EGG/Barclaycard strange letter

Stuh78

Some years a go I wrote to Barclaycard complaining about the PPI on two cards I had. The first, an original Barclaycard was a straightforward case of not being told PPI was added. I'd picked it up quite quick.

The second card was originally an Egg card I took out in Dec 2002 which then transferred to Barclaycard. This card I'm particularly mad about; I never asked for payment protection. When I challenged this I got the reply that the documentation they had showed I'd ticked the box. I asked for proof of this and made a SAR. 30 days after the letter was received by Barclaycard I received a large envelope with plenty of paper in but I've still not found the documentation that shows I asked for it.

The above exchange ended with a letter from Barclaycard in April 2014 stating that they have made their final decision and if I want to pursue the claim I need to contact the Ombudsman. I didn't, I left it at that. Fast forward to today and I get a letter from Barclaycard asking for some more details so they can fully investigate my claim! They want the information back by the 10th Feb. I don't really know what to make of it? Why would they just reopen this out of the blue?

EvaCustard

Hi

I can't help as to why but I've also had a letter from Barclays asking for further information as "there may be a different outcome to the claim"

Totally bizarre & I'd also welcome comments from anyone else who had had this letter?

I've sent back the info they requested (as best I could, given they wanted it by 5/2/16!!) and will wait & see what kind of response they issue.

The info they wanted was details of savings and sick pay policy for the company I worked for. Luckily I still had a copy of the staff handbook and was able to provide that.

dunstonh

Why would they just reopen this out of the blue?

Maybe it got picked for sample checking (which a number do). Maybe a failure by your complaints handler was spotted elsewhere and they decided to go back over similar complaints to make sure they are ok.

It happens a lot. However, it is also quite common that the same outcome as before is the final answer. Some do get overturned in your favour though.

Sploshy

Something is happening !! I took Capital One to court claiming that they underpaid me. I backed out after being threatened with large court costs.

On the 20th January I received a letter in effect saying my calculations were correct and that I would be receiving an additional £6,000.

All banks seem to use the same dodgy software so I think that they have been forced to correct their miscalculations.

I recorded all my conversations including one lasting nearly one hour where their analyst proved that he did not understand how the software worked. I "helped" him to understand and it turns out that they now are putting things right.

Nasqueron

Sploshy wrote: »

Something is happening !! I took Capital One to court claiming that they underpaid me. I backed out after being threatened with large court costs.

Correct as this was not a legal issue. Taking them to court means you have to prove this was wrong - it is a civil matter and there are cheaper options available such as going through the FOS

Sploshy wrote: »

On the 20th January I received a letter in effect saying my calculations were correct and that I would be receiving an additional £6,000.

Bonus

Sploshy wrote: »

All banks seem to use the same dodgy software so I think that they have been forced to correct their miscalculations.

Nope and nope - some have made miscalculations or want to clear their books to present a better face to shareholders going forwards. Some spot mistakes by handlers

Sploshy wrote: »

I recorded all my conversations including one lasting nearly one hour where their analyst proved that he did not understand how the software worked. I "helped" him to understand and it turns out that they now are putting things right.

Unless they were aware you were recording and consented that would not be admissible as evidence

dunstonh

All banks seem to use the same dodgy software so I think that they have been forced to correct their miscalculations.

There have been no reports in the financial media about that and no FCA publication saying that either. So, where have you seen this?

There have been some instructions gone out to a number of providers telling them to review old complaints in certain scenarios (and there are quality checking procedures in place now). However, there appears to be nothing at fault with software calculations.

Sploshy

dunstonh wrote: »

There have been no reports in the financial media about that and no FCA publication saying that either. So, where have you seen this?

There have been some instructions gone out to a number of providers telling them to review old complaints in certain scenarios (and there are quality checking procedures in place now). However, there appears to be nothing at fault with software calculations.

I can tell you with 100% confidence that their calculations in my case were at fault. I had a lengthy telephone conversation with one of their analysts. He confirmed that one column in question should be compound interest. I asked why the value in this column went down as well as up. He said it was due to the different number of days in the month. I then said that cumulative compound interest should never go down as it was always going to increase.

My spreadsheet was based on the FOS running spreadsheet and the extra they paid me came to the exact amount I was claiming for and the spreadsheet had shown.

If their calculations were not correct then why did they recalculate and why did this tally with my original claim.

Sploshy

Actually I ought to qualify. You are correct in saying that there appears to be nothing at fault with software calculations. The software correctly calculates the offer. But this software does not produce a result which is as offered by Capital One when they say they "pay interest on interest" ie compound interest and someone appears to have informed them that their software is underpaying.

I am prepared to accept that my case may be not a standard one but I am sure it is not unique.

Capital One did not send me double my offer amount out of the kindness of their heart, they were pushed into it by someone.

I did become something of an expert on calculating PPI. As a job I write the kind of software that they use.It took me a long time and the court case to get the basic information on which they based their offer. Using this information I was able to prove that they were underpaying. By making me the offer for the extra then it shows that my calculations were correct.

Nasqueron

PPI refunds only include simple interest on the refund element (this is part of the defined process agreed with the regulator), the compound bit, I believe, only comes when it relates to a credit card where the PPI charge meant you paid interest on it as well (though feel free to correct if this is wrong).

Your single case doesn't mean everyone was wrongly refunded or every bank has done it incorrectly nor does it mean someone has forced them - it just means they have reviewed your case and made a mistake.

dunstonh

I can tell you with 100% confidence that their calculations in my case were at fault.

That does not equate to "All banks seem to use the same dodgy software so I think that they have been forced to correct their miscalculations." A case of 2+2 = 5

But this software does not produce a result which is as offered by Capital One when they say they "pay interest on interest" ie compound interest and someone appears to have informed them that their software is underpaying.

The redress method as defined by the regulator is to pay 8% simple interest. Not compound. There are a small number of areas where that can change and in unusual cases, further interest may be refunded. However, that would not use the general calculation method.

Sploshy

If that were the case regarding compound interest then why did Capital One say that they pay "interest on interest"?

If Capital One themselves are saying they pay compound interest then why would you be saying that they do not have to.