Barclays Fraud / GDPR breach

eskbanker

Have you quantified your claim and put it to Barclays?  They obviously can't rewrite history, so if the current offer on the table is "full return of the transactions not refunded, plus interest, 4 figure compensation amount and a reworking of my credit file to reflect the position of the transactions and consequences of them having not taken place" then what else are you hoping to get, in terms of what they can actually deliver?

For example, if you're asserting that you're unable to secure a decent remortgage rate as a direct result of their (in)action, then you should be able to quantify the incremental cost as £x per month, although this may be subject to challenge if you'd have been financially stretched anyway, as implied by your reference to seeking debt consolidation.

I could be wrong but just get the impression (from references to DSAR and "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", etc) that you're not necessarily focused on exactly what's needed to close this all off at the earliest opportunity?

TheBanker

HiggiHiggins said:

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

I am quite surprised that Barclays have managed to supply 800 pages of evidence without actually addressing the main issue of the complaint. 

You said the adjudicator had recommended a refund of the original payments, a four figure compensation payment and correction of your credit report. It is quite unusual for FOS to award this amount of compensation. 

If you are going to take legal advice, what outcome are you seeking over and above what the adjudicator has recommended? Remember the adjudicator's decision is not binding on either you or Barclays. If you believe something further is justified, you can reject the adjudicator's decision and ask an ombudsman to review the case. Of course this could lead to the award being reduced rather than increased, if the ombudsman thinks the adjudicator's recommendation was not justified.

If you start a court claim, then the FOS case will end. FOS won't get involved in a case that's being dealt with by the courts. And there is no guarantee a court will reach the same decision as FOS, or award the same compensation. And unlike FOS, a court claim will involve costs which you may not be able to recover. You could even find yourself liable for Barclays' costs. I would think long and hard before going down this route.

If you accept the FOS decision, either at adjudicator or ombudsman stage, then that's the end of the matter. You wouldn't be able seek further compensation through the courts. You'd only involve the courts in the very unlikely event that Barclays refused to honour a formal ombudsman decision.

I looked at the case you linked to, and I don't think it is very similar to yours. But more importantly, that person lodged a court claim against Barclays and they appointed solicitors who applied to have the claim struck out. I would not consider this a good conclusion, but we don't actually find out what happened because the person never posted again. 

So before throwing good money away, it would be good to clear up what you're actually wanting Barclays to do to resolve this?

HiggiHiggins

eskbanker said:

Have you quantified your claim and put it to Barclays?  They obviously can't rewrite history, so if the current offer on the table is "full return of the transactions not refunded, plus interest, 4 figure compensation amount and a reworking of my credit file to reflect the position of the transactions and consequences of them having not taken place" then what else are you hoping to get, in terms of what they can actually deliver?

no not quantified as yet. The current ruling by the adjudicator and the same for any ombudsman involvement has only actually looked at the investigation and outcome of their investigations and disputed transactions. The adjudicators statement in reworking the credit file and the consequences resulting from the transactions is the only reference to the impacts after the investigation. So there is no compensation or damages that cover being without 66% of the transactions for over eight months in. obviously, without knowing personal circumstances and any requirement or reliance, I had on that money, the consequences would invariably differ between various people.

For example, if you're asserting that you're unable to secure a decent remortgage rate as a direct result of their (in)action, then you should be able to quantify the incremental cost as £x per month, although this may be subject to challenge if you'd have been financially stretched anyway, as implied by your reference to seeking debt consolidation.

in my circumstances in terms of mortgage, I can quantify an increase in monthly payments based on fixed jump into SVR rate on a monthly basis, are you gonna wear of how long it will take either Barclays or the credit companies to remove this how long would you base your figures on? In terms of the debt, consolidation I have used more on my credit cards particularly around Christmas in the absence of this money and so for me, that was a consequence, so I didn’t mean consolidation in terms of a loan to write off a number of debts, but I couldn’t even get a credit card and transfer the three balances onto one with 0% for six months for example.

The joint account holder actually failed a mortgage application due to the adverse markers caused by the unauthorised overdraft and the result of that was lost for sale and still had to pay solicitors fees which were lost

I could be wrong but just get the impression (from references to DSAR and "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", etc) that you're not necessarily focused on exactly what's needed to close this all off at the earliest opportunity?

For me, I would want some form of compensation for the treatment and delays caused the amount of hours I’ve spent on the phone behind a laptop dealing with this for so long. 

