Do you have a limited time to reclaim packaged bank account fees?

p_man

Hi, I have been turned down by Barclays to recover £1,800 of monthly fees for an Additions account because they deem me to be out of time to make a claim.

I just wanted to see if this is true or if they are possibly fobbing me off.

They have mentioned I can take it up with the Financial Ombudsman Service. I just wanted to see if anyone here thinks I should bother or not.

The reason why I only recently put in for a claim to have the money refunded was because of the article on Money Saving Expert: Reclaim Packaged Bank Account Fees

It wasn't until reading the article that I became aware it might be possible to recover the fees that I paid.

Barclays basically are saying that when I managed to cancel the Additions account in 2013, I should have complained then (or within 3 years - ie by 2016). The point being is Barclays in branch told me that I had signed for the Additions account - so I just assumed it was tough luck until I read the article on Money Savings Expert.

My story:
I cancelled the Additions account in 2013 in my local branch. I went into the branch to enquire if I could have a free bank account - I pointed out that I had been put on the Additions account at the end of 1997/beginning of 1998, that I had never wanted the Additions account, that I had paid £1,800 to Barclays in monthly fees for which I had received no benefit as I had never used any of the packages linked to the Additions account. Basically, Barclays in branch said I would have signed for it - which was true - but I had not wanted the account in the first place.

Basically, I was put onto a Barclays Additions account when I did not want one. I had gone into my local branch to update my address details and I had a bank assistant who basically wanted me to sign up to Additions - I didn't want it as there were no packages included that were either suitable for me or which I wanted. Basically, because I was being pushed to transfer from a free current account to a paid current account, I mentioned having to find another bank to bank with. The banking assistant then went on to say that all banks were going to be doing this and so I ended up signing for the account as I didn't want the hassle of trying to find a bank that offered a free current account.

I had the Additions account for so long because I had assumed it was the new 'norm' current account - ie there were no free bank accounts. I am clear in my head that I did not want the Additions account, I debated it with the Barclays assistant, I discussed moving banks to be pretty much told it would be pointless as all banks were going to be doing this.

So, yes, I signed up for the Additions account; however, I did dispute at the time that I did not want it and that I had no use for any of the packages that came with it. I had the Additions account until 2013 at which point I actually sat down and added up how much I had paid to Barclays to have a current account that I was paying them for.

When I managed to close the Additions account and get back to a free current account, because the woman in the bank had pointed out that I had signed for the Additions account, I assumed it was just my tough luck. I didn't make a complaint, because I didn't think I could.

So, basically, Barclays are using the time difference as a reason to not reimburse me - they point out that I should have made a complaint around August 2012 - which pre-dates me cancelling the account anyway.

They don't seem to be arguing my claim of being mis-sold the account, it seems to be a time issue.

[Deleted User]

I believe within 3 years of closure is the limit

p_man

Ah, okay then.

To be honest, I only attempted to pursue it when I saw the article on this website and then saw all the other stories of people who were up-sold onto these types of accounts.

It is bad practice though, badgering customers to take out paid bank accounts when they could have continued on their original free account.

It irks me though that I paid £1,800 to Barclays for no actual benefit to me whatsoever. It was Barclays that wanted me to have the account - it was all their idea. When I went into the branch to cancel it, it wasn't like Barclays offered me the chance to complain or offered any advice at all - other than "you would have signed for it".

le_loup

p_man wrote: »

It is bad practice though, badgering customers to take out paid bank accounts when they could have continued on their original free account.

Learn from it. Don't let anyone badger you into doing things that have no benefit and you do not want.
Unless it's your partner, then it's all right!

dunstonh

Same rules apply to packaged bank accounts as any other financial products.

You have 6 years from the transaction or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue to raise a complaint. Whichever is the longer.

They have mentioned I can take it up with the Financial Ombudsman Service. I just wanted to see if anyone here thinks I should bother or not.

The FOS only uphold around 11% of packaged bank account complaints. A very low ratio. However, a lot of that will be down to them enforcing the timebar.

Barclays basically are saying that when I managed to cancel the Additions account in 2013, I should have complained then (or within 3 years - ie by 2016). The point being is Barclays in branch told me that I had signed for the Additions account - so I just assumed it was tough luck until I read the article on Money Savings Expert.

Barclays are correct. A closure/change of account is considered sufficient to trigger the 3-year clock.

They don't seem to be arguing my claim of being mis-sold the account, it seems to be a time issue.

They dont need to. If you are timbarred, they don't even look at your complaint. They don't have to.

It is bad practice though, badgering customers to take out paid bank accounts when they could have continued on their original free account.

I don't really buy that argument. If you are already on a free bank account then you know you can have a free bank account. The choice to change to a PBA is voluntary in that scenario.

eskbanker

dunstonh wrote: »

p_man wrote: »

They have mentioned I can take it up with the Financial Ombudsman Service. I just wanted to see if anyone here thinks I should bother or not.

The FOS only uphold around 11% of packaged bank account complaints. A very low ration. However, a lot of that will be down to them enforcing the timebar.

Just to be clear for OP's benefit, once a bank has rejected a claim on (valid) timebarring grounds then FOS aren't empowered to overrule that, as per https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/8.html#D471, so it's a waste of time and effort to refer it to them in these circumstances:

The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

[...]

