Barclays

xlnc99

colsten wrote: »

My experience when complaining to CEOs of banks and other companies is that your complaint will almost always be picked up by a senior person who has more competence, and is more empowered, than your usual Customer Service team. All large organisations I have come across do have Executive Complaint Managers, and do take complaints rather seriously when they have not been handled well by their CS. Generally the CEO would not get involved him- or herself, although I have had a couple of direct responses from CEOs, and the resulting actions were much to my satisfaction. I reckon it's a lot to do with how reasonable your complaint is, and how you formulate it.

!00% agree and can also speak on my own experience but email all the executive team as well as ceo

NosmoKing

Thanks for the input, all very much appreciated.


I tend to favour the original idea of writing to someone that has the ability to both look at the account and make a decision on it as opposed to putting it into the loop of CS who usually have limited ability to do anything much but send out automated letters or give canned answers. (thats not to say that CS don't have a role to play)


I have no doubt that a CEO of a corportate would not have the time to read an individuals letter but again from experience their PA's tend to pass them down and along to somebody else that can usually identify where it needs to go or even deal with it themselves. I do not wish to make a nuisance of myself so the letter needs to go to where it should on it's first attempt.


In my opinion it's an unusual scenario, not so much by the customer/overdaft/bank situation which is one that exists millions of times over, but more on the circustmstances as to where the account is now to where it once once and all the other intricacies involved that took what was initially 20+ years ago a £250 o/d to what has been since 2005 a £7000, with seemingly no 'annual review' no contact from the bank at any point in the last 12 years other than annual statements/account changes/interest charges applied and with just my partner attempting contact with them and maintaining payments. Although it's classed as a debt I think he's paid more than enough in overdraft fees and particularly where in just the last ten years+ no transactions have been made other than payment of interest and where it almost doubles the original overdraft limit by doing so, Barclays have had their money (my opinion)


Once again, thanks for the input, all very helpful.

eskbanker

NosmoKing wrote: »

Although it's classed as a debt

It's not classed as a debt, it is a debt! Your partner borrowed money from Barclays many years ago and hasn't paid it back, ergo it's a debt by any definition of the word.

NosmoKing wrote: »

I think he's paid more than enough in overdraft fees and particularly where in just the last ten years+ no transactions have been made other than payment of interest and where it almost doubles the original overdraft limit by doing so, Barclays have had their money (my opinion)

You're not the first and won't be the last to express similar opinions but they really don't hold water I'm afraid - it's not up to the customer to retrospectively apply unilateral changes to the Ts & Cs to effectively reduce or waive interest rates and other charges.

By all means hold them to account for things they said they'd do and didn't, such as account reviews and so on, and not handling previous requests adequately, but majoring on a misguided view that enough has been paid already is a mistake IMHO. How would you feel if you signed up to a well-paying savings account with Barclays and many years later they said 'you can keep all the interest but can't have your original balance back as you've had double that from us already'?

NosmoKing

I don't see it as a debt, it should have stopped/been stopped a long time ago, had Barlcays taken action on the numerous times my partner asked for help the situation would/should have been very much different, at the the very least the amount owed having it's interest stopped/balance frozen which had that been the case even just 6 years ago the amount owing would have now been paid back, for them to continue on unabated is irresponsible lending (my opinion) and in such cases previously (general terms) the banks become accountable. In short, owing under £100 less today on a balance of -£7000 to what they did on the same balance 10 years+ ago so still O/D drawn by almost 7k and where they have not missed a payment in 120 months on fees....


Aa for the terms and conditions, that in itself is laughable, the t's and c's are for both sides to adhere to/attempt to do so, I believe my partner has kept his side by maintaining the account in as reasonable order as they have been able to, no late/missed payments, no going over the arranged amount, the bank on the other hand have been less so in their part of the agreement, regular 12 month reviews being key.


Of course if they have conducted a review each and every year but not updated the file (doesn't state as much on a 2018 SAR bundle that was requested/obtained) then that is key to future account conduct/maintainence but their appears nothing on the SAR....except perhaps one entry on the vsast file bundle they sent 26 months ago that said 'customer may be in trouble' but then no follow up, on thinking about it not even the SAR seems to have given them cause to look at the account a little more closely.



Tha majoring is on the conduct of Barclays with the the amount owed secondary, if the two can meet/match and a reasonable solution reached then bring it on.