The fact that Barclays have not acted honestly with integrity or in manner that has the customer at the heart of every decision they make sure to disregard for codes of practices, principles and standards they claim they operate at. When I trust them to do the right thing, and carry out a full investigation in an open transparent manner, acting professionally and coming back to me with reports showing what would appear to be just this. 

I don’t expect months later then to  provide a version of the same event in which they now claim I didn’t really investigate and they decided to write off transactions. 

This is a blatant lie and begs the question as to why this would be? Why write off certain transactions, and not others when the consumer reported them all at the same time? Why decide you’ve done this months after you advise the customer on at least four occasions and been investigated by fraud team found fraudulent and refund it? 

To provide this to the regulator which door rational reason behind why you do this really concerns what I believe, and don’t believe has been done.

I had tried to reason with him and get it resolved amicably months ago, and they showed no interest. So for me now, the manner in which they have dealt the lack of cooperation and honesty, which resulted in financial impact credit score damage, and having to deal with a fight to get any answers and then to have to involve regulators to get answers is now at a different level thought it was before

eskbanker

HiggiHiggins said:
For me, I would want some form of compensation for the treatment and delays caused the amount of hours I’ve spent on the phone behind a laptop dealing with this for so long. 

You said that the resolution proposed by FOS includes "4 figure compensation amount" (on top of the reimbursement), so that's presumably intended to reflect all that?

In terms of the wider picture, it still seems to me that you're far more heavily focused on Barclays past conduct rather than what can realistically be done to move forward, so, while I can understand the strength of your feelings, it really isn't going to help to fixate about investigations, lies, etc, and it would be far more productive IMHO to concentrate on what can be done right now to repair the financial damage.  If FOS are holding Barclays to account then now is exactly the right time to agree the financial remediation, rather than anticipating legal action or another complaint/claim cycle, so my view remains that it would be appropriate to fully quantify your claim and push FOS to deliver it for you.

TheBanker

The only thing I can add is that if FOS are not considering impacts on the joint account holder, then they need to make their own complaint to Barclays. But normally FOS treat a complaint on a joint account as being from both parties. Perhaps raise this with FOS - the underlying facts are the same, but any award also needs to consider the additional impacts.

HiggiHiggins

You said that the resolution proposed by FOS includes "4 figure compensation amount" (on top of the reimbursement), so that's presumably intended to reflect all that?

apologies I did quote wrong earlier, 3 figure £500 offered. Still fairly high on their scale of awards for distress but if that also covered the amount of time I’ve spent I’d be working at much less than £2 an hour. 

In terms of the wider picture, it still seems to me that you're far more heavily focused on Barclays past conduct rather than what can realistically be done to move forward, so, while I can understand the strength of your feelings, it really isn't going to help to fixate about investigations, lies, etc, and it would be far more productive IMHO to concentrate on what can be done right now to repair the financial damage. 

I would completely agree I’m absolutely stuck in a position of such resent and frustration at what’s gone off. I guess when I read conduct docs and their policy’s and then get faced with the opposite it frustrates. 

When they can tell me that a investigation has been carried out perfectly as per policy and then months after that statement I’m told is wrong and we didn’t do that we just wrote off these txn for no logical reason and not the entire lot he reported they tell the FO. Can’t give the FO any reason why we did this or why we told the cust all along we had investigated it in full! It’s just now we advise we wrote them all off.. this is despite a submission to the ICO stating these were all investigated too.
There’s that many lies that everything contradicts. I just don’t know what if anything to believe that I’m told. I do agree tho fixing this financially is needed rather than arguing the whole thing further. 

 If FOS are holding Barclays to account then now is exactly the right time to agree the financial remediation, rather than anticipating legal action or another complaint/claim cycle, so my view remains that it would be appropriate to fully quantify your claim and push FOS to deliver it for you.

 That sounds great and where I hope they will be seeing the situation. So the FO have been clear that they have ruled (adjudicator) on the disputes, investigation and outcome, nothing beyond that. The FCA advised the joint account holder that if the ruling in the complaint of the FO doesn’t cover all the damage done by Barclays then ask the FO to open a new complaint of seek legal advise on next steps.
barclays have yet to address issues in the complaint that is still sat open with them (while the fo were involved they held it) and there are issues that have arisen from this that will also need to be put to them to address and come back to us on, all that complaint malarkey again which could go on months!! 