(2) more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)
(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;

agrinnall

eskbanker wrote: »

Just to be clear for OP's benefit, once a bank has rejected a claim on (valid) timebarring grounds then FOS aren't empowered to overrule that, as per https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/8.html#D471, so it's a waste of time and effort to refer it to them in these circumstances:

That shows that the FOS can't consider it, but would that necessarily rule out taking court action? Not that I'd recommend it as it appears unlikely to succeed in this case, but perhaps with a stronger case that has passed the 3 year limit it might still be worth doing if it's permitted.

peterbaker

Yet another example of financial services companies aided and abetted by a broken regulatory system working hard to run away from the disgraceful practices they were involved in and still are in many ways.

Ultimately, and thanks to Martin Lewis on MSE rather than the usual posters on the subject, the banks were not excused their PPI antics and should not ina ny way be excused their packaged bank account antics either.

Packaged bank accounts were always a cr*p deal for the customer and a total laugh for the banks coining it with huge middleman commissions on the insurances therein (there was little other than insurance in them).

I once overheard a Barclays retail performance manager suggesting to job-fearing sellers that they refer to bank accounts as like orange juice - who in their right mind buys basic orange juice, eh? And you don't think "badgering" is a good word to describe what was happening?

dunstonh wrote: »

I don't really buy that argument. If you are already on a free bank account then you know you can have a free bank account. The choice to change to a PBA is voluntary in that scenario.

Some of us don't buy your argument and never did on this or on PPI. I honestly have never understood why you risk your IFA reputation by arguing that side of the story. I suppose it is because all complaints against financial services misdemeanours have the cumulative effect of putting Professional Indemnity insurance premiums through the roof, but I really don't think you do yourself favours dh this way. So do you honestly still believe that retail bank selling practice has always generally accorded to Principle 6? :rotfl:

I think it's a crying shame that here we are getting on for another decade after these practices were supposedly to be stopped after all the Chairmen and CEOs wrote to the FT saying they were changing their culture, but we still have posters who should absolutely know better actually defending the banks' essentially unchanged cultural position.

MSE is rife on any given day with pseudo-expert opinions supporting the rotten cultural line against the public interest - yet again we have none so blind as those who will not see - and worse, those who countenance that others less able to see should not see either :mad:

Nasqueron

peterbaker wrote: »

Yet another example of financial services companies aided and abetted by a broken regulatory system working hard to run away from the disgraceful practices they were involved in and still are in many ways.

Ultimately, and thanks to Martin Lewis on MSE rather than the usual posters on the subject, the banks were not excused their PPI antics and should not ina ny way be excused their packaged bank account antics either.

Packaged bank accounts were always a cr*p deal for the customer and a total laugh for the banks coining it with huge middleman commissions on the insurances therein (there was little other than insurance in them).

I once overheard a Barclays retail performance manager suggesting to job-fearing sellers that they refer to bank accounts as like orange juice - who in their right mind buys basic orange juice, eh? And you don't think "badgering" is a good word to describe what was happening?

Some of us don't buy your argument and never did on this or on PPI. I honestly have never understood why you risk your IFA reputation by arguing that side of the story. I suppose it is because all complaints against financial services misdemeanours have the cumulative effect of putting Professional Indemnity insurance premiums through the roof, but I really don't think you do yourself favours dh this way. So do you honestly still believe that retail bank selling practice has always generally accorded to Principle 6? :rotfl:

I think it's a crying shame that here we are getting on for another decade after these practices were supposedly to be stopped after all the Chairmen and CEOs wrote to the FT saying they were changing their culture, but we still have posters who should absolutely know better actually defending the banks' essentially unchanged cultural position.

MSE is rife on any given day with pseudo-expert opinions supporting the rotten cultural line against the public interest - yet again we have none so blind as those who will not see - and worse, those who countenance that others less able to see should not see either :mad:

I assume you also therefore support the removal of the 6 year limit of statute barred debts for customers allowing them to be chased forever rather than escaping their debts if they ignore them long enough.

You have THREE YEARS from being aware of an issue and SIX YEARS from taking the product out (whichever is longer), this is more than long enough for a complaint if you decide there is a problem.

eskbanker

agrinnall wrote: »

That shows that the FOS can't consider it, but would that necessarily rule out taking court action? Not that I'd recommend it as it appears unlikely to succeed in this case, but perhaps with a stronger case that has passed the 3 year limit it might still be worth doing if it's permitted.

The 3/6 year rules are solely regulatory rather than statutory, so yes, in theory there's nothing to stop anyone who feels shortchanged by the financial services industry and its regulator from taking their case to court.

Taking that to its logical conclusion, there'd be nothing stopping someone from taking the FCA to court over its failure to prevent or punish the heinous crimes allegedly perpetrated by the evil banks on a regular basis, can anyone identify a suitable candidate for such a crusade?

Nasqueron

agrinnall wrote: »

That shows that the FOS can't consider it, but would that necessarily rule out taking court action? Not that I'd recommend it as it appears unlikely to succeed in this case, but perhaps with a stronger case that has passed the 3 year limit it might still be worth doing if it's permitted.

Depends if you want to risk your money, a court is probably going to accept the limitation argument, even if it doesn't then you still have to prove on the balance of probabilities that you were miss-sold (the FOS is customer biased and has a lower burden of proof e.g. they frequently refer to customers being "mistaken" when they put in obviously fraudulent complaints (e.g. referring a complaint where no PPI was present).