Barclays failure to give final response within 8 weeks

robbiwd

Hi dunstonh,


"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."

• I made my complaint to FOS within 4 months after Barclays rejection!

" When Barclays decide to review a previous complaint outcome and the outcome is the same"

• The review of the previous complaint has never been responded to (waiting since June 2015) so I have no new outcome so cannot be the same.

• ---

I now have until 19th to respond back to FOS and the only thing they can consider is 'exceptional circumstances' that cover the WHOLE 3 yr period in which we should have been reasonably clear we didn't need to have the Additions account to have an increased overdraft'
So now I have to time-line my health history as the reasons why my husband may have found it more difficult and not his priority to complain during that time. (I was undergoing tests & diagnosed with Parkinsons).


I'm sure that had our case not been 'time-restricted' the FOS has said they would have been able to look into the miss selling of the account. They have said I can go back to Barclays and 'ask questions' but what response i'll get before next week who knows :(:(


Diane

dunstonh

The thread is a little bit difficult to follow. What you have just posted gives a different scenario to what you were talking about in the early posts.

The rules you posted do not cover the 3 year/6 year timebar. Our responses have focused on the rules you quoted and that has taken us off the issue you have. Perhaps now you see the danger of quoting rules.

I'm sure that had our case not been 'time-restricted' the FOS has said they would have been able to look into the miss selling of the account. They have said I can go back to Barclays and 'ask questions' but what response i'll get before next week who knows

Barclays can volunteer to waive the timebar. The FOS can decide whether the timebar is correctly applied if Barclays do not wish to waive it. If Barclays do not agree to waive it, then the complaint reasons do not even get looked at.

It is uncommon for the FOS to overrule the timebar. It has to be sufficient for the whole period and generally refers to incapacity.

Your diagnosis with Parkinsons could be a reason but you would have ot have stopped work at the same time (if you were well enough to work, then you were well enough to complain). If its a joint account, then your spouse could complain. All you can do is put your case forward and wait and see. The 8 week rule does not apply.

robbiwd

Thanks dunstonh,


You have helped me understand the processes, I just hate an injustice!


Kind Regards


Diane

magpiecottage

robbiwd wrote: »

I'm guessing that the FCA's advice to request a 'freedom of information' from the commissioners office may be advisable?

I can't see why they would do that.

You make freedom of information requests to public bodies (including the FCA, FOS and, for that matter, the Information Commissioner's Office. It would not give personal information relating to you, though - so it would not help prove your case.

robbiwd

Hi magpiecottage,


“
I'm guessing that the FCA's advice to request a 'freedom of information' from the commissioners office may be advisable?



I didn't word that very well! ....what I meant was the FCA advised me to contact the C.O to ask for a FOI that highlights the history Barclays has on my case and about contact between us ...I think?


Thanks for all your advice


Regards


Diae

tomtontom

robbiwd wrote: »

Hi magpiecottage,


“
I'm guessing that the FCA's advice to request a 'freedom of information' from the commissioners office may be advisable?



I didn't word that very well! ....what I meant was the FCA advised me to contact the C.O to ask for a FOI that highlights the history Barclays has on my case and about contact between us ...I think?


Thanks for all your advice


Regards


Diae

You might be referring to a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act? You would make that request to Barclays.

mark_sykes

robbiwd wrote: »

Thanks dunstonh,


You have helped me understand the processes, I just hate an injustice!


Kind Regards


Diane

Cant really see that there has been much injustice here to be honest.

The FOS rules state that you need to make a complaint within 3 years of becoming aware that something was wrong.

It seems that you downgraded your packaged bank account more than three years ago, and you continued having an overdraft without the Additions. If you thought it was so bad then you had three years to do something about it and make a complaint. But you didn't.

As such it doesn't seem like you felt there was anything particularly wrong at the time.

Sounds more like you weren't aware there was a good chance of getting a load of money back.

The rules are there to try and protect people who have a genuine grievance, not for people who come across a way of potentially making a fast buck by jumping on the compensation bandwagon.

Sorry if this seems harsh, but it would probably be best if you just dropped this one.

robbiwd

Hi mark_sykes,


Basically we were miss sold the account back in 2003 as we were told we had to have the account to increase our overdraft.....THIS WAS GENUINE .....


The following time-bar rules etc have been set to protect the banks since then. It was only when the PPI hype reared it's head that we eventually, after having dismissed this, came to realise miss sold accounts were also under scrutiny. So eventually we made a claim.


Yes I'm aggrieved, as Barclays are currently paying out new claims that do not fall foul of these rulings for the same reason we gave. This means they are acknowledging their miss selling of the Additions account. So regardless of what point and for whatever our reasons to 'downgrade' (I prefer the term to reverse) our account, I make NO apology for so-called jumping on the bandwagon.

dunstonh

The following time-bar rules etc have been set to protect the banks since then.

That is incorrect. The timebars are long established.

magpiecottage

robbiwd wrote: »

The following time-bar rules etc have been set to protect the banks since then.

This is incorrect.

The time barring rules were established in 1986 when the Latent Damage Act added sections 14A and 14B to the Limitation Act 1980.

All that happened subsequently was that the Financial Services Authority and FOS decided they could ignore them and instead have a watered down version of section 14A and no equivalent to section 14B.

The result is that financial institutions and financial advisers have LESS protection against "stale" claims than anybody else.

That is why we see widows of advisers being hauled up and compo demanded from them.