Barclays Internal Review Hell

sillyhilly

LeighM222 wrote: »

1. The second deposit was made 8 weeks after the account was opened. Is £2,500 considered large? This is still pretty quick after opening a bank account. Considering £2,500 for a new customer, with no previous transactional history, it is large enough. There is also no distinction for amount - the suspicion could be £1 or £1m, the same laws still apply.

4. Understood - although it has been 7 weeks since the account was in review and they came to determine to close the account 5 weeks ago. This may be as a result of an internal delay at Barclays. They may not have filed a report for several weeks after the event ultimately. There is no legal timeframe that a report is required to be disclosed, just a vague and wishy-washy "as soon as practicable".

Barclays have not communicated in any form except for letter of closure. I was not told the account was being put into review nor how to claim back my money. Barclays have a legal obligation to treat customers fairly - this has not been achieved due to lack of communication and advising me incorrectly in attempt to justify their actions - so I disagree with 'Barclays haven't really done anything wrong.' I understand that you may disagree, but as I said in my original post, this is from experience. Barclays are under no obligation to advise you as to how to get the money back, and you'll probably find their responses are incredibly vague to avoid "tipping off". The regulatory requirement to treat customers fairly is significantly watered down where there are AML suspicions, although not entirely so. Ultimately, you need to prove that Barclays are being unfair, and Barclays can just turn around and say "we were following the law and regulation which trumps complaints/treating customers fairly" and then provide their reasoning for suspicions. You'd lose.

Your suggestion is whilst my actions are suspicious that I should be treated as guilty until proven innocent - is this how financial houses work? Is it suspicious that a man buys a 200mph supercar but lives in a built up area that is restricted to 20mph - that would be entirely illogical, though not illegal or against the rules. I note that opening the account appears to be 'odd', 'weird', 'illogical' but I didn't realise that this meant illegal. I find the whole process very disturbing - how can a 'review' take place without discussing it with the person in question? I have no criminal history, have a clean credit file, but am being treated like a criminal. Barclays, having a history of financial scandal, have possesed my funds (removing it from my account before it closed it), and not given reason or explanation on how to claim it back. I know where my suspicions lie... You are confusing "knowledge" and "suspicion". The institution only needs to suspect and given the previous points I have made (and others), that suspicion was there in spades.

They cannot discuss it with you as that's against the law (i.e. "tipping off"). Credit files are not taken into consideration. The very financial scandals that you refer to have resulted in them having a lower tolerance of risk.

Because there were small debits from the account there is not enough credit to return the funds to the buyer (if they choose that option). I cannot see Barclays putting themselves out of pocket.We are talking minuscule sums here. They won't care.

Hopefully that all formats OK.

LeighM222

Thank you. That's very detailed - much appreciated.

So I sit and wait in hope for the best? I just can't see how Barclays will U-turn their decision and return the funds without being forced to. How I get to that point I simply do not know.

Terry_Towelling

LeighM222 wrote: »

Thank you. That's very detailed - much appreciated.

So I sit and wait in hope for the best? I just can't see how Barclays will U-turn their decision and return the funds without being forced to. How I get to that point I simply do not know.

You may wish to get in touch with the buyer now. If the funds are sent back to their account, they will have the AGA and the money. If the buyer is a decent sort, they will hopefully feel guilty that their hasty actions in crying 'foul' have probably contributed greatly to your downfall and you should have no trouble rearranging payment.

LeighM222

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

You may wish to get in touch with the buyer now. If the funds are sent back to their account, they will have the AGA and the money. If the buyer is a decent sort, they will hopefully feel guilty that their hasty actions in crying 'foul' have probably contributed greatly to your downfall and you should have no trouble rearranging payment.

Yeah he's been great to be fair. He wrote a detailed letter with a copy of his bank statement showing his payment to me, which formed part of my POF claim. He would hands over funds if it were sent back to him for sure.

Ben8282

It is becoming increasingly difficult to take this thread seriously.
You start off by saying that you opened an 'instant access' bank account with Barclays. The term instant access is, generally speaking, used only in connection with savings accounts. In more specific terms, it is used on the Barclays website only in regard to their savings accounts, the only such account which you could have opened being the Everyday saver. Yet subsequently you state that you did not open a savings account but opened a 'regular bank account' (whatever that may be) online. I note you did not say current account.
You say that delivery of the goods was scheduled for 2nd June yet subsequently you say that you left the buyer to arrange dismantling, collection, delivery and reassembling. You have also stated that you did not return from the US until you returned early on 6th June. If you were in the US and your wife. from whom you are separated, has left the country and gone incommunicado (your words), how was this supposed to happen? Who was going to be at the house to supervise this ill advised activity? Who was going to let the buyer or his representatives in and make sure they did not damage anything in the kitchen during this dismantling etc?
Regarding your return from the US you state 'without means to other money I called my trip short and retuned to the UK by 6th June'. This strangely phrased sentence implies that you had no access to other funds and were relying on the proceeds of the sale of your kitchen appliance to finance your trip to the US. How strange. Was this trip planned in advance or did you just decide to go off to the US on a whim the day after you sold the cooker? If the former, how did you plan to finance it if you had not sold the cooker?