I couuld go so far as to say my partner has no assets and hasn't since they fell ill and a little before, it would have been very easy for them to walk away with a 'can't get blood from a stone' but they haven't, they've tried to fix it, I've tried for them but the bank won't speak to me direct (this will change just as soon as I send the letter and an enclosed 3rd party authorisation request (along with the relevant information to be able to do so.


As for hypotehtical 'how would I feel' which when referencing banks/savings accounts...is a wasted statement, as with a lot of banking procedures/policies when signed up for, the products they sell soon go from being reasonable and worth it ...to ending up more favourable on the banks behalf...it's always how it goes.



What one hand giveth then bank taketh away.

Willing2Learn

I thought that the Ombudsman was still sympathetic to customers who fall within one of the following three categories:
In financial hardship or
The charges were disproportionate or
Stuck in a cycle of charges which you could not get out of.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges/

eskbanker

NosmoKing wrote: »

I don't see it as a debt, it should have stopped/been stopped a long time ago

I wouldn't disagree that earlier action would have been better, but a debt that should/could have been stopped earlier is still ultimately a debt.

NosmoKing wrote: »

for them to continue on unabated is irresponsible lending (my opinion)

As I pointed out earlier, the situation would probably have been different if your partner had been struggling to keep up with servicing the debt, but while all the monthly payments were being made then to a certain extent this counts against any claim of irresponsible lending.

NosmoKing wrote: »

Aa for the terms and conditions, that in itself is laughable, the t's and c's are for both sides to adhere to/attempt to do so, I believe my partner has kept his side by maintaining the account in as reasonable order as they have been able to, no late/missed payments, no going over the arranged amount, the bank on the other hand have been less so in their part of the agreement, regular 12 month reviews being key.

Yes, agreed that the Ts & Cs need to be adhered to by both sides, but to be honest I think you'd struggle to claim that failure to review was a significant enough breach to be labelled as 'key'.

NosmoKing wrote: »

Of course if they have conducted a review each and every year but not updated the file (doesn't state as much on a 2018 SAR bundle that was requested/obtained) then that is key to future account conduct/maintainence but their appears nothing on the SAR....except perhaps one entry on the vsast file bundle they sent 26 months ago that said 'customer may be in trouble' but then no follow up, on thinking about it not even the SAR seems to have given them cause to look at the account a little more closely.

Much depends on what's actually meant by review in this context - to some it may mean a meeting between bank and account-holder to discuss the account, but it could also be an entirely internal, potentially even automated, assessment of whether or not to call in the overdraft. Fair point about the SAR though, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect any reviews to be reflected there.

NosmoKing wrote: »

As for hypotehtical 'how would I feel' which when referencing banks/savings accounts...is a wasted statement, as with a lot of banking procedures/policies when signed up for, the products they sell soon go from being reasonable and worth it ...to ending up more favourable on the banks behalf...it's always how it goes.

I wouldn't disagree that products are often superseded and that this is rarely in the customer's favour, but that doesn't really address the point I was making about unilaterally moving the goalposts.


Anyway, I'm largely playing devil's advocate here rather than defending Barclays as such - it rarely does any harm to rehearse arguments to consider how things might be played back to you! Good luck....

jonnygee2

Anyway, I'm largely playing devil's advocate here rather than defending Barclays as such - it rarely does any harm to rehearse arguments to consider how things might be played back to you! Good luck....

My opinion is that once this gets through to the complaints department, there is a high chance they will write off the debt. Partly because the FOS decision is difficult to predict, but also because of the potential reputational risk. If they don't, they may at least reduce the interest rate so that the money being payed back is paying back the actual amount rather than just interest.

Overall, I think the duty to be a responsible lender would mean that they need to take some action - they could not just leave it there forever in the knowledge that the OP will never have the ability to pay original the loan back.

I tend to favour the original idea of writing to someone that has the ability to both look at the account and make a decision

That would be the complaints department. There is no one else with the ability to conduct a considered investigation into a customer service complaint like the one you need them to undertake.

It obviously has to be somewhere in customer service, staff outside of customer service don't even have access to individual's account information.

Flobberchops

eskbanker wrote: »

How would you feel if you signed up to a well-paying savings account with Barclays

I would have to pinch myself. Several times.


Sorry, I digress!

