Barclays have left me cashless

KTF

Have you called up Barclays on the number posted above and got an update on what has happened and when it is going to be resolved? They should be able to provide more information than the branch.

zppp

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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

Yes, anything that looks suspicious, see my copy and paste job at the bottom of the post.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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?

Each organisation has an officer who reports to SOCA. All suspicious activity reports are sent by them to SOCA. Legally, if the company have any suspicions, they must report it.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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?

I don't see how it ruins someone's life as such, but anyone with a suspicion should report it.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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!

(From the SOCA website - cannot link as there is a session ID)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
The Proceeds of Crime Act is UK primary legislation. Part 7 of the Act outlines the money laundering offences; what constitutes criminal property; sets out the legal requirement to make a disclosure or Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and the offences of failing to disclose; and details a requirement to obtain consent to carry out a prohibited act, placing time restrictions on SOCA and Law Enforcement to issue consent. The three main money laundering offences are:

• concealing, disguising, converting, transferring, or removing criminal property (s327)
• arranging or facilitating criminal property (s328)
• acquiring, using or possessing criminal property (s329)

Under primary legislation, a conviction for one of the three money laundering offences can incur a 14-year sentence and an unlimited fine. It also requires any individual or company in the regulated sector who either: a) knows or suspects or b) has reasonable grounds to know or suspect, that another person may be engaged in money laundering, or that any or all of the property they are dealing with may be criminal property to report their suspicion of money laundering to a constable, a customs officer or nominated officer (MLRO or equivalent) and is made in the form and manner (if any) prescribed for the purposes. The nominated officer must report their suspicion to SOCA. For those firms or individuals outside the regulated sector, the legislation only requires the nominated officer to make the disclosure if they know or suspect that another is engaged in money laundering or criminal property: the 'reasonable grounds' condition does not apply. The UKFIU acts as the 'constable' and is the central receiving point for SARs within the UK. The legislation protects firms and individuals from legal action resulting from their breach of customer confidentiality.

izools

disgustedvictim wrote: »

ARRRGH. I finally understand why my mum prefers cash over cards.

I was sent money (£700) to buy a laptop and get a blackberry. I've got a student account with them because I'm going to Uni in sept.

When I went into the branch yesterday to take money out. The machine swallowed it. After 3 hours of chasing around phoning barclays and speaking to the people in the branch. Each time being given a different reason why I can't get my card back or let alone access my account. It turns out that my account is suspended.

They told me to wait tills today. I did and when I phoned them up they said that the account is still suspended. The only thing I can do is wait for them to clear it up. The only problem is that I haven't lost any money. My balance is exactly what it should be.

I am angry. They are the only bank I use. The worst thing is that I've had more money transferred into my account before. Nothing happened then. Why all of a sudden do they treat ne

Is there someone I can complain to? I'm currently at the mercy and I hate being screwed over like this. I am literally shaking with anger and worry. I've never felt so powerless in my life before.

This happened to me at the end of January. I mean the account being frozen arbitrarily, it wasn't due to suspected fraud though, some other unbeknown reason.

A week later I received a letter from Barclays stating that they will be closing all my accounts as I "no longer meet their criteria", stating also not to apply for any other accounts with them, as, for all intents and purposes, they don't want me back.

I was unable to use my debit cards and had to process cash withdrawals in branch after providing two forms of ID one photo ID.

To this date I've never had an explanation despite several letters, and I never incurred a penny in charges, never went a penny overdrawn, and always turned over four figures a month with a reasonable standing balance.

Just "Get out, we don't want you here any more, don't come back". For no reason.

Might be an idea to go open an account elsewhere sharpish :beer: Barclays suck.

WhiteHorse

Zppp - thanks for that.

I have to say that I am appalled. There is no requirement here that behaviour be 'reasonable'. One of the cornerstones of the law of this country has been quietly swept away.

As to ruining someone's life, well, leaving someone with no money to live on is certainly not going to make life any easier!

A real case history here ...

