Barclays insurance

MyBrainhurts_2

A person i know said they discovered that they been paying barclays a insurance premium to barclays that theu neber asked for. Seem travel and maybe phone.  Been going for 10 years. Barclays refusing to pay it back and saying no records of when it was taken out.  No claims have been made on it. 

[Deleted User]

If they no longer need the cover, tell them to cancel it.

[Deleted User]

Not using an insurance policy isn't grounds for a refund

Nearlyold

MyBrainhurts_2 said:

A person i know said they discovered that they been paying barclays a insurance premium to barclays that theu neber asked for. Seem travel and maybe phone.  Been going for 10 years. Barclays refusing to pay it back and saying no records of when it was taken out.  No claims have been made on it. 

Sounds like a packaged bank account where you pay a monthly account fee - typical benefits include Travel & Phone Insurance and AA/RAC Breakdown cover.

How long ago did person you know "Discover" they were paying this fee? Presumably it can't be recently as banks have been sending yearly mandatory "Eligibility and Benefits" explanatory statements since 2012. 

On what basis does the person you know believe that Barclays should be refunding the payments?

MyBrainhurts_2

They know because its not a inclusive bank account and they didnt ask for the insurance.

MyBrainhurts_2

No asking for the insurance is surely grounds for refund. 

MyBrainhurts_2

The didnt need it...  Because they didnt ask for it.

[Deleted User]

MyBrainhurts_2 said:

The didnt need it...  Because they didnt ask for it.

Complaining after the first payment is taken is a realistic and sensible thing to do. Complaining 10 years after the event sounds like a try it on case (whether it is or not is not important, that's how it would be seen). 

It's quite possible that any complaint would be time barred under the 6 and 3 year rules anyway

dunstonh

MyBrainhurts_2 said:

The didnt need it...  Because they didnt ask for it.

The problem with that argument is that it's unprovable.

Someone who uses that argument after the payment has gone out for a few months is often considered credible.   The FOS, being more liberal even go as far as a few years.   However, in this case, you are saying that it was being paid for 10 years.   

In that time, it has appeared on 120 statements and there have been at least eight annual benefit statements explaining the coverage and the ability to opt-out of it.

So, credibility for that argument has to be pretty weak.