Barclays Fraud / GDPR breach

eskbanker

Banks don't report 'adverse' as such to credit ratings agencies, they simply report facts, such as balances and whether or not you're in an unarranged overdraft and/or missing repayments.  If FOS have ruled that Barclays must correct the erroneous credit file feeds then Barclays will need to resubmit the data for the affected months and it's then up to the credit agencies to decide how to represent that (and remember that prospective lenders will access the data not the 'score'), but if the reported data related to a joint account then Barclays should be updating both parties' credit files.

HiggiHiggins

The FO ruled they must rework the account to reflect the transactions and consequences of them having never taken place.

So if the £3000 hadn’t been debited then the account would have that balance, with this and being without it from July 22 to today, i’ve had to make financial sacrifices and I’ve missed payments, been late with some and been deeper in debts on credits cards etc to fund living. How do you place a value on the effects not having the money for almost a year has had?
the fact that I can’t remortgage or get a consolidation loan has a financial impact moving forward which is a consequence too. Ultimately the speed at which the account will get actioned and that I’ll never know how long for example it will be till I can get a £5000 loan without something affecting the application,

I’ve never lived with such worry and uncertainty and absolutely broken by their actions which have caused this. No money, a defaulted cc, late payments and I don’t see any way of getting out. I’ve had a mortgage for 20 years, never had an overdraft and very little on cards but they ruined me. We’ve both got our own LTD companies and obviously have our concerns there too

eskbanker

HiggiHiggins said:

So if the £3000 hadn’t been debited then the account would have that balance, with this and being without it from July 22 to today, i’ve had to make financial sacrifices and I’ve missed payments, been late with some and been deeper in debts on credits cards etc to fund living. How do you place a value on the effects not having the money for almost a year has had?

Not sure I'm following - as I recall, you said that it was a rarely-used secondary account that was defrauded, so surely this would have been put into unarranged overdraft territory and left alone while you went through the hassle of trying to resolve the matter, or are you saying that you actually paid off the 'debt' with money from elsewhere that you really needed?

TheBanker

HiggiHiggins said:

Thank you for the note, I understand they are not an official number in that sense so are you saying it’s the actual adverse months reported on the report that need amending? So Nov 1 (adverse) Dec 2 Jan 3 would need changing, is that what you mean in terms of data?

we received a letter last week advising that the account is critical and providing written notice that they may close the account. They also warn that information relating to the conduct of the account may be sent on to credit agencies and therefore our credit scores are at risk.

they are aware that they have already reported this for the last few months and it has impacted our scores already. I presume that institutions should make you aware prior to reporting to credit agencies (as this letter forewarns) to give you chance to resolve any payments etc that could be for any reason. This didn’t happen and seems very irresponsible that someone can miss a payment and a bank reports this as adverse rather than allowing you to resolve this?

Is the letter that you have received a Default Notice? Can you tell us the exact title of the letter?

It is probably automatically generated but I would suggest contacting your complaints handler at Barclays and asking them to intervene. 

In terms of your FOS complaint, you said it was decided by the adjudicator. Have FOS confirmed whether Barclays have accepted the adjudicator's view? Barclays have the right to refer it to an Ombudsman if they disagree, although from what you've said they've made a complete mess of things so far, so probably won't.

HiggiHiggins

Not sure I'm following - as I recall, you said that it was a rarely-used secondary account that was defrauded, so surely this would have been put into unarranged overdraft territory and left alone while you went through the hassle of trying to resolve the matter, or are you saying that you actually paid off the 'debt' with money from elsewhere that you really needed?

Sorry if confusing, it was an old account that was switched years ago so there was just some money left in there. 

So the first case which was investigated and refunded within 10 days of reporting it 8 months ago got refunded and debited.

