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

[Deleted User]

My understanding was that there is no point trying to claim Reserve Usage Fees back since all Barclays will do is say 'no, these are legal and subject to the test case', correct? I didn't include them on the claim form for that very reason. So, although the banks are obliged to look at them you'll just get a templated response putting it on hold...pretty much a circular experience!

esmerellda

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?

precisely. although MAY rather than WILL

Its what should have been happening before the test case.

esmerellda

Deleted_User wrote: »

My understanding was that there is no point trying to claim Reserve Usage Fees back since all Barclays will do is say 'no, these are legal and subject to the test case', correct? I didn't include them on the claim form for that very reason. So, although the banks are obliged to look at them you'll just get a templated response putting it on hold...pretty much a circular experience!

Yes you'll get a templated response.OFT are looking at them with regards the legalities/fairness. Barclays Reserve charges are not part of the test case nor of the waiver. Any complaints about reserve charges have to be looked at in line with normal coplaints procedures and can't be put on hold due to the test case. Barclays OPTED to do it this way.

Same applies to reserve charges as to normal charges when in hardship.

esmerellda

Deleted_User wrote: »

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?

and yep that sums it up nicely :T

moneypot

I'm really sorry about this but I am very confused about all this.

Part of my claim is for the 'reserve fees' that they introduced around £400 and I still have some recent charges that I wasn't able to take in to account.

In some posts that I have read on here when people are not getting the full amount back they are sending letters to the bank saying: -

"Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxx. I am writing to inform you that I accept the money that you have refunded into my account as part payment without prejudice but that I intend to proceed with my claim for the full amount.

You may not have been aware that I commenced legal action against you for the full amount and I would ask that you now refer this matter to your legal department for further instruction.

Alternatively, should you wish to settle my claim in full, then please forward the balance of the claim £xxxx without further conditions and I will inform the court that the claim is settled.

Please note that the amount refunded to my account as of today’s date is £xxxxx."

So when is the above template to be used and am I now just supposed to wait for the test case to be settled?

Sorry to keep asking questions.

Jackie

[Deleted User]

esmerellda wrote: »

and yep that sums it up nicely :T

In which case, shouldn't the MSE guides be tweeked a little...it did give me a bit of false hope and I think others might be confused too!

esmerellda

moneypot wrote: »

I'm really sorry about this but I am very confused about all this.

Part of my claim is for the 'reserve fees' that they introduced around £400 and I still have some recent charges that I wasn't able to take in to account.

In some posts that I have read on here when people are not getting the full amount back they are sending letters to the bank saying: -

"Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxx. I am writing to inform you that I accept the money that you have refunded into my account as part payment without prejudice but that I intend to proceed with my claim for the full amount.

You may not have been aware that I commenced legal action against you for the full amount and I would ask that you now refer this matter to your legal department for further instruction.

Alternatively, should you wish to settle my claim in full, then please forward the balance of the claim £xxxx without further conditions and I will inform the court that the claim is settled.

Please note that the amount refunded to my account as of today’s date is £xxxxx."

So when is the above template to be used and am I now just supposed to wait for the test case to be settled?

Sorry to keep asking questions.

Jackie

That template is very old and was used when people were getting partial offers when their claim was in the court process.

A hardship claim wouldnt be in the court (as its not a legal issue its a FSA/BCSB guidance issue) so yes you can write back or call and ask for more, but they are under no obligation to refund anything. You are asking for help as you are in financial difficulty rather than a legally argued refund of charges as i hope i have explained before.

[Deleted User]

Apologies once more for reopening the discussion on this thread, but my mind was whirring while I was in the shower this morning, and something doesn't make sense.

Esmerellda - you (correctly) suggest that the banks obligations under the Banking Code and FSA guidelines are to 'consider' your case now if you are in financial hardship, but that the issue of financial hardship is a different issue to that of unauthorised charges reclaiming.

e.g. if I claim my charges back, citing financial hardship, the banks will put the charges claim on hold until the end of the test case, but MAY refund some charges as a remedy to being in financial hardship, with no acknowledgement of any causal link between the two.

Now, I understand that bit, but what I don't understand is how that logic could possibly apply to the advice given by MSE that consumers should claim charges back from banks that they are no longer a customer of.

MSE argues that you should send off your SAR and reclaim from old banks you no longer have dealings with. But, if you are no longer a customer, isn't it fair to say that any obligations that bank may have under the FSA guidelines/Bankers Code are, in practical terms, likely to result in no remedy?

Or, put in other words, a bank must consider you case and provide assistance with regards your financial hardship. BUT, you are not in financial hardship with that bank; you're not even a customer of that bank, so it will never be in a position to help you. It cannot consider the 'financial hardship' part of your claim; why would a business help a non-customer? It would be like me (a Vodafone customer) calling up Orange and asking them to reduce my bills: they can't, as they have no power/jurisdiction over me.

What I'm trying to get at is that there is huge confusion between this concept of 'financial hardship' and 'charges reclaiming' - and to query whether the distinction does exist all the time. Why would MSE suggest that you should claim from previous banks under the financial hardship exemption, as it would appear that previous banks are powerless to deal with the financial hardship bit? All they can do is deal with the charges issue, which they'll defer until the test case is over.

Am I making sense? Or does this all sound like waffle?

I think it's quite an important point I'm making here, but probably not very well: if you claim financial hardship from a bank you are no longer a customer of, is it correct to say they have no obligations to you under the banking code (as a non-customer) and even if they did, they cannot 'provide assistance' in anything other than a supportive role (leaflets, advice) because you are not a customer of the bank. Any claim for a refund of charges therefore remains within the waiver and won't be dealt with until the end of the test case.

[Deleted User]

Perhaps a more satisfactory solution - although obviously I can see that in many ways it creates a legal minefield - would be for banks to automatically refund 100% of charges to anyone who can prove financial hardship; but the refund to be given subject to the test case decision; if the FSA rules in favour of the consumer, then no further action is taken.

If the FSA rules in favour of the banks, then the banks would be entitled to request repayment of the charges from the 'financial hardship' consumers over an extended period of time, to minimise the impact.

In other words, the refund is a conditional loan, repayable on demand (subject to the FSA decision).

esmerellda

Reclaiming from a closed account, quite often we (meaning nattie and I mainly lol) advise on here that its most likely not possible. in SOME cases where an account is newly closed and the charges were taken during a period of hardship and the bank should have acted properly, sympathetically etc under the banking code, and them not doing so has helped put you in the position you are in now, then you are basically complaining about that....but the only remedy available is a refund of some/all charges or a halt on collections activity if an overdraft/debt etc was left behind when the account was closed.

REMEMBER - we are only talking about HARDSHIP.

normal claims are completely fine on closed accounts and even if you are in hardship you should still claim on closed accounts ready for after test case (back to july 2001)

All banks are different and will deal differently with things so I can only talk from an overview perspective.