Do banks have a duty of care for their elderly customers?

jayne6mp

Thank you very much. I'll also be writing to the Financial Ombudsman Service - anything is worth trying.

regularsaver1

You can only refer your complaint to the ombudsman when you have exhausted the complaints procedure with the bank

jayne6mp

Yes. That would be the next step.

kenshaz

Before you move to the next stage ,you need a letter of final resolution.

AndyR_3

Please make sure Barclays have not included payment protection in either of your parents' loans. They are too old for it to be of use so you would have grounds for a serious complaint if they have.

tyllwyd

jayne6mp wrote:

They had to wait two working days for a response which was that the second loan could be cancelled but the first one (now raised up 2% more) had to stay as it was.

Is that what they've done? Or have they already cancelled the first loan and the second one, and now made a third loan, which is for the same amount and for the same period of time as the amount remaining on the original one, but at the current lending rate (which is higher because of increases in the Bank of England base rate)?

krisskross

I don't think banks have a duty of care to their customers. Whatever next, Tesco only allowed to sell healthy foods, all fast food outlets to be closed down. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions. As was said in the OP, both oldies concerned are compos mentis.

I want no more meddling in my affairs than is absolutely necessary. If I go to an shop, whether they sell financial services or whatever I expect to be sold/provided with what I ask for. This appears to have happened in this instance.

Steve_xx

krisskross wrote:

I don't think banks have a duty of care to their customers. Whatever next, Tesco only allowed to sell healthy foods, all fast food outlets to be closed down. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions. As was said in the OP, both oldies concerned are compos mentis.

I want no more meddling in my affairs than is absolutely necessary. If I go to an shop, whether they sell financial services or whatever I expect to be sold/provided with what I ask for. This appears to have happened in this instance.

You are blatantly wrong. Everybody owes everybody else a duty of care in all their acts and omissions to act. This Duty of Care precedent was set in the UK by Lord Atkin in 1932, in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. An explanation of the precedent follows:

DUTY OF CARE In order to establish negligence, the following had to be proved - 1. There was a duty owed to the claimant. 2. The duty was breached. 3. The claimant suffered damages as a result. The 'Neighbor' principle enunciated by Lord Atkins in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) indicated to whom duty is owed and laid the principle for the modern tort of negligence. He said: 'The rule of law that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer's question, who is my neighbor? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be like to injure your neighbor. The answers seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts.

regularsaver1

agree with duty of care - but we don't know what was asked for and what was possible.

Tootsie_Roll

Steve_xx wrote:

You are blatantly wrong. Everybody owes everybody else a duty of care in all their acts and omissions to act. This Duty of Care precedent was set in the UK by Lord Atkin in 1932, in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. An explanation of the precedent follows:

DUTY OF CARE In order to establish negligence, the following had to be proved - 1. There was a duty owed to the claimant. 2. The duty was breached. 3. The claimant suffered damages as a result. The 'Neighbor' principle enunciated by Lord Atkins in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) indicated to whom duty is owed and laid the principle for the modern tort of negligence. He said: 'The rule of law that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyer's question, who is my neighbor? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be like to injure your neighbor. The answers seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts.

Can I please have a laugh out loud hysterically smilie - I have never seen such a load of old drivel. Please come back to earth your family might be missing you.