Nov when the other 2 cases finally got looked into the entirety of one case was credited into the account without any info. I checked this with the complaint handler who confirmed it to be a refund from fraud and the others not paid needed further investigation (he was in direct contact with this team due to complaint)

so debited this and balance £0. A week later a letter arrived stating they were going to reclaim a temporary refund payment made. When I questioned this he took no responsibility and came back with we don’t have to notify you about a payment or whether temp (I stated that I enquired and was told in writing that he had advised it was a refund payment and no mention of temp)

they debited this as stated on letter, 20+ individual txn over £500 which must have been manually overridden as no unauthorised overdraft would a bank allow to sink that deep into to that £ level.

from there we asked for them to temp credit the account till complaint resolved or freeze it so it had no effect on our credit scores. This was asked or stated at least 6 times but ignored and they knowingly debited the account.

from there they reported it to credit agencies and it’s shown for last few months  for both. So in terms of the money, for coming up 12 months I’ve been without the amount 

HiggiHiggins

Is the letter that you have received a Default Notice? Can you tell us the exact title of the letter?

It is probably automatically generated but I would suggest contacting your complaints handler at Barclays and asking them to intervene. 

In terms of your FOS complaint, you said it was decided by the adjudicator. Have FOS confirmed whether Barclays have accepted the adjudicator's view? Barclays have the right to refer it to an Ombudsman if they disagree, although from what you've said they've made a complete mess of things so far, so probably won't.

We’ve had :

 “failure of balance reduction plan” (this is something neither of us agreed, signed or knew about and Barclays couldn’t give us any documents on the credit agreement) 

“current account is still overdrawn” urgent action you need to make a payment

”you still need to make a payment on account” if you don’t pay off the unattached amount we will restrict account  

“we’ve restricted the account”

”overdrawn balance on account is now critical”
………….

yes it’s currently decided by them (adjudicator) and Barclays have not been in touch to comment either way. 

As they hadn’t come back to him after they had requested a two week extension, he had stated that his outcome that if Barclays had not been in touch within 14 days, he would refer them to the ombudsman.

I think they’re at the point where they have dug deep enough hole, and made so many critical mistakes that it’s probably less incriminating to sit back and say nothing than try and provide any further details.

Is the adjudicators ruling is based on the transactions, investigation and outcome of these the catalogue of errors of occurred as a result of this investigation transactions, etc have not been addressed in his outcome, he’s also said that if it’s referred to an ombudsman play tool, only look at the transactions investigation and outcome. He is awaiting some advice on whether if we accept the ruling on the investigation it would prevent any further action being taken on the events afterwards and consequences. 

What’s the benefit in referring the case to an ombudsman?, Is it purely that that decision is legally binding, however, potentially they could disagree with the adjudicator and or increase or decrease any sanctions ruled. 

If the matter is referred to the ombudsman, is that decision final or do you have the choice whether to accept or reject that, as I’m guessing that ruling, if not accepted or rejected, would expire at some point?

I do suspect Barclays probably won’t address. The open complaint once the ombudsman piece is concluded. They aren’t engaging with the ombudsman or myself, so I’m really not sure where this will go, or what they would do next.

TheBanker

The FOS operate a two stage process. The adjudicator tries to resolve the complaint by mediation, but if either party disagrees they can ask for it to be referred to an Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will review the full facts. If they're reaching a different decision from the adjudicator, they normally issue a Provisional Decision and ask both parties for comments. Eventually the Ombudsman will issue a Final Decision. 

The customer then has to decide whether to accept or reject the Ombudsman's final decision. If they accept it, it is legally binding on the bank. If the customer rejects it, the bank does not have to implement the decision and that's the end of the Ombudsman's process. The customer can pursue the matter through the courts if they want to.

In your case, if the adjudicator has made a decision, and Barclays don't respond, the adjudicator will have to pass the file to an Ombudsman because this is the only way to move forwards. If Barclays haven't provided any comments on the adjudicator's findings, or any more evidence, then the chances are the Ombudsman will reach the same conclusions.

In terms of your current issue, I would suggest writing to Barclays (to whoever is sending you the letters about your overdraft) telling them that the overdraft debit is disputed and is the subject of a complaint being decided by FOS, and requesting they pause further action until FOS have concluded on the case. Copy this letter to your complaint handler, and to the adjudicator at FOS.

