Barclays failure to give final response within 8 weeks

robbiwd

Hi,
Has anybody used the F.C.A DISP1.4 rule that gives Barclays up to 8 weeks to give you a final decision letter in response to miss sold package bank account complaint? If so what happened? ie do they have to withhold your complaint & pay up? or pay you compensation just for failing to reply in time? or what else are they/me entitled to do (if any)?

Also - Has anyone's claim been turned down by Ombudsman's time-barred ruling DISP1.62 (or waiting for their final decision) then gone back to Barclays to re-complain about original complaint citing their failure to reply under rule above?


Has anyone used the F.C.A to take up this complaint for you? or can they only do their own investigations between them & the Bank?


If so, what was the outcome?


Thank you

Nearlyold

robbiwd wrote: »

Hi,
Has anybody used the F.C.A DISP1.4 rule that gives Barclays up to 8 weeks to give you a final decision letter in response to miss sold package bank account complaint? If so what happened? ie do they have to withhold your complaint & pay up? or pay you compensation just for failing to reply in time? or what else are they/me entitled to do (if any)?

Also - Has anyone's claim been turned down by Ombudsman's time-barred ruling DISP1.62 (or waiting for their final decision) then gone back to Barclays to re-complain about original complaint citing their failure to reply under rule above?




Has anyone used the F.C.A to take up this complaint for you? or can they only do their own investigations between them & the Bank?


If so, what was the outcome?


Thank you

No they don't have to uphold (NB not "withhold") your complaint if it takes longer than 8 weeks.
No they don't have to pay you compensation for the delay - if its any benefit to know, you will get additional interest if your complaint is successful though, because interest is paid up to the time your complaint is resolved so you won't lose out.

The FCA won't take up your complaint as that is not their role.

If you have not had a decision within 8 weeks you can forward your complaint to FOS though in practice this won't do much to expedite matters.

Not sure of you're time bar question - not really clear how you would find yourself in this situation

dunstonh

Has anybody used the F.C.A DISP1.4 rule that gives Barclays up to 8 weeks to give you a final decision letter in response to miss sold package bank account complaint? If so what happened?

The 8 weeks is an objective timescale that allows you to go the FOS after that if the firm has not been able to reply. There is no requirement for them to resolve within 8 weeks.

? ie do they have to withhold your complaint & pay up?

no.

Also - Has anyone's claim been turned down by Ombudsman's time-barred ruling DISP1.62 (or waiting for their final decision) then gone back to Barclays to re-complain about original complaint citing their failure to reply under rule above?

The FOS only uphold the timebar if requested to by the firm and the timebar is valid. However, DISP1.62 does not cover timebar guidelines. What timebar are you having issue with?

Its best not to quote rules you dont understand. It forces the firm and the FOS (if you go to the FOS) to respond in a more legalistic style that can be more damaging for your complaint than beneficial.

Has anyone used the F.C.A to take up this complaint for you?

The FCA do not handle consumer complaints. it is not within their remit.

magpiecottage

robbiwd wrote: »

Has anybody used the F.C.A DISP1.4 rule that gives Barclays up to 8 weeks to give you a final decision letter in response to miss sold package bank account complaint?

DISP 1.4 does relates to how a complaint is upheld, not time limits for doing so. That is covered by DISP 1.6.

DISP 1.6.2 explains what happens at the end of eight weeks.

robbiwd

Hi dunstonh,


Thanks for reply, in regards to the rules I was given them by the F.C.A.


Barclays - Have not replied to me since re-opening my case on 15/6/15. I phoned them & they said they had no time-limit but I've not had any correspondence with any final decision. (it was at this point I went to FOS).


F.O.S - After taking up my case they eventually turned me down stating that my claim was outside of the timebar ruling (6yr & 3yr one) I am currently waiting response to my 2nd objection.


F.C.A - Are making a general enquiry to my concerns for the following reasons -


I believe Barclays are pre-empting for their customers to go to the FOS after they haven't received any response to their claim within the given 8 week objective timescale; knowing full well that once the FOS sends their own enquiry to Barclays they are ready to state the 6/3year timebar rule set by the FCA the Ombudsman has to comply with. The reason being given for decline is-
"you ought to have been reasonably clear that you did not have to have the Additions account to have the increased overdraft" - as the account was 'downgraded in Nov 2010 yet maintained the overdraft - this falls out of the 3yr timebar.


