Barclays have left me cashless

disgustedvictim

Lokolo wrote: »

A person spends money on someone elses card. The transaction goes through. Woop. The person then does it again as they feel as though they can get away with it.

A pattern emerges and the bank caps onto this and investigates possible fruad.

It's simple when you think about it.

Which is more likely.

1:Criminal reuse same debit card to launder money.

2: Innocent guy gets money from better off relatives.


Let me ask you a question. If everybody that has a bank account gets automatically treated like a criminal. Then why don't we take the DNA and fingerprints of every person in the UK? The reason we don't is because the vast majority of the people in this Island are innocent people who don't deserve to be treated like criminals.

zppp wrote: »

Wrong on several counts.

1. SOCA can take funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 indefinitely.
2. There are no grounds for compensation as the bank hasn't made an error, they have simply reported a transaction.
3. They are legally obligated to freeze funds until the Financial Intelligence Unit have investigated. The timescales are aforementioned.

I used to think people complaining about a police state were idiots seeing things that shouldn't that aren't there. Now I kind of agree with them.

I'm inconvenienced and I have to wait for them to sort this issue out. Yet when they do. I have no grounds to get compensated from though even though I haven't done anything and they wrong in the first place.

zppp

disgustedvictim wrote: »

Who do I complain to? The fraud office? Or the number that guy gave me earlier? I want this sorted out asap. I'm not willing to spend the rest of my summer holidays waiting for them to call me to tell me everything is all fine and dandy and make some stupid excuse that doesn't make up for the time i wasted. I'm leaving London soon so I don't want to spend the rest of my time in the city cooped up in my house.

You cannot complain. You have to now wait until SOCA give Barclays the green light to release the funds.

Lokolo

disgustedvictim wrote: »

Which is more likely.

1:Criminal reuse same debit card to launder money.

2: Innocent guy gets money from better off relatives.


Let me ask you a question. If everybody that has a bank account gets automatically treated like a criminal. Then why don't we take the DNA and fingerprints of every person in the UK? The reason we don't is because the vast majority of the people in this Island are innocent people who don't deserve to be treated like criminals.

No. It's because it's expensive the people don't want it. You realise Labour wanted exactly this and they just got voted out?

daniel598

disgustedvictim wrote: »

Which is more likely.

1:Criminal reuse same debit card to launder money.

2: Innocent guy gets money from better off relatives.


Let me ask you a question. If everybody that has a bank account gets automatically treated like a criminal. Then why don't we take the DNA and fingerprints of every person in the UK? The reason we don't is because the vast majority of the people in this Island are innocent people who don't deserve to be treated like criminals.

How does your bank know your innocent and not receiving proceeds of crime from overseas.

On the matter of the complaint complain to the government because the bank is simply following the law.

disgustedvictim

Lokolo wrote: »

No. It's because it's expensive the people don't want it. You realise Labour wanted exactly this and they just got voted out?

I'm not a political guy. I don't trust any party out there. Especially the Big Three. This isn't going to make me more likely to vote. The Coalition had time to do something about this but they're spending their time chasing after single mums in council houses.

daniel598 wrote: »

How does your bank know your innocent and not receiving proceeds of crime from overseas.

On the matter of the complaint complain to the government because the bank is simply following the law.

Thats guilty until proven innocent. Which is just wrong.

Lokolo

daniel598 wrote: »

How does your bank know your innocent and not receiving proceeds of crime from overseas.

On the matter of the complaint complain to the government because the bank is simply following the law.

Did you not read? The bank can quite easily phone up the police and ask for a criminal record check! (if you cannot tell, I am being sarcastic )

WhiteHorse

zppp wrote: »

1. SOCA can take funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 indefinitely.

SOCA is not Barclays. It appears that so far the funds have not been seized, but merely frozen by Barclays.

2. There are no grounds for compensation as the bank hasn't made an error, they have simply reported a transaction.

The bank has done more than report a transaction, it has frozen the money. If the bank has not adhered to the appropriate guidelines, failed to make proper enquiry, or has otherwise acted ultra vires, it is liable.

3. They are legally obligated to freeze funds until the Financial Intelligence Unit have investigated.

What are the criteria? So many pounds, for instance?

I ask because I have at one time or another asked at all the main clearing banks and been given wildly differing answers. I have even been told that the 'law' is 'secret' and 'not for the public'.

The timescales are aforementioned.

Where is it stated that investigations may continue indefinately (which means without limit, ie forever).

WhiteHorse

daniel598 wrote: »

How does your bank know your innocent and not receiving proceeds of crime from overseas.

Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty.

zppp

WhiteHorse wrote: »

SOCA is not Barclays. It appears that so far the funds have not been seized, but merely frozen by Barclays.

That's correct.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

The bank has done more than report a transaction, it has frozen the money. If the bank has not adhered to the appropriate guidelines, failed to make proper enquiry, or has otherwise acted ultra vires, it is liable.

Actually if you look up consent order on the SOCA website they hav a legal duty to freeze funds to allow SOCA to investigate, thus it is not ultra vires. Also there is normally a relevant condition stipulated in the account holder's Ts and Cs regarding this kind of situation.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

What are the criteria? So many pounds, for instance?

I ask because I have at one time or another asked at all the main clearing banks and been given wildly differing answers. I have even been told that the 'law' is 'secret' and 'not for the public'.

There is no criteria, apart from if the institution feels the transaction is suspicious. There are no monetary limits as such, however larger transactions will attract more reports.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Where is it stated that investigations may continue indefinately (which means without limit, ie forever).

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

WhiteHorse

zppp wrote: »

Actually if you look up consent order on the SOCA website they hav a legal duty to freeze funds to allow SOCA to investigate, thus it is not ultra vires.

I take your point, but would suggest that acting beyond legitimate authority is always a possibility (and in the experience of quite a few people, it would seem only too likely).

Also there is normally a relevant condition stipulated in the acount holder's Ts and Cs regarding this kind of situation.

Now that is interesting. Evidently I must check my T&C's.

There is no criteria, apart from if the institution feels the transaction is suspicious. There are no monetary limits as such, however larger transactions will attract more reports.

I appreciate that larger transactions will attract more attention, as will transactions from the ... er ... less attractive tourist destinations.

There is an interesting point here. The 'institution feels ...'. Who exactly decides? Surely there are some industry standard guidelines? Or do the differing institutions write their own? Or does every member of staff do their own thing?

Bear in mind here that we are taking about the making of extremely serious allegations. Am I to undertsand that literally any twerp can say 'it's suspicious' and wreck someone elses life?

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

You wouldn't happen to have the exact reference? I don't want to have to trawl through the whole thing if I don't have to!