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

JuicyJesus

Another day, another twelve sides of A4 of green ink from peterbaker talking absolute nonsense.

dunstonh

That shows that the FOS can't consider it, but would that necessarily rule out taking court action?

Whilst the 3/6 rule is regulatory, timebars exist in law as well. Indeed, the legal timebars can be more strict. For instance, financial services via the complaints system/FOS does not have a long stop of 15 years. Yet the courts do.

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.

How do you explain the legal timebars that affect other business areas?

Some of us don't buy your argument and never did on this or on PPI.

You are entitled to your opinion. Even if its wrong.

I honestly have never understood why you risk your IFA reputation by arguing that side of the story.

My reputation is sound. Mainly as i do not let bias interfere with my decision making. I remain open to the issues on both sides and don't allow myself to become biased and close-minded like you.

So do you honestly still believe that retail bank selling practice has always generally accorded to Principle 6?

From the early to mid 90s onwards I think the banks were generally disgraceful in how they retailed financial products. Not all the staff in all the areas but on the whole, it was generally way below standard.

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

And we have posters like you that are so blinkered and biased that they ignore facts and take an automatic negative view to a particular business regardless of the situation being discussed. As you say, yet again we have none so blind as those who will not see.

p_man

The weird thing to me is the time limit thing.

The whole process of me going into dispute with Barclays and posting on the Money Saving Expert forums is based on the Money Saving Expert's article: Reclaim Packaged Bank Account Fees.

The article does not mention anything at all about time limits - as far as I can see. The article is written as though it is pretty much a simple task of writing to your bank - which clearly it is not.

So, Money Saving Expert's article to me is kind of pointless without the critical factor about time limits.

I didn't challenge Barclays earlier - ie when I cancelled my Additions account because I didn't even know I could - it is not like Barclays offered me the route or said anything other than "You would have signed for it".

If I was a NatWest Customer who cancelled a similar account, then moved banks to Barclays, I can probably bet my life that Barclays would have pointed out that I could have challenged NatWest.

You live and learn.

p_man

The thing I should point out is that Barclays didn't give me the option to keep my original free account - that deal was not on the table. The conversation in Barclays had drifted to me talking about moving banks to have a free current account, at which point the Barclays rep is telling me it is pointless because all banks are doing this/are going to do this. On top of me having already declared there was nothing on the Additions package that I either wanted or was suitable for me. It wasn't like I just accepted the deal willingly.

Yeh, I was probably gullible - but it was back in 1998 when they did this - I was younger and more gullible back then.

peterbaker

dunstonh wrote:

me wrote:

So do you honestly still believe that retail bank selling practice has always generally accorded to Principle 6?

From the early to mid 90s onwards I think the banks were generally disgraceful in how they retailed financial products. Not all the staff in all the areas but on the whole, it was generally way below standard.

Well thank you for that at least! But why, despite the 2010 Marcus Agius and 16 Others letter, did it not stop being generally disgraceful? Or have you ruled that it is okay now?

dunstonh wrote:

me wrote:

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

And we have posters like you that are so blinkered and biased that they ignore facts and take an automatic negative view to a particular business regardless of the situation being discussed. As you say, yet again we have none so blind as those who will not see.

So what would you have me see that could persuade me the banks have become cuddly good citizens again? Please show us.

Why haven't they refunded the OP on a "Fair cop guv, wasn't sure you'd catch up wiv us" basis, because that's all this case is - a case where the OP has just recently realised there was always a case to answer. And that's mostly because of lack of media traction due to the real position being deiberately skewed and spun to distract potential claimants. The poor general public are clueless to the remedies that you and I could always resort to if so minded. We have knowledge enough to make most bank executives recoil with complete frustration if we are so minded to press a case.

The difference is perhaps that I do it on principle (principle 6 - TCF was always a good start point) more often than you, and therein perhaps lies a difference between us.

The reason p_man didn't challenge Barclays earlier was because he didn't know he could or should, because he had met more people pontificating like you than pontificating like me probably.

There's a reason for that. It's called not rocking the boat, or rocking the boat. Which are you? A boat rocker or boat-rocker critic? The same thing occurred with PPI where you were posting on MSE rallying against claimants who were beginning to line up complaining long before FSA banned the sale of single premium PPI in banking halls (not risking your reputation afterall it seems), and I was risking my job by arguing the disgrace of it from within because my long studied and experienced insurance principles and practice did not allow me to do otherwise in good conscience. Most assuredly, I was a boat rocker.

How many in financial services ever go that far? Very few. Most heads are down or are out chanting the banks' line even worse than North Koreans are out chanting their government line, except North Koreans do it out of fear for their lives. What are UK bank employees using as their excuse?

Yet you think you can call me automatically biased, close-minded and blinkered? Blinkered to what? A need for business as usual at the banks?

We don't need your leadership on MSE on principles and practice thanks, dh. Stick to technical where you can be best appreciated.

JuicyJesus

p_man wrote: »

If I was a NatWest Customer who cancelled a similar account, then moved banks to Barclays, I can probably bet my life that Barclays would have pointed out that I could have challenged NatWest.