Out of interest, is there anything you've received from Barclays saying why they have concluded these transactions weren't fraudulent? I feel things have got confused by arguments about which forms were filled in and what happened to the forms, and whether there was a GDPR breach. But the crux of the matter is whether or not you authorised the original transactions. If Barclays are saying you made them, what evidence have they offered to support this? Has the adjudicator's decision mentioned the Payment Services Regulations 2017 which sets out when a customer is deemed to have authorised a transaction?

HiggiHiggins

Good morning.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I think I’m now up to speed with the process and will know within the next few days how that plays out.

In terms of the letters on the account This is something that we have requested and told have been applied but never materialised, I have also asked on numerous occasions that they’re either provide a temporary credit back onto the account or freeze the account till the investigation and complaint has been decided and then address any issues. But again all this was ignored despite numerous warnings of the impact it could and it cause. 

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in that we have probably actually forgotten the crux of the matter amongst all the other issues. So the short answer is no never been provided any evidence for any transaction that was disputed, it was never made clear why one case was refunded as all transactions were investigated and fraudulent. Yet the other two cases deemed customer liable, even payments on the same day and to the same merchants that were refunded as fraudulent on the other case.
The adjudicator points out in his report the  evidence supplied demonstrates confusion and provides no evidence or rationale behind any decisions made. He comments on the first case which was refunded after investigation stating rationale for this refund has not been provided by Barclays. Instead they claim they decided to “write off the transactions” - which baffles me and shows dishonesty.

yes PSR is quoted - he stated there is no evidence of consent given by the customer from either the bank or the merchants who the transactions were disputed with. There is nothing to show anything grossly negligent 

TheBanker

It sounds like you've got a good adjudicator. I used to deal with FOS complaints on behalf of the bank I worked for, and it was common for the issue to get confused by both the bank and customer during the complaint, with both ending up down rabbit holes and losing sight of what was actually being complained about. Part of the skill in handling complaints is understanding what is actually being complained about. 

It sounds like this adjudicator has got things back on track and looked at the actual issue - were those transactions authorised by the account holder? If not, everything that followed is a consequence of Barclay's failure to deal with the fraud properly when it was reported to them.

I hope you are able to get a satisfactory resolution soon.

(On a slightly unrelated note, I think cases such as this demonstrate the real value of the FOS. Based on what has been written, the customer was badly treated by their bank and the bank hasn't put things right. Having the ability to refer the complaint to an independent service will make sure the customer receives fair treatment. People who refer trivial complaints about things that don't really matter to the FOS should bear in mind that by adding to their workload, they are delaying the resolution of complaints like this)

HiggiHiggins

I’m always quite reluctant with these kind of bodies, and I’m always sceptical that they are 100% impartial, however, as you say adjudicator in this case has been absolutely on point. kept me up to speed, dumb things he said he’s gonna do, and I believe as you say he has got a real understanding of the case.

No, neither of us authorised the payments and obviously the adjudicator has requested information which Barclays have failed to provide them with.

The adjudicator has looked at essentially the basics of the case which have been caused the issues that have followed.

we are looking at potentially extending the deadline for accepting adjudicator decision, so we can seek legal advice. I am lead to believe that we can accept their outcome and still pursue further action against Barclays in relation to the impact and the consequences, resulting from their actions and feelings stated in the adjudicator report. The alternative being we request it be referred to an ombudsman to get their decision in writing whilst in the interim, we seek legal advice on our options.

I’m more than aware that there in any answers or information out of Barclays will be impossible moving forward in terms of getting clear answers and them dragging their feet months on end. 

I’ve just had a good chat with the adjudicator and he helped clear a few things up. I’ve concluded we definitely need to get legal advice before making any decisions on this. Looking over a very similar thread with the same bank it seems their only real interest came when legal action commenced so looks favourable.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419512-won-fos-complaint-but-barclays-not-complying/#comments

I enquired about a DSAR from the ombudsman and he confirmed that everything Barclays had disclosed would be supplied (redacted as per GDPR) and he said it was over 800 pages from them. I said that could well unearth some interesting information in terms of legal action potentially and he said “potentially…. Definitely”

that’s been requested now, so we wait and see