Confused by Barclays' offer: what are they referring to?

moneypot

My letter that I received at the weekend is exactly the same but they only gave me back around half of my claim...

I completely agree with you though, if they accept your claim for hardship then surely they are agreeing to paying the full amount...

Confused.com!!!

esmerellda

They consider the hardship part of your complaint is over. They should have told you why they had refunded that amount to you - eg to cover arrears etc - so ask them for that referencing the document I posted above.

Understanding wise you have to split the two issues.

1st theres your circumstances and hardship. You are struggling, the banks charges arent help and ay be contributing to your difficulties. Under the banking code they have to treat you sympathetically and this already involves ''firms to provide a range of measures to support customers and to treat them positively and sympathetically
nb2)firms are also refered to sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the guidance to the banking code.
these might include: help and guidance about dealing with fd and avoiding charges; suspending collections and recovery activity; suspending accrual of further interest and charges; consideration of a refund of charges, in particular where the charges may have added to the FD during, or immediately before, the period of FD. The rationale for why a particular level of refund has been given should be documented and clearly explained to the complainant." This should be the case whether or not their was a test case about charges.
Then theres the legal issue of the fairness of charges - these complaints are on hold and the banks do not have to look at your complaint with regards to fairness.


The EXEMPTION to the waiver means that if someone complains about overdraft charges in the context of hardship then they should still consider the complaint under the banking code as they should have pre test case.

does that make sense?


Hardship = Banking Code/Guidance
Unauthorised Overdraft Charges = Legal

EVEN IF they paid you the full amount of charges they would still say ''
Your complain regarding unauthorised overdraft charges will be dealt with once the legal proceedings between the banks and the Office of Fair Trading are concluded. Your complaint reference number is XXXXXXXX.''

this is because they CAN'T full and finally setlle anything whilst the test case is ongoing because there are issues of restitution, compensatory interest, limitations etc to be decided and they arent allowed to disadvantage anyone by settling in full now.

moneypot

Does that mean that my claim for the other half is not worh pursuing until a decision is made by the courts?

natweststaffmember

moneypot wrote: »

Does that mean that my claim for the other half is not worh pursuing until a decision is made by the courts?

It means that a partial refund is doing something with regards to hardship however, I think from earlier posts above, the issue is the rationale behind the decision. They haven't said that you were made unemployed at x date so we are refunding you the charges since that date. Any offer made CANNOT be a full and final settlement of the claim for the reasons esmerellda outlined above. The words "full and final settlement" would be for the hardship part of the claim only.

[Deleted User]

And what if you are still in financial hardship after the initial payment from the bank? Are we able to go back to the bank and submit a new request for financial hardship for the remainder?

Seems a bit tautologous and long-winded for Barclays to judge what figure would bring someone out of finacial hardship.

natweststaffmember

Deleted_User wrote: »

And what if you are still in financial hardship after the initial payment from the bank? Are we able to go back to the bank and submit a new request for financial hardship for the remainder?

Seems a bit tautologous and long-winded for Barclays to judge what figure would bring someone out of finacial hardship.

That is where we do the actual negotiation based on their offer. Remember, hardship would be caused by an event in your life, ie loss of a job, hourse, etc,etc,(2a of Annex 2 of the waiver) and lead to a shortcoming of income leading to arrears. The basis is priority debt arrears because you could lose your home, liberty or essential utilities if they are not paid unlike non priority debts where the worst is a CCJ where you pay what you owe.
Negotiation is always the way if the offer is insufficient. If they say NO then the final response is where the argument is dealt with through the FOS, ie you argue against their reasoning for only one amount.

[Deleted User]

esmerellda wrote: »

They consider the hardship part of your complaint is over. They should have told you why they had refunded that amount to you - eg to cover arrears etc - so ask them for that referencing the document I posted above.

Understanding wise you have to split the two issues.

1st theres your circumstances and hardship. You are struggling, the banks charges arent help and ay be contributing to your difficulties. Under the banking code they have to treat you sympathetically and this already involves ''firms to provide a range of measures to support customers and to treat them positively and sympathetically
nb2)firms are also refered to sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the guidance to the banking code.
these might include: help and guidance about dealing with fd and avoiding charges; suspending collections and recovery activity; suspending accrual of further interest and charges; consideration of a refund of charges, in particular where the charges may have added to the FD during, or immediately before, the period of FD. The rationale for why a particular level of refund has been given should be documented and clearly explained to the complainant." This should be the case whether or not their was a test case about charges.
Then theres the legal issue of the fairness of charges - these complaints are on hold and the banks do not have to look at your complaint with regards to fairness.


