Outrageous behaviour from Barclays, stolen chequebook

Paul_1977

An elderly relative has had her chequebook stolen,

So we have rung up Barclays to have the book stopped, they say we must go to a branch four miles away which is closed.

Why can't they stop it over the phone???????

Shocking.

FOREVER21

Paul_1977 wrote: »

An elderly relative has had her chequebook stolen,

So we have rung up Barclays to have the book stopped, they say we must go to a branch four miles away which is closed.

Why can't they stop it over the phone???????

Shocking.

Agree but I would try and phone again you might get a more helpful agent next time.

In any event you should assure your relative that they should be ok even if you have to wait until Monday, as the time it takes for a cheque to go through the clearing process gives ample time for the bank to block payments.

Futuristic

As above call again, you should be able to resolve this over phone.

http://www.help.barclays.co.uk/faq/accounts/account-services/cancel-lost-chequebook.html

tomo21217

I would not call this outrageous and shocking. Poor customer service, quite possibly (maybe the relative failed security and that's why you need to visit a branch?).

I dread to imagine how you would react if something genuinely bad happened.

Paul_1977

Its a bit more than poor customer service, they are failing to protect their customer. A banks fundamental job.

I doubt I can get her to ring again. She has had enough.

If money is stolen from her account, does it become outrageous then? Im sure it would.

alanq

Paul_1977 wrote: »

So we have rung up Barclays to have the book stopped,

"we"? Do you have power of attorney? Is the issue that Barclays is refusing to take instructions from a third party?

YorkshireBoy

Your elderly relative has a police crime reference number.
They rang the bank, informed them that the cheque book had been stolen, and provided the crime reference number.
They made a note of the name of the bank employee they spoke to, and of the date/time of the call.
Their liability for transactions ceased at that point.

agrinnall

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Your elderly relative has a police crime reference number.
They rang the bank, informed them that the cheque book had been stolen, and provided the crime reference number.
They made a note of the name of the bank employee they spoke to, and of the date/time of the call.
Their liability for transactions ceased at that point.

I'd agree, but doesn't there have to be a step where they provide evidence to the bank that they actually are the account holder? I suspect that tomo is right and that the telephone security check has failed, hence the request to visit a branch.

Paul_1977

By "we", I mean I rung the number, got through the options, and then gave her the phone, the security check did not fail.

She has not reported anything to the police, as she is not sure it was stolen, she thinks it was, but her memory is not the best.

What is even more shambolic, is that there is a closer branch, but they "don't have the staff". To block a cheque book, words fail me.

jonesMUFCforever

Post 1 defo states the book was stolen - shocking post then because by post 9 she is frail subject to memory lapses and possibly mislaid the book.
Absolute shocking first post! (sic)

NotRichAtAll

the title of this thread should be changed to

outrageous assumption by relatives relative.
post 1 its stolen
post 5 its poor customer service
post 9 now were not sure if its stolen at all

pretty shambolic, words fail me. now where did i read that? ah yes post 9 and you have the front to have a pop at barclays......................