Barclays Response

jediknight49

Had a response back from Braclays concerning my complaint.

They accept that there was Discretionary Commission connected to my loan agreement and this was paid to Available Car. They do not uphold my complaint on the basis that I reveived the lowest rate on interst available (between 4.05% and 15.00%).

The commission was made up of two elements, with AC Ltd receiving £0 and AC Ltd Head Office receiving over £500 in commission. Barclays go on to say it was a fixed % of the amount borrowed, and AC Ltd Head Office received this amount irrespective of the interest rate charged.

If i want ot take it further contact FOB but seeing as they are currently not handling any claims, I'll wait till the outcome later in the year. 

[Deleted User]

If you have a final response you can refer your case to FOS. The pause only affects the time to a final response (with a lender) and an outcome with the FOS. They are continuing to work on cases as far as they can during the pause and are encouraging lenders to do the same. Now you have a final response and they are rejecting your claim but it is DCA, referring the case is the right thing to do if you remain unhappy this commission type and amount was paid without your knowledge. The fact you got the lowest interest rate may or may not affect the outcome, but we cannot say that yet. The head office payment is important as CONC 4.5.2 from 2014 (one of the FCA rules the FOS outcomes in January raised as an issue) say that these commission arrangements, along with DCA, should only exist where the extra work can be justified by the firm. There hasn't been clear indication of how FOS will view volume bonus and head office payments yet. Certainly get it there now and it will be progressed as far as they can when the review outcome happens, if you’re unsure you can call FOS, explain the response and check they will accept your referral but I am 99% certain given the FOS and FCA statements on the review / pause. They’re very friendly and helpful if you call in.

BLT1

[Deleted User] said:

If you have a final response you can refer your case to FOS. The pause moky  affects the time to a final response (with a lender) and an outcome with the FOS. They are continuing to work on cases as far as they can during the pause and are encouraging lenders to do the same. Now you have a final response and they are rejecting your claim but it is DCA, referring the case is the right thing to do if you remain unhappy this commission type and amount was paid without your knowledge. The fact you got the lowest interest rate may or may not affect the outcome, but we cannot say that yet. The head office payment is important as CONC 4.5.2 from 2014 (one of the FCA rules the FOS outcomes in January raised as an issue) say that these commission arrangements, along with DCA, should only exist where the extra work can be justified by the firm. There hasn't been clear indication of how FOS will view volume bonus and head office payments yet. Certainly get it there now and it will be progressed as far as they can when the review outcome happens, if you’re unsure you can call FOS, explain the response and check they will accept your referral but I am 99% certain given the FOS and FCA statements on the review / pause. They’re very friendly and helpful if you call in.

I have to say I have had the same response from Barclay's too excact same wording there is DCA  (but I got lowest rate ) just different rates 5,50% annum and 11.6% APR. 
They said same about the head office got their money but not the dealer where I purchased it from. So hence I have replied to their email they provided in the letter requesting my data/information to support their outcome as I mentioned earlier. I have not heard anything(reciept email or auto response) acknowledging my email. After reading your message above mentioned I am considering going to the FOS for further advice. 

[Deleted User]

I think with how new this all is and the review with an unknown outcome somewhere in the distance it is best to do so. At best you have an expert independent financial third party available to explain these things to you in the future. At worst you have referred your claim and avoided missing any referral deadline. Barclays will not explain these things to you. They want you to read those letters and think, hmm sounds ok then I guess? I imagine the reason you are getting the final response at a time they aren’t required to issue one (the review pause) is they don’t think you will take it any further. I would err on the side of caution. You would want to see evidence of this and know that it does not mean they should still pay you compensation. Again I imagine you were unaware of the commission and unaware of the DCA structure being used, losses can be an inconsequential part of this. At the lowest available interest rate, the dealer will have taken a hit to their commission to get the deal over the line, but they don’t create these commission structures for the finance, they just work with what the lender gives them. I always have to reflect back to other financial claims in volume like PPI, in the early years the amount of incorrect or dismissive rejections of claims was huge, many 100ks of people did not refer claims on to the FOS as a result and lost out. The goal posts for getting compensation changed massively over the years and the early cases stayed at FOS for 1-4 years! But in the end up to 90% were upheld. This is not the same, but as a consumer you will be in the right place with a knowledgeable, friendly third party available to guide you for free. Ofc it is your choice and it comes down to if you are satisfied with their response and if you 100% trust it is accurate. I would not be and I certainly trust Clydesdale Financial Services (Barclays Partner Finance) as far as I can throw them from experience. Best of luck.

dunstonh

jediknight49 said:

Had a response back from Braclays concerning my complaint.

They accept that there was Discretionary Commission connected to my loan agreement and this was paid to Available Car. They do not uphold my complaint on the basis that I reveived the lowest rate on interst available (between 4.05% and 15.00%).

The commission was made up of two elements, with AC Ltd receiving £0 and AC Ltd Head Office receiving over £500 in commission. Barclays go on to say it was a fixed % of the amount borrowed, and AC Ltd Head Office received this amount irrespective of the interest rate charged.

If i want ot take it further contact FOB but seeing as they are currently not handling any claims, I'll wait till the outcome later in the year. 

The response is unclear but they are suggesting that either it was available to use but wasn't or it was used to give you a lower rate.   The latter seems likely from the figures given.

DCA can be available to use and not used.   It can be used to improve your rate (positive outcome) or used to increase the rate (negative outcome).

As things stand, the expectation is that you would not be considered worse off from this arrangement as this is DCA being used in a positive way.  i.e. to give you a better outcome.  You are not worse off from it.