My gripe with this is not just about the unfairness of missing out on a genuine payback when others are getting it re(not timebar ruled), but the fact that as you point out above, Barclays are getting away with being devious and the Ombudsman has nothing in their power to stop them.
I see no way forward if the Ombudsman rejects my claim but to opt to the courts which this site doesn't wholly recommend!
If I can't get justice for myself I will go back to the FCA with my concerns in the hope they will see the pattern in the nature of these rejected claims and impose a hefty fine on them and force them to re-open cases as has happened in the past. That's why I urge anyone on here with a similar case to raise their concerns with the FCA also. (Or maybe send a brief letter to Barclays saying pay up or your under investigation?)


I hope this makes my above query clearer?


Thanks for your time!


Diane

robbiwd

Hi Magpiecottage,


Thanks for reply, I've had no response from Barclays since 15/6/15! I'm guessing that the FCA's advice to request a 'freedom of information' from the commissioners office may be advisable?


Diane

Nearlyold

I believe Barclays are pre-empting for their customers to go to the FOS after they haven't received any response to their claim within the given 8 week objective timescale; knowing full well that once the FOS sends their own enquiry to Barclays they are ready to state the 6/3year timebar rule set by the FCA the Ombudsman has to comply with. The reason being given for decline is-

But wouldn't the result be the same if Barclays just rejected your complaint straight away themselves using the same time bar rationale (assuming that FOS subsequently accepted the time bar as valid when you referred the complaint to them). What do you think Barclays gain by delaying replying?

dunstonh

Thanks for reply, in regards to the rules I was given them by the F.C.A.

They are not the rules for timebars though. They are general complaint handling.

Barclays - Have not replied to me since re-opening my case on 15/6/15. I phoned them & they said they had no time-limit but I've not had any correspondence with any final decision. (it was at this point I went to FOS).


F.O.S - After taking up my case they eventually turned me down stating that my claim was outside of the timebar ruling (6yr & 3yr one) I am currently waiting response to my 2nd objection.

If Barclays have told you that they are reviewing the case, it does not allow you access to the FOS unless they uphold the case. If the review outcome is to stick with the rejection method, you do not get new access to the FOS.

F.C.A - Are making a general enquiry to my concerns for the following reasons -


I believe Barclays are pre-empting for their customers to go to the FOS after they haven't received any response to their claim within the given 8 week objective timescale; knowing full well that once the FOS sends their own enquiry to Barclays they are ready to state the 6/3year timebar rule set by the FCA the Ombudsman has to comply with. The reason being given for decline is-
"you ought to have been reasonably clear that you did not have to have the Additions account to have the increased overdraft" - as the account was 'downgraded in Nov 2010 yet maintained the overdraft - this falls out of the 3yr timebar.


My gripe with this is not just about the unfairness of missing out on a genuine payback when others are getting it re(not timebar ruled), but the fact that as you point out above, Barclays are getting away with being devious and the Ombudsman has nothing in their power to stop them.
I see no way forward if the Ombudsman rejects my claim but to opt to the courts which this site doesn't wholly recommend!
If I can't get justice for myself I will go back to the FCA with my concerns in the hope they will see the pattern in the nature of these rejected claims and impose a hefty fine on them and force them to re-open cases as has happened in the past. That's why I urge anyone on here with a similar case to raise their concerns with the FCA also. (Or maybe send a brief letter to Barclays saying pay up or your under investigation?)


I hope this makes my above query clearer?

The 8 week rule does not apply to cases where the bank has voluntarily agreed to review an old complaint decision.

The FCA rules on timebars are that you have 6 years from the sale or three years from being reasonably aware of an issue to raise a complaint. Coming off a product can be a trigger point for starting the 3 year timebar.

The FCA will not investigate individual consumer complaints. That is the roll of the FOS. However, the FCA sets the timebar rules. The FOS decide whether the timebar is fair or not.

robbiwd

Hi again dunstonh,


I'm a bit confused by these previous replies you have helped me with.


"The 8 weeks is an objective timescale that allows you to go the FOS after that if the firm has not been able to reply. There is no requirement for them to resolve within 8 weeks."



"If Barclays have told you that they are reviewing the case, it does not allow you access to the FOS unless they uphold the case. If the review outcome is to stick with the rejection method, you do not get new access to the FOS."


The first sentence says I can go to the FOS - The firm hasn't replied in my case but I don't know why!


The second sentence says if they have told me they are reviewing my case - which they have - it doesn't allow me access to the FOS unless they uphold the case - But I have had access to the FOS and Barclays haven't upheld the case!


