Ombudsman Upholds Complaint Against Barclays for Mis-Sold Graduate Account

Graduate_Additions

How many other graduates (before and after 2005) have been mis-sold fee-charging accounts?

Ombudsman Decision Reference DRN3584988 22 August 2013

Search "DRN3584988" on the Ombudsman Decisions website

Mr D (DRN3584988)

Atidi

Graduate_Additions wrote: »

How many other graduates (before and after 2005) have been mis-sold fee-charging accounts?

Ombudsman Decision Reference DRN3584988 22 August 2013

Search "DRN3584988" on the Ombudsman Decisions website

Mr D (DRN3584988)

I've responded to you about this in your other thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4787795

and your post in this thread as well ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4405061

atypical

Graduate_Additions wrote: »

How many other graduates (before and after 2005) have been mis-sold fee-charging accounts?

The ombudsman was satisfied that you never asked for your account to be changed to fee-paying but it was anyway. That isn't misselling because you weren't knowingly sold anything.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

What do you two banking apologists think you are talking about??

The Barclays Student offer was in disarray. Last time I checked very few branch staff fully understood how it worked, so much so that sometimes only one member of staff in a branch was said to have received any real training on the requirements for students. That didn't stop untrained staff having a go at selling something else.

What is that misleading denial of mis-selling you have made, atypical?? Did you not see that four years fees on the account were refunded in this case?

The phrase "packaged bank account" (as a hint / defense that a fee must be being incurred) did not reach common usage until around 2011 at the earliest after the general packaged account mis-selling scandal began to be outed effectively.

Any banker (or even FOS adjudicator claiming to judge what is fair or reasonable) who is trying to rewrite history suggesting that there was no general confusion, and that any of it was obvious to the common customer is talking out of the back of his or her hat.

We must remember the environment within bank branches that pervaded strongly in 2009. Walk into one for any reason whatever and you were likely to be collared and pressured into having something else sold to you, even if you were complaining. Something with PPI if possible was the seller's main thrust, some other commission-paying sale if not, and any suggestion that something had been mis-sold by another branch colleague would be most unlikely to result in a proper resolution. By then, it was most unlikely that the branch would be authorised to solve the complaint on the spot by making any refund of fees. Branches were for selling, not refunding and dealing with complaints. It was a disgraceful time in retail banking.

So I say that if GraduateAdditions is on a mission to broadcast this message to as many bank customers as possible, hats off to him or her and if GraduateAdditions is "D" then special thanks for pressing the case on behalf of us all.

ILW

Are todays grads a bit dim to go on paying fees for 4 years without questioning it?

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

I think today's grads are just as trusting as yesterdays grads were once, except yesterdays grads are more likely to be corrupt today and calling today's grads dim.

atypical

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

What is that misleading denial of mis-selling you have made, atypical?? Did you not see that four years fees on the account were refunded in this case?

I perhaps wasn't clear in my post. I don't deny the bank did wrong, but it can't be called misselling because the OP wasn't sold anything.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

atypical wrote: »

I perhaps wasn't clear in my post. I don't deny the bank did wrong, but it can't be called misselling because the OP wasn't sold anything.

I don't understand why you are splitting some imaginary hair ... misselling (by a bank) is evidence of lack of knowledge or skill or training of staff at best. At worst it is fraud. We may indeed all look beyond one good word for what has been happening at banks for years, and indeed you don't think that word is good here - so what are we looking at in this case I wonder ?