The EXEMPTION to the waiver means that if someone complains about overdraft charges in the context of hardship then they should still consider the complaint under the banking code as they should have pre test case.

does that make sense?


Hardship = Banking Code/Guidance
Unauthorised Overdraft Charges = Legal

EVEN IF they paid you the full amount of charges they would still say ''
Your complain regarding unauthorised overdraft charges will be dealt with once the legal proceedings between the banks and the Office of Fair Trading are concluded. Your complaint reference number is XXXXXXXX.''

this is because they CAN'T full and finally setlle anything whilst the test case is ongoing because there are issues of restitution, compensatory interest, limitations etc to be decided and they arent allowed to disadvantage anyone by settling in full now.

Sorry to repick at previous posts like this, but does this (the wording of your post) mean in strict legal terms:

If someone applies for their bank charges back and is claiming financial hardship, then the banks separate the two issues; first they look at financial hardship and then the issue of unauthorised overdraft charges? So, the banking code regulates their conduct in regards to the first but then the test case provides guidance as to the second?

I'm just trying to unravel this a bit more, as in which case all the advice and documentation on MSE seems to be, well, not incorrect at all, but subject to a caveat.

My understanding was that IF you are in financial hardship THEN you can claim your charges back AND the bank - if they agree - will refund them regardless of the waiver. At least, that's how the articles and posts on here read to me allude to.

What you are saying (which is clearly quite correct) is that EVEN if you are in financial hardship, the test case applies, but that the banks may provide other assistance - which may include goodwill gestures of refunds, thus not admitting liability or unfairness - to help you out of financial hardship?

In which case, isn't all the discussion and commentary on MSE linking the two slightly unnecessary? In other words; just because you are in hardship doesn't mean you can claim your charges back now. Instead, it means you can ask you bank for relief - and chances are if you have been charged bank fees previously these will be part of their relief?

I know it sounds silly, but actually this is a very important point as I - and I think other people - certainly didn't realise the distinction (and I like to think I'm not stupid!).

Or, summarised as follows:

Even if you are in financial difficulty, you'll have to wait until the FSA test case is over until your charges are deemed unfair and you can open a claim that route, BUT if you apply to your bank seeking hardship AND you can demonstrate that you've been given overdraft/account charges in the past six years, they are likely to offer a refund of these (in part) as part of a goodwill gesture.

I think the terminology in all the MSE articles is quite confusing and suggests that those in financial hardship can claim charges back; in truth, those in financial difficulty can claim 'financial hardship'...

Does that make sense?

[Deleted User]

natweststaffmember wrote: »

That is where we do the actual negotiation based on their offer. Remember, hardship would be caused by an event in your life, ie loss of a job, hourse, etc,etc,(2a of Annex 2 of the waiver) and lead to a shortcoming of income leading to arrears. The basis is priority debt arrears because you could lose your home, liberty or essential utilities if they are not paid unlike non priority debts where the worst is a CCJ where you pay what you owe.
Negotiation is always the way if the offer is insufficient. If they say NO then the final response is where the argument is dealt with through the FOS, ie you argue against their reasoning for only one amount.

And if the banks have stated explicitly in their recent correspondence that this is a 'final response' that exhausts their complaint procedure, does this mean I shouldn't go back to the bank, but to the Ombudsman instead, to challenge the amount given (or to ask for an explanation, if none was given)?

[Deleted User]

Final post on this specific issue: I don't know what others think, but reading through the MSE guide to reclaiming, I do think it's a little misleading (in technical, not practical terms). It is suggesting that if you're in financial difficulty then you're able to claim your fees back (which may or may not be accepted by the banks...they just need to consider your case), whereas actually you're not so much claiming fees back as you are claiming financial hardship, for which a refund of fees is a potential remedy.

Capiche?

natweststaffmember

Deleted_User wrote: »

And if the banks have stated explicitly in their recent correspondence that this is a 'final response' that exhausts their complaint procedure, does this mean I shouldn't go back to the bank, but to the Ombudsman instead, to challenge the amount given (or to ask for an explanation, if none was given)?

I think that if they have said it is their final response then the answer is yes. Barclays are a tough one since their Reserve Useage Fees are outside of the waiver yet inside the OFT test case issues. Which means that they are looking at fees up to August 2008 under the FSA Waiver and other fees under the banking code as esmerellda has stated.
Confusing?? You bet it is. I would be arguing the case as outlined before.
The bank does not have to look at a refund of ALL charges incurred but they can look at charges that have worsened your financial position with essential creditors not being paid because of the charges.