So in terms of moving this forward the FO have said even if referred to an ombudsman they will only rule on the same point he has (dispute, investigation and outcome of fraud investigation). He has said there are definitely things that need to be addressed as a consequence of this.

so I feel going back to the FOS will be limited, or is it their role to mediate almost in what we put forward as a resolve. At the moment it’s not been referred to the ombudsman yet. Situation is that Barclays asked for 2 week extension for dealing to disclose info, 2 weeks granted and no disclosure was made or contact to FO to explain anything. Outcome ruled and sent with 2 weeks for both parties, 2 weeks passed and Barclays failed again to hit set deadline (so approx 4 weeks back requested time extension, no contact made 2 weeks after that, no contact made 2 weeks later when ruling deadline was set for). However due to their national staff shortages they are granted a given 2 week extension on all deadlines set 🫤.

So what to do, quantify our figures and speak to FO adjudicator, have case referred for ruling by an Ombudsman or quantify figures and send these direct to Barclays outlining why and highlighting any compelling evidence we have and how much work is likely to be needed in terms of the current complaint, a complaint that will be raised to cover the recent events, a further complaint over data disclosed to the FO, confirmed with the ICO as a breach as reporting inaccurate data, a likely complaint to be raised with the FO if the complaint isn’t resolved plus any further work needed as a result. With the level of confusion and embarrassment which has been highlighted  and the potential to damage the brand to a significant level do you have any members of staff who can provide the level of in depth, honest and timely responses to these cases without raising any points on any previous statements provided that would highlight any level of dishonest, misleading, untruthful, contradictory or questionable information? 

I think the honest answer is no and at a point where this is not defendable. 

At present we are 2 mere laymen who will awaiting legal guidance on the matter which only you will truly know the potential damage and legal liability you are exposed to. If you feel it is in the interests of both parties we are happy to discuss.

I’ve gone off on a tangent again I feel but please please pick any positives out (if so 🙃) and I’ll get back on track. I do apologise and appreciate every little bit the support given 

HiggiHiggins

TheBanker said:

The only thing I can add is that if FOS are not considering impacts on the joint account holder, then they need to make their own complaint to Barclays. But normally FOS treat a complaint on a joint account as being from both parties. Perhaps raise this with FOS - the underlying facts are the same, but any award also needs to consider the additional impacts.

You are absolutely spot on yes I checked with the adjudicator and confirmed the credit files are to be reworked for both

There is nothing in the compensatory amount as he didn’t use the account so there’s no issue or question over that. Similarly the award for distress and inconvenience is only awarded to me as I was the one impacted and dealing. 

He only became aware when he received a letter, some 4 weeks after they put the account into an unauthorised overdraft, advising of the issue. 

Now the FO have never asked for any figures in terms of losses or what amount of compensation is sought based on the impact on distress and inconvenience you’ve personally sustained. Should these quantified figures be put to the FO now or have we missed that boat and have to wait for a referral if need be? Or approach Barclays while the irons hot and try and sort it? Can the FO put our plan to them now or would it need to get passed on for an ombudsman to review? 

As an example how would it work: bank offer £1000 for distress etc bet 2. And £50,000 in distress. Awards plus 10% interest, so £56k… just says all about ok but excessive 50k I award 30 so a total of 34k. .. is that figure then set if ruled non negotiable and accept or reject decisions?

TheBanker

HiggiHiggins said:

TheBanker said:

The only thing I can add is that if FOS are not considering impacts on the joint account holder, then they need to make their own complaint to Barclays. But normally FOS treat a complaint on a joint account as being from both parties. Perhaps raise this with FOS - the underlying facts are the same, but any award also needs to consider the additional impacts.

You are absolutely spot on yes I checked with the adjudicator and confirmed the credit files are to be reworked for both

There is nothing in the compensatory amount as he didn’t use the account so there’s no issue or question over that. Similarly the award for distress and inconvenience is only awarded to me as I was the one impacted and dealing. 

He only became aware when he received a letter, some 4 weeks after they put the account into an unauthorised overdraft, advising of the issue. 

Now the FO have never asked for any figures in terms of losses or what amount of compensation is sought based on the impact on distress and inconvenience you’ve personally sustained. Should these quantified figures be put to the FO now or have we missed that boat and have to wait for a referral if need be? Or approach Barclays while the irons hot and try and sort it? Can the FO put our plan to them now or would it need to get passed on for an ombudsman to review? 

As an example how would it work: bank offer £1000 for distress etc bet 2. And £50,000 in distress. Awards plus 10% interest, so £56k… just says all about ok but excessive 50k I award 30 so a total of 34k. .. is that figure then set if ruled non negotiable and accept or reject decisions?

You would need to set out the impact this has had on you, financially and emotionally. The adjudicator can consider this and potentially take it up with Barclays. Presumably his letter invited both you and Barclays to comment on his view - Barclays have asked for more time but you can use this time to put your case forward.

