Barclaycard won't help in dispute with car dealer

meer53

Janey21 wrote: »

Yep I agree with Chatty, in my case Trading Standards up in Middlesborough are going after the company that scammed me as they had many similar complaints around the time that I contacted them, enough to take them to task anyway. So they may get their come uppence after all.
I wish you all the best in doing whatever you decide to do but please let us all know how you get on.
Regards
Janey

It's good you got your money back Janey. What i suspect happened in your case though is that Barclays simply refunded you themselves as it wouldn't have been cost effective for them to allow this to go to court. Where i work we look at each case individually and decide whether it's worth it for us to just refund rather than incur the costs of a court case. In the OP's case a lot more is involved so Barclays may not be quite so forthcoming in his case ! They might take it all the way to court, i can't see them refunding this amount, i know we wouldn't.

ILW

Get a car checked over by AA RAC etc before handing over 1000s of pounds.

ifb-online

meer53 wrote: »

It's good you got your money back Janey. What i suspect happened in your case though is that Barclays simply refunded you themselves as it wouldn't have been cost effective for them to allow this to go to court. Where i work we look at each case individually and decide whether it's worth it for us to just refund rather than incur the costs of a court case. In the OP's case a lot more is involved so Barclays may not be quite so forthcoming in his case ! They might take it all the way to court, i can't see them refunding this amount, i know we wouldn't.

It will be a struggle, but we'll take them to the Financial Ombudsman first. I'm also very surprised that Trading Standards not only identifed several legal nonsenses in the latest letter from Barclaycard, but that this appears to be standard practice to weed out those who don't have the stamina to keep up the pressure. In our latest response we have made it crystal clear that we will push this all the way.

chattychappy

ifb-online wrote: »

I'm also very surprised that Trading Standards not only identifed several legal nonsenses in the latest letter from Barclaycard, but that this appears to be standard practice to weed out those who don't have the stamina

Commercially I can't really blame them - no doubt CCs are deluged with spurious claims from dodgy/careless/fraudulent customers and personally I'd prefer it if s75 didn't exist (and it became a feature that CCs could offer customers for a fee).

But the law is the law. The direction of financial regulation is such that it probably won't be long before this practice of simply "mistelling" customers their rights will result in investigations/fines etc. So far the OFT (CC regulator) is not as "puffed up" about it as is the FSA (regulates most financial services).

I've certainly had it - eg being told that if I didn't buy an insurance I would be liable for fraud on my account if someone got my details.

ifb-online

chattychappy wrote: »

Commercially I can't really blame them - no doubt CCs are deluged with spurious claims from dodgy/careless/fraudulent customers and personally I'd prefer it if s75 didn't exist (and it became a feature that CCs could offer customers for a fee).

But the law is the law. The direction of financial regulation is such that it probably won't be long before this practice of simply "mistelling" customers their rights will result in investigations/fines etc. So far the OFT (CC regulator) is not as "puffed up" about it as is the FSA (regulates most financial services).

I've certainly had it - eg being told that if I didn't buy an insurance I would be liable for fraud on my account if someone got my details.

Well, Barclaycard actively market the 'feature' of purchase protection when buying with their credit cards. So it really grates when they turn around and won't help me because the merchant has effectively committed a criminal offence (trying to hide behind 'sold as seen') and that the vendor's 28 day warranty had expired (which does not restrict my rights in law). Barclaycard should not be using these false tools to explain why they won't help me. After all, they are customer service people and I am their customer, not the vendor.

meer53

ifb-online wrote: »

Well, Barclaycard actively market the 'feature' of purchase protection when buying with their credit cards. So it really grates when they turn around and won't help me because the merchant has effectively committed a criminal offence (trying to hide behind 'sold as seen') and that the vendor's 28 day warranty had expired (which does not restrict my rights in law). Barclaycard should not be using these false tools to explain why they won't help me. After all, they are customer service people and I am their customer, not the vendor.

Chatty's right, the disputes side of credit/debit cards is mushrooming at an alarming rate. People now phone their CC issuer for the most ridiculous things ! Usually reading the small print AFTER they've gaily supplied their card details to some dodgy website in China, expecting to get genuine goods for stupid amounts of money.
Where i work, we are not allowed to give any advice at all on Section 75 claims apart from the usual "we are jointly and severally liable along with the retailer - IF there has been a breach of contract" The reason for this is that we aren't legally trained so giving this advice would be very dangerous and could lead to all sorts of claims from customers. This is why we refer people to TS and CAB or a solicitor. It's up to the buyer to establish whether there has been a breach of contract and what that breach is. I'm assuming that Barclays is the same, they can only give basic advice about their own disputes procedures, not the legalities of Section 75.

ifb-online

meer53 wrote: »

Chatty's right, the disputes side of credit/debit cards is mushrooming at an alarming rate. People now phone their CC issuer for the most ridiculous things ! Usually reading the small print AFTER they've gaily supplied their card details to some dodgy website in China, expecting to get genuine goods for stupid amounts of money.
Where i work, we are not allowed to give any advice at all on Section 75 claims apart from the usual "we are jointly and severally liable along with the retailer - IF there has been a breach of contract" The reason for this is that we aren't legally trained so giving this advice would be very dangerous and could lead to all sorts of claims from customers. This is why we refer people to TS and CAB or a solicitor. It's up to the buyer to establish whether there has been a breach of contract and what that breach is. I'm assuming that Barclays is the same, they can only give basic advice about their own disputes procedures, not the legalities of Section 75.

That's all very well, but to write to a customer and quote MISinformation is simply not right. If you are being told to do that then what is the world coming to? What other explanation is there than that Barclaycard are trying to make me give up even though I have a perfectly legitimate case? I would expect any correspondence from Barclaycard to be at least technically correct.