Commission is allowed.  So, that isn't an issue with this review.  

There is no point going to the FOS as the FOS will not look at it until after the FCA review.  And any cases that have been referred to the FOS will be passed back to firms once the review is published to see whether they want to change their response.    So, its a waste of everyone's time, energy and money to do it at the moment.    

Wait until the FCA report states what needs to be done next and who and what it is looking at.  Anything now is just speculation and opinions on what outcomes could be.   And with no decisions going to be made until then, there is no point wasting time or energy on trying to get one earlier.

[Deleted User]

Complete nonsense.  There is every point going to the FOS and the FOS will look at it and progress the referral as far as they can until the review outcome, if you don't believe me just look at the FCA statements and FOS advice on the pause during the review.  The only affect is on the timescale to a final response or outcome.  If the lender didn't want you to progress your case to FOS, they could have waited until September to give you that response.  It could be the FOS advise you to wait for a later outcome, but at least you then have that from the horses mouth as opposed to a few people who think they know stuff on a forum  Point is the lenders want you to do nothing, as do other forum members for some reason.  If in doubt, just call or email FOS and explain your case and that you want to refer your claim.  Friendly, helpful and easy to talk to in my vast experience with them.  Great buffet in canary wharf too.  No one knows what a good or bad claim will look like or what claims will or won't qualify for compensation at this stage, or indeed what that compensation will look like (redress scheme, complaints procedure etc).  We have best guesses and indicative decisions. The only time or energy being wasted is endless comments from the same person saying do nothing, sit on your hands, this will happen because I know etc.  Unsure of their agenda but its not a consumer friendly one.  OHHH you're IFA, that makes sense.  Likely been stung by a few vexatious or spurious (fun words) claims against you that went to FOS and had to pay a case fee.  It's ok these are major lenders, they get discounts because they get 10s of 1000s and these claims aren't spurious.

[Deleted User]

I also can envision you saying the same thing to people in 2010 for PPI, theres a court case just wait around.  The same to PBA claims in 2014, you dont have a case dont waste your time.  Those poor consumers, 100K in 2010 alone, missed the deadlines because they didnt refer in time or just forgot about it (life eh?) and thought their claims were done.  Then via clever adaption of the rules consumers were able to get millions of new claims to underwriters not lenders, then via pioneering litigation we won the Plevin case and opened the doors for millions to get billions back for unfair commissions.  Goals posts change, you have to cover all bases and if you have a final response (I didnt actually see that it mentioned it on your reply so apologies if I jumped the gun as was responding to another query where it clearly stated 'final response' and gave FOS rights) or not, contacting FOS to understand it better is always worth your time.  As I say they are usually very good and helpful and they are where these queries are best directed.  Many people have this idea that the FOS is some officious financial regulator, they're really not, they are set up to help the general consumer navigate and understand these things and they (whilst independent) are a great third party to have on your side.  When you come knocking, firms can ignore, when FOS come knocking they reply in good time and give up the information requested.

dunstonh

  OHHH you're IFA, that makes sense.  Likely been stung by a few vexatious or spurious (fun words) claims against you that went to FOS and had to pay a case fee.  

Wrong again

[Deleted User]

I saw in your comments the bottom part says you are an IFA.  My experience is IFAs are very bitter towards the complaint process and FOS due to the time and costs incurred dealing with complaints and referrals, some of which can be baseless CMC driven stuff.  I guess I was trying to say I understand why you may be telling everyone 'do nothing' on every question posted on this thread.

dunstonh

[Deleted User] said:

I saw in your comments the bottom part says you are an IFA.  My experience is IFAs are very bitter towards the complaint process and FOS due to the time and costs incurred dealing with complaints and referrals, some of which can be baseless CMC driven stuff.  I guess I was trying to say I understand why you may be telling everyone 'do nothing' on every question posted on this thread.

Your experiences are wrong.  Over 80% of IFAs have never had a FOS case.  I do know that advisers who have had spurious complaints do take it personally, but they don't blame the FOS. 

I am telling them to wait because that is the common sense approach.  Until the FCA complete their review and state what the issues are, or what things are included but not included, and then what needs to be done next, everything else is guesswork.    There is a chance that the FCA will force firms to be pro-active rather than reactive (they have done it both ways in past reviews.  So, we cannot call what it is going to be yet).  They may introduce a streamlined process.  

Anything put in now is just clogging up the system, creating costs which consumers will end up paying for.   Wait and see just seems common sense seeing as nothing is going to be decided until after the paper.

I also can envision you saying the same thing to people in 2010 for PPI, theres a court case just wait around.

No.  I put my earliest PPI complaint in during 2004.   

However, it is worth noting that those that complained about PPI after the regulator (belatedly) published its PPI paper, were more likely to get an uphold decision than those that complained before that.

[Deleted User]

Yes I know many haven't, most IFAs provide a great service and pride themselves in having no or very low complaint numbers.  I guess that's why they take it personally when dodgy complaints drop at their door.  No, nothing will be decided until after the review, I have never said that, but the case will be logged and progressed as far as they can until it has an outcome.  If there is missing information (evidence of commission etc) then FOS will act on that and request it as they will need it regardless of the outcome.  No decision will be made but the FOS case workers have time to get as many cases ready to investigate / progress as possible.  No system is being clogged up, no costs are being passed down.  That is what case fees and levies are for.  Lloyds Banking Group were pounded in every consumer scandal that arose and the only time we paid for it was the financial crash in 2009 which was their own over zealous lending and folly.