The adjudicator could issue a revised view, and see what Barclays say, or he could stick with his original compensation. But if you don't agree with the adjudicator's view, you can ask for an ombudsman's decision.

The ombudsman's decision marks the end of the FOS process. You can accept it, and the matter is closed. If you accept it you can't go to court. If you reject the ombudsman's decision, you can go to court but there's no guarantee the court will reach the same decision as the ombudsman. In general, FOS are more 'customer friendly' than the courts so as a general rule it is not worth rejecting an ombudsman's decision and going to court.

The figures in your final paragraph are completely unrealistic. I do not see how this incident could justify £30k or £50k compensation, either through FOS or a court. Interest is not usually awarded on compensation for distress, and where interest is awarded the rate is either the account interest rate or 8%. 

FOS set out the kind of things they take into account when awarding compensation here: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience

eskbanker

HiggiHiggins said:

You said that the resolution proposed by FOS includes "4 figure compensation amount" (on top of the reimbursement), so that's presumably intended to reflect all that?

apologies I did quote wrong earlier, 3 figure £500 offered. Still fairly high on their scale of awards for distress but if that also covered the amount of time I’ve spent I’d be working at much less than £2 an hour.

The FOS document linked above makes it clear that they don't quantify distress & inconvenience compensation in terms of an hourly rate, so it's pointless pursuing that line of argument.

HiggiHiggins said:
So the FO have been clear that they have ruled (adjudicator) on the disputes, investigation and outcome, nothing beyond that. 

Surely everything 'beyond that' is directly consequential so should be considered part of the same issue?  In other words, their failure to reimburse the fraudulent transactions directly led to unarranged overdraft, damaged credit files and then impact on mortgage rates, i.e. the incremental costs you've incurred are part of the outcome from their failure to refund rather than a separate entity?  I think there's a real risk that if you tried to open another complaint to cover what's essentially the same underlying issue then it could be ignored by Barclays and/or FOS, so that's why I'm suggesting that you concentrate on quantifying the impact sooner rather than later, so that it can be baked into the settlement, rather than prolonging all this.

HiggiHiggins said:
I’ve gone off on a tangent again I feel but please please pick any positives out (if so 🙃) and I’ll get back on track. I do apologise and appreciate every little bit the support given 

No apology needed, but your posts do tend to ramble and lack focus and clarity, so if this extends into your dialogue with Barclays and FOS then you may be compromising their ability to resolve your issue adequately.  As above, I suggest you try to contain the emotions about lies, investigations, etc, and concentrate on giving them a clear and concise precis of what you need financially to settle this matter once and for all....

HiggiHiggins

Hi all

just to update on what has occurred. So Barclays finally responded to to adjudicator. 

Deadline set for Barclays to provide info to FO was 13 April. Two week extension requested by B and nothing received or heard from B by FO by 27/4. Ruling issued on 28/4 with instruction for either party should they disagree with ruling to submit any evidence or representation by 12 May and if the adjudicator hadn't heard from B by then he would arrange an ombudsman to arrange complaint. Requests for more time must be made by that date. 

We requested an extension but nothing had been heard from the FO by B. On 22 May B reply providing evidence which had been requested by 13 April originally and extended 2 weeks. Bearing in mind they have had full view on ruling and rationale too. They have provided after all this time information which they say should have been provided much sooner.

the FO say this is very unusual having responded with info after a ruling and not something he had had before. Now they r said they have to consider their evidence as if it went to an ombudsman they would consider it so he should. So deadlines seem to mean nothing and having had the benefit of seeing the ruling they can now produce evidence off the back of this. 

The first case which they refunded immediately after reporting yet could provide no rationale for this decision to the FO, changed their position and told him they simply wrote off those transactions? In this late evidence disclosure they now blame an agent for the decision saying he used his discretion but on reflection this was wrong but won’t look to reverse the outcome. 

So gone from full investigation and found in my favour too, we just wrote that single case off for no reason to an agent got it all wrong. 

In a nutshell the adjudicator has to review his decision and has asked a couple of questions of me follow their info. 

Massively lost now tho, last week I’d got the full amount being refunded plus interest, plus comp and more important the adverse credit being addressed and removed so we weren’t penalised for their errors. Now we just don’t know.

the FO wrote to B and told them where they had failed and where the investigation had gone wrong and to make an offer to settle the case. They wrote back saying they weren’t changing with their decision but would pay a £500 distress payment for mishandling the complaint.

can anyone help