Barclays...is it worth going to fos ?

dudleydolittle

HI... would appreciate any advice from anyone who's maybe been through a similar situation with barclays..... originally made a complaint in june for a loan and it was successfully upheld and paid out in october. whilst waiting for the redress, i found paperwork relating to an earlier loan and was advised by barclays to submit a seperate complaint for this one (with evidence of ppi) which i did. my circumstances and reasons for mis-sell were the same as the upheld loan which was taken out a few years later. they replied at first saying as there was no evidence, they were refusing complaint. i contacted ceo's office to say i'd sent agreement and statements showing payments so failed to see how there was no evidence and they agreed to look at it again. anyway, now they have replied to say they aren't upholding the claim and gave a list of reasons but if they were valid, why did they uphold the other complaint when it was a carbon copy of that one ? ( just a later date?) anyone think its worth going to fos or just accept that i had one success and be satisfied with that ? sorry for the long post

amersall

dudleydolittle wrote: »

HI... would appreciate any advice from anyone who's maybe been through a similar situation with barclays..... originally made a complaint in june for a loan and it was successfully upheld and paid out in october. whilst waiting for the redress, i found paperwork relating to an earlier loan and was advised by barclays to submit a seperate complaint for this one (with evidence of ppi) which i did. my circumstances and reasons for mis-sell were the same as the upheld loan which was taken out a few years later. they replied at first saying as there was no evidence, they were refusing complaint. i contacted ceo's office to say i'd sent agreement and statements showing payments so failed to see how there was no evidence and they agreed to look at it again. anyway, now they have replied to say they aren't upholding the claim and gave a list of reasons but if they were valid, why did they uphold the other complaint when it was a carbon copy of that one ? ( just a later date?) anyone think its worth going to fos or just accept that i had one success and be satisfied with that ? sorry for the long post

What reasons did they give for not upholding?.

ALIBOBSY

Are they also saying on the second claim that because of the dates you can't take this to the FOS?
Some banks are upholding claims that could go to the fos, and rejecting the others, but in many cases "their" interpretation of what the fos can look at is wrong and they are missleading customers (you choice whether you believe this would be accudental or deliberate lol).
I and a number of others have spoken to the FOS about barclays line on this and been told even early loans will be able to be reffered to the FOS as barclays are a large bank which were always covered by whichever regulatory body was in existance at the time so barclays are wrong.

Its always worth refering to the FOS as often some banks will just roll over anyway once they are involved and even if they find against you you still have the option to take the matter to court.

Ali x

magpiecottage

Possibly it is an error on their part this time but I think it is more likely that you got lucky with the first and it was considered at a time when they were pushing through everything quickly without giving as much consideration as they would like to.

It is also possible that there is something this time which was not apparent with the other complaint.

The decision to uphold or reject a complaint can be finely balanced sometimes.