Someone (we shall call him X), received a call on his mobile. The caller purported to be from such and such Bank (he was, actually). He gave X a hard sell on some financial products. X indicated that he was not interested. The caller became very aggressive, at which point X pointed out that he had no idea who the caller was and was therefore unlikely to provide any sensitive information over the phone (and an insecure mobile at that). The caller became abusive and terminated the call. Shortly afterwards X found that his account had been frozen because there had been an allegation of 'suspicious activity'. As it was a business account, X suffered not only severe embarrassment but loss as well. The person responsible for the false allegation was found to be the salesman who had called previously.

Worrying, No?

pelirocco

They probably want to know where the money came from , they once froze my business account because they noticed a lot of debit cards payments going out ! no phone call from them asking me why . Today I had a message to phone them urgently , after being sent all around the houses I was put through to fraud , they were checking the activity on the account , and apparently had suspended use on my card until I had spoken to them ( they had called my husband on his mobile to ask him to get me to call them , why they couldnt ring the office phone ? )

zppp

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Zppp - thanks for that.

I have to say that I am appalled. There is no requirement here that behaviour be 'reasonable'. One of the cornerstones of the law of this country has been quietly swept away.

As to ruining someone's life, well, leaving someone with no money to live on is certainly not going to make life any easier!

A real case history here ...

Someone (we shall call him X), received a call on his mobile. The caller purported to be from such and such Bank (he was, actually). He gave X a hard sell on some financial products. X indicated that he was not interested. The caller became very aggressive, at which point X pointed out that he had no idea who the caller was and was therefore unlikely to provide any sensitive information over the phone (and an insecure mobile at that). The caller became abusive and terminated the call. Shortly afterwards X found that his account had been frozen because there had been an allegation of 'suspicious activity'. As it was a business account, X suffered not only severe embarrassment but loss as well. The person responsible for the false allegation was found to be the salesman who had called previously.

Worrying, No?

Well I doubt that would happen, as the Money Laundering Reporting Officer for the organisation, makes the final decision as to what gets reported - they are normally based in the company's HQ and get hundreds daily to check through. The MLRO would have nothing to do with the sales departments and if a false allegation was made based on someone not buying a product, this would come back and bite the person in the backside and wouldn't be submitted.

iblametheparents

Who have you been speaking to when you ring up?

WhiteHorse

Zppp - All I can say is that it actually happened. Obviously it shouldn't, but it did. I suspect that it was frozen out of spite, but not actually followed through to final report stage.

'It's the law' is now used routinely to cover staff incompetence, ignorance, or simple bloody-mindedness. What gives it away is the fact that at the counter every banks 'law' appears to be different.

disgustedvictim

izools wrote: »

This happened to me at the end of January. I mean the account being frozen arbitrarily, it wasn't due to suspected fraud though, some other unbeknown reason.

A week later I received a letter from Barclays stating that they will be closing all my accounts as I "no longer meet their criteria", stating also not to apply for any other accounts with them, as, for all intents and purposes, they don't want me back.

I was unable to use my debit cards and had to process cash withdrawals in branch after providing two forms of ID one photo ID.

To this date I've never had an explanation despite several letters, and I never incurred a penny in charges, never went a penny overdrawn, and always turned over four figures a month with a reasonable standing balance.

Just "Get out, we don't want you here any more, don't come back". For no reason.

Might be an idea to go open an account elsewhere sharpish :beer: Barclays suck.

A lady did mention yesterday that a letter was being sent to me. I personally do hope I get a letter that terminates my account. It will make it easier for me to leave them. I saw a guy complaining about how difficult they were making it for him to close his account.

iblametheparents wrote: »

Who have you been speaking to when you ring up?

Telephone banking service. I'm going to call the fraud department and the number posted in the first page.

Fiddlestick

disgustedvictim wrote: »

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.

Except they did, and it was the very first thing they done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Documents_Bill_2010

"The Identity Documents Bill 2010 is proposed United Kingdom legislation introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May on 26 May 2010. It was the first government bill introduced in the 55th United Kingdom Parliament by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, which aims to have the bill passed into law by August 2010.[1] The bill received its second reading on 9 June 2010, and was unopposed by the Opposition."