So basically, I'm now potentially under review by both Barclays & FOS although I shouldn't be?


If I get turned down by the Ombudsman - it's final.........
If Barclays eventually respond with rejection (knowing I shouldn't have been allowed to go to FOS) then there decision is final ..... and they know I can't go back to the Ombudsman? but should have been allowed to if they had followed their own guidelines?......then that's also final!


This all just adds to my pre-empting theory about Barclays being corrupt! ......Where to go from here?


Diane

magpiecottage

robbiwd wrote: »

Thanks for reply, in regards to the rules I was given them by the F.C.A.

robbiwd wrote: »

F.C.A - Are making a general enquiry to my concerns for the following reasons

I am afraid my experience of the FCA in this regard is that they act without engaging brains.

Last year I had to deal with correspondence from them saying that I had sent a letter to a consumer that would prevent her from making a complaint. The letter did nothing of the sort and if they had bothered to investigate they would have realised that it was sent nearly two weeks after the recipient had complained.

I posted it red box. To get it there in time to prevent the complaint being made, I would have needed to send it in a blue box:

robbiwd wrote: »

Barclays - Have not replied to me since re-opening my case on 15/6/15. I phoned them & they said they had no time-limit but I've not had any correspondence with any final decision. (it was at this point I went to FOS).

You say that Barclays has chosen to reopen your case. That means it has already been through the process and a final response was previously issued.

They have decided, for whatever reason, to reconsider it but, since your original complaint was dealt with, this falls outside the usual requirements of DISP. If you think about it, this must be so. Otherwise disgruntled consumers could keep reissuing complaints for ever. (Believe me, I have seen some try!)

robbiwd wrote: »

F.O.S - After taking up my case they eventually turned me down stating that my claim was outside of the timebar ruling (6yr & 3yr one)

FOS has no choice as this is a statutory requirement.

robbiwd wrote: »

I believe Barclays are pre-empting for their customers to go to the FOS after they haven't received any response to their claim within the given 8 week objective timescale; knowing full well that once the FOS sends their own enquiry to Barclays they are ready to state the 6/3year timebar rule set by the FCA the Ombudsman has to comply with.

It is not clear to me what you are suggesting here. However, if Barclays believe a complaint to have been made outside the time limit, they can reject it without considering its merits in accordance with DISP 1.8. There would be no need to wait for 8 weeks and indeed, a prompt rejection, if correct, would probably be cheaper for Barclays in the long run.

If, on the other hand, you think that Barclays can simply hang on until the time limit has passed, that would not work because of DISP 2.8.2 R, which specifies it says that if the complainant has evidence that the business received the complaint in time, that is sufficient.

However, if the time limits expire then only exceptional circumstances, or the business failing to make clear in its final response that it will not allow a the limits to be waived in other circumstances will enable FOS to overrule the limits - and the requirement to make clear that it will not waive limits only came into force in July of this year.

dunstonh

"The 8 weeks is an objective timescale that allows you to go the FOS after that if the firm has not been able to reply. There is no requirement for them to resolve within 8 weeks."



"If Barclays have told you that they are reviewing the case, it does not allow you access to the FOS unless they uphold the case. If the review outcome is to stick with the rejection method, you do not get new access to the FOS."


The first sentence says I can go to the FOS - The firm hasn't replied in my case but I don't know why!


The second sentence says if they have told me they are reviewing my case - which they have - it doesn't allow me access to the FOS unless they uphold the case - But I have had access to the FOS and Barclays haven't upheld the case!


So basically, I'm now potentially under review by both Barclays & FOS although I shouldn't be?

When you first made your complaint and Barclays rejected it, you had 6 months to refer your case to the FOS. You did not do so.

When Barclays decide to review a previous complaint outcome and the outcome is the same, it does not give you access to the FOS again unless Barclays choose to volunteer to let the FOS review it.

Every time you go to the FOS, they are obliged to look at your complaint. It can take weeks or months (or even over a year) for them to tell you that it is barred.

If I get turned down by the Ombudsman - it's final.........
If Barclays eventually respond with rejection (knowing I shouldn't have been allowed to go to FOS) then there decision is final ..... and they know I can't go back to the Ombudsman? but should have been allowed to if they had followed their own guidelines?......then that's also final!

Barclays did nothing to prevent you going to the FOS when you first made the complaint. You had the right and you chose not to exercise that right. That is not Barclays fault.