NosmoKing

Eskbanker:


Re Devils advocate: Indeed you were and is part why I countered your points so as to explore your reasoning.


As with some of the other helpful posts within this thread there are bits & pieces I need to consider before
finally sending off the letter. My partner is ill-equipped these days to be able to conduct any meaningful dialogue with Barclays, their stock answer has always been 'don't want my credit file affected' but with

their disabilities now costing more to deal with the £100+ each month would be much better placed elsewhere etc.....


We'll see, I'll update this thread as and when anything further is heard.


Thanks again to all for your input.

NosmoKing

Well, here is an update so far.


I sent in a letter on behalf of my partner a week after my original post, I did indeed send it to the CEO and 3 others inclusive of head of custmer services, 3 based in Canary Wharf, 1 in the midlands.


It took them 3 weeks to reply, it was from one of the offices in Canary Wharf.


I initially gave reasonably detailed information on the account (see first post in this thread) I also included medical information on my partner, I included statements from 10 years ago, 5 years ago and as late as 2 months ago.....


I pointed to the fact my partner had previously visited the branch 7 years ago for help and where they simply connected them to an internal line to the woolwich who themselves wouldnt help (loan to pay off the o/d) and other bits and pieces, all in a documented letter, all easy to read and I started it asking for 'help' (the letter)...






Their reply was, 'sorry about your partners health, hope you're getting support.....they stated they couldnt find a refernence to my partners complaint in the branch on 2012 but in any case a business can ignore/refused to entertain a complaint after 6 years has gone since the issue .......notably it wasn't a complaint in 2012 and neither is it now, it was a plea for help on both occasions, but that seems to have been overlooked as it's now being dealt with as a complaint.


Further to that, in my initial letter i stated that the account no longer exists as an valid account as in the product has expired, (so this may be why my partner got the answer in branch 'we don't know what that account is, or nobody here can deal with it...was the usual spin they gave in branch) I stated no reviews appeared to have been received on the account and that contrary to letters sent in 2004/5 stating that it is a condition of an overdraft that the account fluctates...that actually the account had not fluctuated into the black for 14 years up to todays date.


In the letter I also stated that the it was still the same now as it was 10 years ago as in just under the 8k overdrawn and that other than barclays applying interest and my partner meeting it...and the 14k+ they've paid to barclays with the amount o/d staying the same.


TAhe answer to this was that whilst an account should receive reviews, whilst the account should fluctuate that as long as the account was being run within it's limits then why would they need to look at it? well in the early years before the trouble they regularly sent updates/reviews.....they also said that they the bank were under no obligation to entertain the complaint or review or worry about an account not fluctuating.


The letter finished stated 'get in touch with financial assistance and by the way your partners credit record is likely to be affected....
----


It wasn't a complaint it was a plea for help, it fell in deaf ears, as an added bonus they just this week cut my partners credit limit on his barclaycard from 15k (he hasn't used it for a very long time) and placed it to just £300, at the same time as this they told it was because it may have been fees on the card for late payments, there are none or that it was over it's limit, it had 15k on it, there was the same unused and they also stated it may be have been from info on my partners credit file....so I checked, they have a score of 975 and no bad marks and that the amount of debt is very low (which it is)....


Interestingly though, they haven't closed his o/d account, or frozen it or sent anything regarding it, it's still accruing interest each day.....handy that.


I wrote back saying it wasnt a complaint but ok if thats how it is, and I quoted from the Standards of Lending Practices under personal customers, that 'first should have triggers and processes n place to identify customers who are in financial difficulty.....and a couple of other paragraphs....


I'm not sure where Barclays have 'demonstrated an empathetic approach to the customers situation and with information supplied by the customer work with them with a view to developing an appropriate solution....


Also, the reply for the plea for help and the rubbish excuse the bank gave of virtually accepting no responsibility for it is not consistent with 'firms should have appropriate policies and procedures in place to identify and support vulnerable customers where this impact their abilit to pay........so telling them theyt will most likely have a credit score hit and that they won't entertain any request for anything asked for...


I'll keep going with this, I can't see how a bank, any bank can consider itself a responsible lender and where they say they have 'robust systems' in place to identify those in trouble...and yet they obviously havent.....


In reality, they dont want to help other than contact the financial assistance team but for repayment terms


yes it's a long winded update...apologies in advance if you dont like it....