LeighM222

Ben8282 wrote: »

It is becoming increasingly difficult to take this thread seriously.
You start off by saying that you opened an 'instant access' bank account with Barclays. The term instant access is, generally speaking, used only in connection with savings accounts. In more specific terms, it is used on the Barclays website only in regard to their savings accounts, the only such account which you could have opened being the Everyday saver. Yet subsequently you state that you did not open a savings account but opened a 'regular bank account' (whatever that may be) online. I note you did not say current account.

Perhaps the terminology I used was incorrect - it is a current account. What it is called or described I have no idea. It is not a savings account.

You say that delivery of the goods was scheduled for 2nd June yet subsequently you say that you left the buyer to arrange dismantling, collection, delivery and reassembling. You have also stated that you did not return from the US until you returned early on 6th June. If you were in the US and your wife. from whom you are separated, has left the country and gone incommunicado (your words), how was this supposed to happen? Who was going to be at the house to supervise this ill advised activity? Who was going to let the buyer or his representatives in and make sure they did not damage anything in the kitchen during this dismantling etc?

Parents. They live locally and had keys. The collection was arranged prior to my trip to the States - I had met the dismantlers at my home. There was no more risk then if I was present.

Regarding your return from the US you state 'without means to other money I called my trip short and retuned to the UK by 6th June'. This strangely phrased sentence implies that you had no access to other funds and were relying on the proceeds of the sale of your kitchen appliance to finance your trip to the US. How strange. Was this trip planned in advance or did you just decide to go off to the US on a whim the day after you sold the cooker? If the former, how did you plan to finance it if you had not sold the cooker?

No. I brought with me a card that is used for emergencies only - which this was. I would've brought alternative funds if the cooker had not sold - in hindsight I should've done that as well.I am not sure of the relevence of your questioning - but I've answered nonetheless.

Terry_Towelling

LeighM222 wrote: »

I am not sure of the relevence of your questioning - but I've answered nonetheless.

LeighM222, we have many threads on here about blocked accounts. Many of them appear to be bogus many are bogus (in my opinion).

This has made some of us quite suspicious and we examine threads very carefully for inconsistencies and then probe to see how the answers come back. Oftentimes the OP engages for a while but when a hole appears in their story, they disappear.

Sensationalist thread titles are often a giveaway. Excessive (or too little) information is a classic sign of dishonesty too. Sometimes posters talk of sums like £2500 as not being that significant. Some talk of having lavish possessions, like an expensive house. These things are not the sort of things that need to be shared and they can appear boastful and intended to incite a reaction. Only having joint accounts with an estranged wife who is off grid also sounded very odd.

I too thought it curious to hear a current account described as instant access - that indicates someone not that familiar with banking. Kick-starting an account with £100 (as pointed out by another poster) also hints at a savings account. Running out of funds in North America also seemed odd and I had a bit of an issue with the timings of communications on 29th May when there is a time difference between here and the Pacific and transatlantic flights are lengthy (especially via Canada). Of course I wasn't certain when you set off or quite where you were.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of the things that sounded strange so you might understand why some of the responses you got were dripping with suspicion. Don't think of it as insulting, think of it as forumites trying to be robust in their approach.

Are you going to need your wife to sign anything when finalising the sale of the house? - I hope she gets back in time for that. Is she going to ask what's happened to her cooker if/when she gets back, or will the sale be completed (in her absence) by then?

18cc

This thread is now 3 pages long and to be honest it could be 100 pages long but it wouldn't change the basic fact that nobody can do anything - all you have to do is sit back and wait for Barclays to finish their review

If a bank account is flagged for review because of suspected money laundering or fraud or whatever the shutters come down and a few weeks later you will get their decision

LeighM222

An update for those that may be interested. Barclay's confirmed that the purchaser did not retract the fraud claim against me and that a decision was made between the two banks that the transaction was indeed - fraudulent. The money was returned to sender on 9th July - 6 days prior to my telephone contact where I was told there were no further notes on the system. It took 20 days for Barclays to inform me that the money was sent back to the buyer who has done a disappearing act.

I now have to think about legal proceedings against the buyer for non-payment.

Terry_Towelling

LeighM222 wrote: »

Yeah he's been great to be fair. He wrote a detailed letter with a copy of his bank statement showing his payment to me, which formed part of my POF claim. He would hands over funds if it were sent back to him for sure.

Seems your faith was misplaced. Still you have a copy of his bank statement and a letter from him, so you know where he lives - or do you?

LeighM222 wrote: »

Whilst the money is relatively insignificant.

Thank goodness it was only £2500.

Good luck!