That is almost assuredly not true, not least because it's not Barclays' place to speculate on what your other bank might have done wrong.

p_man wrote: »

The thing I should point out is that Barclays didn't give me the option to keep my original free account - that deal was not on the table. The conversation in Barclays had drifted to me talking about moving banks to have a free current account, at which point the Barclays rep is telling me it is pointless because all banks are doing this/are going to do this. On top of me having already declared there was nothing on the Additions package that I either wanted or was suitable for me. It wasn't like I just accepted the deal willingly

Did you not notice the racks of brochures, not to mention Barclays' website, which said that Barclays were offering free of charge accounts at any point over the following six, or even three years?

I don't doubt you were lied to, and for the record that's wrong and bad and shouldn't have happened, but I do find it hard to believe that you didn't notice over the following six years that not only were other banks not getting rid of free current accounts but that they were in fact still on sale. You knew they still existed, because you were talking about switching to one.

peterbaker

JuicyJesus wrote: »

That is almost assuredly not true, not least because it's not Barclays' place to speculate on what your other bank might have done wrong.

When did that ever stop banking hall sellers with self-ordered personal badges giving themselves straplines that looked like titles such as "Money Expert" and "Financial Adviser"?

Where have you been, all this time JJ, counting the sales figures and stupendous profits in a backroom somewhere? :rotfl:

dunstonh

The article does not mention anything at all about time limits - as far as I can see. The article is written as though it is pretty much a simple task of writing to your bank - which clearly it is not.

The FOS do not have an issue with packaged bank accounts as a product type. Indeed, they actually feel they can be good value for money and packaged products are common in all walks of life.

PPI, for comparison, has a number of product issues and many complaints succeed on that basis. Although there are also some good types of PPI you can still buy today.

MSE articles are well known for being short and simplified. Indeed, this was raised with Martin many years ago when he was still owner and his response was that the articles are written in a way to keep it simple and maintain the interest of the consumer and not put them off. If they were written as comprehensive guides covering all areas, they would be too long and complicated and would put people off.

The FCA take a similar view. Their consumer page on Plevin related PPI cases is about a page in large print. it makes no mention of dates and restrictions. The technical guide is around 100 pages and covers those things.

I didn't challenge Barclays earlier - ie when I cancelled my Additions account because I didn't even know I could - it is not like Barclays offered me the route or said anything other than "You would have signed for it".

If you had given an expression of dissatisfaction, then your complaint would have been registered then. You dont have to say "I want to make a formal complaint". If you had said you shouldnt have been sold it and you were not happy when you changed the account, the bank should have raised a complaint at that point.

Most consumers know they can complain about anything you like to anybody they like. You shouldn't need an article on MSE to tell you that you can complain about something you do not like.

JuicyJesus

peterbaker wrote: »

When did that ever stop banking hall sellers with self-ordered personal badges giving themselves straplines that looked like titles such as "Money Expert" and "Financial Adviser"?

Leaving aside that "Money Expert" is neither here nor there, especially since you've made it up, "Financial Adviser" is a protected term which implies a level of accreditation and training. No bank will have had frontline branch staff with that title on their "self-ordered" badges who were not actually accredited in that way. It also does not change that NatWest staff are not going to tell you to raise mis-sale complaints against another bank, not least since that would arguably fall under the rubric of financial advice for which they would be liable; indeed bank staff are usually specifically advised not to discuss other organisations' products for this very reason.

As to what I was doing, I was working for a major bank for eight years, which is why I know for a fact you're talking absolute horsesh*t and know absolutely nothing. Indeed I don't think I've seen you post anything on here that isn't total drivel. For example, I'm very entertained by the idea of bank staff having the autonomy to order themselves badges with funny titles on them.

peterbaker

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Leaving aside that "Money Expert" is neither here nor there, especially since you've made it up, "Financial Adviser" is a protected term which implies a level of accreditation and training. No bank will have had frontline branch staff with that title on their "self-ordered" badges who were not actually accredited in that way. It also does not change that NatWest staff are not going to tell you to raise mis-sale complaints against another bank, not least since that would arguably fall under the rubric of financial advice for which they would be liable; indeed bank staff are usually specifically advised not to discuss other organisations' products for this very reason.

As to what I was doing, I was working for a major bank for eight years, which is why I know for a fact you're talking absolute horsesh*t and know absolutely nothing. Indeed I don't think I've seen you post anything on here that isn't total drivel. For example, I'm very entertained by the idea of bank staff having the autonomy to order themselves badges with funny titles on them.

Well unless you left before the 90s, I'm afraid you must have been blind during those 8 years. Why not enquire of the major banks and FCA about the self-ordered badges? I used my name to named names when I discovered it. What did you do? Oh wait, you never noticed anything wrong :rotfl:

Senior branch managers turned a blind eye because of course the same non-compliant "sellers" brought home the bacon. What's in a badge anyway? It was so bad at one time that some haphazard sellers regularly wore any old official badge they could find if they were in the habit of forgetting it at home or if they had lost it, but those that got away with "Financial Adviser" and the like made sure they always wore theirs. Part of their USP and the walk they needed to go with their talk

Oh and sellers also self-ordered their business cards, with made up titles. I think I still have a couple of examples I collected as evidence in a legal box somewhere. Didn't think that could possibly happen? Maybe you heard it here first, JJ - whistleblowing is often like that. So very few do it, do they?