to clear the debt so should it easily be accepted that any amount of debt can escalate to £750.... I think not.

Stop mouthing off about what can happen and help people to assist in their situation:

I'm not sure why you think she shouldn't pay it.

Personally can't see the problem here...Barclaycard got back what they were owed.

If they don't, the rest pay for it.

- How do the rest pay for it..?

If the original debt was £300 it could easily be £750 five years later, just due to interest being added (i.e. no extra charges at all).

- This is not reasonable - the bank have an onus to prevent losses not maximise revenue generating opportunities and deal with them some 5 years later when they are just within recovery limits.

Bossyboots

Dan29 wrote:

The money wasn't taken by direct debit - if you re-read the thread title you'll find it says

"Barclaycard taken old debt direct from my account!!"

not

"Barclaycard taken old direct debit from my account!!".

Methinks the title has been changed!

jobbingmusician

Anyway, the important thing is, chickmeistergeneral, are you clear what to do?

I think I am summarising the general points of this thread if I say

1. We DON'T think that Barclays had the right to take the money without warning (although it sounds as if they DO have the right to transfer money from one account to another)

2. You should contest the TOTAL of the amount and read threads about reclaiming unfair bank charges.

ctm_2

kevin.philips wrote:

At which part in moneysavingexpert do we support financial institutions in being immoral...?

Are you suggesting that a company recovering the money that they are owed in a way that an individual agreed to when signing terms and conditions is immoral? Interesting viewpoint.

bobmats_shel

What happened to this thread? Is no-one willing to give actual advise.

As far as Barclays taking the money from your mothers account, they can and do take it without warning, my friend just had this happen in exactly the same position where she was in the process of sorting out the debt with a debt company that Barclays had passed it onto.

Barclays had to pay the money back as she had proof of her dealings with the debt company and taking the money would put her in financial hardship. She had however already come to a payment arrangement with the debt company.

Banks will do anything! I am constantly shocked at the things they get away with, obviously for your mother to get into debt then she doesn't have £750 in her bank account that she can just lose like that.

I don't have 2 of any kind of account with the same bank for this reason. I simply don't think that a financial institution should be able to help itself to your money. Yes your mother owed the money, but people do get into debt, a lot of the time through no fault of their own.

I hope you can sort this out. I would suggest your mother start by going into her local branch and ask to speak to someone, taking proof of the debt being passed over to debt company and copies of any dealings with them. If this doesn't work then the CAB or as someone already suggested a solicitor (free if you are claiming certain benefits.

kevin.philips

Are you suggesting that a company recovering the money that they are owed in a way that an individual agreed to when signing terms and conditions is immoral? Interesting viewpoint.

Where did you make this assumption..... what is IMMORAL and I spell it out because this is getting beyond a joke is a financial institution making millions of pounds a year pulling stunts like this.

Of course I agree that the original debt should be paid but not excessive interest charges when the company concerned have done nothing to resolve the situation themselves (They have very sophisticated analysis systems so there really is no excuse). All they need do is have contacted the individual concerned and say that they would take drastic action - this I am sure would have prompted a resolution.

I suppose the contributors to this message believe that banks should be making an extraodinary amount of money in excess of any of their physical losses....