Outrageous behaviour from Barclays, stolen chequebook

dunstonh

It has been many many years since i worked in a bank. However, back then we needed a signature on requests to stop cheques. We could take an instruction over the phone but the person either had to write in so we had a signature confirming it or they had to call in to the branch to sign the instruction.

Maybe that is what happened here and it has turned into "call into branch". After all, if she is confused and changes the story, who knows what was really said.

Paul_1977

GingerFurball wrote: »

Because some people are more interested in creating a drama instead of helping their family.

The only people creating drama is the people such as yourself and Barclays stupid procedures regarding stolen/lost chequebooks.

Come down from the ivory tower please.

The basic facts are, an elderly Barclays customer contacted the bank by telephone as she believed (at the time) her chequebook to be stolen. She wanted to have the chequebook killed.

After passing security, she was advised it was not possible to have it killed over the phone, and that she would have to go to her local branch, she was then advised ever her local branch could not kill the book, and that she had to travel over four miles though London to another branch to have it killed.

Now if that's not drama I don't know what is.

Archi_Bald

Paul_1977 wrote: »

The only people creating drama is the people such as yourself and Barclays stupid procedures regarding stolen/lost chequebooks.

Quite :rotfl:. It is totally undramatic to rush to the internet and write about the outrageous behaviour of Barclays over a stolen cheque book before it is even established whether the cheque book was in fact stolen. I'd love to hear a reporting of the call but sadly we won't ever be able to hear it.

glentoran99

Paul_1977 wrote: »

She has already been though the process, the bank refused her request, why should she have to call twice?

Its not rocket science for the bank, a customer (confirmed by details) calls, "my cheque book is stolen", ok "we will cancer it".

That should be the answer, it should not be (these are not exact quotes, only rough),

Bank: "Can you please go to your local branch".

Customer: "Can we not cancel it over the phone"

Bank: "You must go to your local branch"

Customer: "The branch at *******"

Bank: "Unfortunately this branch cannot cancel the book, you must go to a non local branch"

:mad:

Its still not going to get cancelled though and in the meantime someone could be writing themselves cheques,


If she doesn't do telephone banking,


Cant use the internet


it might be a while before she notices

Paul_1977

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Quite :rotfl:. It is totally undramatic to rush to the internet and write about the outrageous behaviour of Barclays over a stolen cheque book before it is even established whether the cheque book was in fact stolen. I'd love to hear a reporting of the call but sadly we won't ever be able to hear it.

The fact that it might not be stolen is irrelevant to Barclays.

She is going to branch tomorrow, she must pay for a cab and take someone with her.

These forums have become a bore, I have nothing more to say, good day.

mgdavid

Paul_1977 wrote: »

........
These forums have become a bore, I have nothing more to say, good day.

A common response from people who don't get the replies they want to hear... a shame really.

JKSandy

I'm actually done, this thread has ended a miserable day for me with a huge giggle.

NotRichAtAll

She is going to branch tomorrow, she must pay for a cab and take someone with her

so could she have not gone today? i would of if it had been that important and distressing i would want to stop it asap.

she could always use a bus its free with her concession pass

meer53

Paul_1977 wrote: »

The fact that it might not be stolen is irrelevant to Barclays.

She is going to branch tomorrow, she must pay for a cab and take someone with her.

These forums have become a bore, I have nothing more to say, good day.

Sorted then. Byee