Suing a bank for professional negligence?

goldmine2011

 

glad you are getting it sorted and a big fish got back to you finally giving you peace of mind more than anything else as you must have had a constant worry.

You know to a degree its sort of a 50/50 situation, im glad we got some answers but the answer also is that they've essentially had full access and overview of my main bank and credit card account for over 4 months (found out today they could see everything, inc the credit card).

They couldve downloaded all my statements, seen where ive been because i go on holiday and still use my card so they wouldve known if i was out of the country and not at home, and they can easily see my address on my account. All transactions and the name of my workplace is on my incoming monthly pay. If i had this sort of access to someones finances then i can easily paint a picture of what else i can get/do to extract money/valuables from them.

And the fact that they are clearly scammers/fraudsters, why would they not use that information? If they went out of the way to do this, why not more? And i'm scared there might be more to come and that i have to check everything, everyday, its definitely set in a high level of paranoia.

The frustration levels has been through the roof though after hearing admission after admission, im not even looking at the hackers side of "how did you do this?" Cause we'll never truly find out, but right now im feeling more "How genuinely bad can your service & security be?" Towards Barclays

Hoenir

dinosaur66 said:

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

At my first job in the early 70's we were using punch cards and tape. Main frames have been around for many decades. Worked on a finance project that put two mainframes back to back. Did take the floor area of two tennis courts though. Processing was conducted overnight. 

goldmine2011

eskbanker said:

goldmine2011 said:

it's a catalogue of errors on Barclays behalf and confirmed by the person I just spoke to. As much as I could have spent the next hour detailing how atrocious they have been I didn't want to waste more of my time, I got the admission of their guilt/failing recorded verbally now and that is all I need to provide to a solicitor who said that if I get an admission of guilt on their behalf they will look to move forward with a negligence case.

They clearly haven't covered themselves in glory here but the question remains as to what outcome you're seeking?  You're obviously entitled to the return of any outstanding money and reimbursement of realistic consequential costs, and it wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation that there'd be some compensation in recognition of the inconvenience, but you'd need to be clear about what you're seeking from Barclays, and ought to have a decent chance of securing that if you now have the ear of senior management and an acceptance of their shortcomings.

Obviously you have a safety net of FOS if Barclays fail to resolve the matter adequately, but it's only after exhausting those avenues that it would make any sense to contemplate legal action and it's still unclear to me what you'd actually anticipate the outcome of that being?

I know the legal action is further down the line if all forms of communication fail or continue to, i literally had to use that in a way to them in order to get them to respond. And as much as you might want to assume "but did you need to though?"

We are talking about a company who has now been proven to have been told multiple ways upfront to stop something, and they completely ignored it and now have to clean up the mess. They are proven to be literally useless in this case and if you dont treat them as so then you'll essentially get nowhere. Thats the level Barclays are at in my view

Ultimately i want the admission from them, and if they offer me some form of compensation whether it be monetary or of the sort it'd have to be a figure or gesture that would make me think twice. If they respond with some sort of voucher or like a few hundred £ rebate in my account, i would literally just ignore conversation going forward and just publicise the data from them that ive just requested.

This is not a sense of being unjust, its the fact that they need to know that this was a big mess up from their end, and for a bank yes its literally the only thing everyone understands is hit them where it hurts, theres only 2 options for that:

Monetary

Or

Reputation

We've seen that the only time someone is sorry at a bank is when they get caught doing something red handed or get a huge fine for doing so.

eskbanker

goldmine2011 said:

Ultimately i want the admission from them, and if they offer me some form of compensation whether it be monetary or of the sort it'd have to be a figure or gesture that would make me think twice. If they respond with some sort of voucher or like a few hundred £ rebate in my account, i would literally just ignore conversation going forward and just publicise the data from them that ive just requested.

But you say you've had the admission from them?  The point I'm making is that your complaint should include some sort of indication of something specific, quantifiable and realistic that they can provide you to resolve the matter, which would typically entail putting things right for your accounts and some sort of goodwill gesture.

goldmine2011 said:
This is not a sense of being unjust, its the fact that they need to know that this was a big mess up from their end, and for a bank yes its literally the only thing everyone understands is hit them where it hurts, theres only 2 options for that:

Monetary

Or

Reputation

We've seen that the only time someone is sorry at a bank is when they get caught doing something red handed or get a huge fine for doing so.

You might harbour aspirations of getting them to take out full page apologetic adverts or the like, but that's not going to happen, even if you choose to pursue them to court, where you'd be expected to quantify your damages.

goldmine2011

eskbanker said:

goldmine2011 said:

Ultimately i want the admission from them, and if they offer me some form of compensation whether it be monetary or of the sort it'd have to be a figure or gesture that would make me think twice. If they respond with some sort of voucher or like a few hundred £ rebate in my account, i would literally just ignore conversation going forward and just publicise the data from them that ive just requested.

But you say you've had the admission from them?  The point I'm making is that your complaint should include some sort of indication of something specific, quantifiable and realistic that they can provide you to resolve the matter, which would typically entail putting things right for your accounts and some sort of goodwill gesture.

goldmine2011 said:
This is not a sense of being unjust, its the fact that they need to know that this was a big mess up from their end, and for a bank yes its literally the only thing everyone understands is hit them where it hurts, theres only 2 options for that:

Monetary

Or

Reputation

We've seen that the only time someone is sorry at a bank is when they get caught doing something red handed or get a huge fine for doing so.

You might harbour aspirations of getting them to take out full page apologetic adverts or the like, but that's not going to happen, even if you choose to pursue them to court, where you'd be expected to quantify your damages.

I have the admission from them but its essentially a video recording of a phone call (on another phone) from the last person i spoke to at their Fraud & Security dept, i'm pretty much after it in writing i guess.

Problem is that this isnt quantifiable, right? The only thing quantifiable in real terms here is the actual money, which is and 100% will be returned.

But that doesnt erase what is now 4 months of constant issues that we've had to deal with, and in regards to being able to prove it, its literally impossible, even if you did go to the doctors etc and have a record that still does not make it quantifiable to a degree.

But what i guess is 'understandable' is that you put anybody in my same position of what happened and 99.9% of people will feel the exact same way, you wouldnt be paranoid that someone has hacked your bank and is able to pose as you? Not anxious? Not annoyed knowing it could have been stopped on multiple occassions but wasnt because of negligence?

Cant quantify (well i guess i can actually) the time that I've had to waste to sort all this out when it literally should've been wiped out the first time.

As much as most people would probably be like "im just glad i got my money back". No, thats how banks keep getting away with making all this £ (off of your money) and providing bare-bones service to their customers. 

I appreciate your insights though because they have made me think of how to approach this more concisely for the next steps, i'm assuming they will send me some type of applogy letter with some type of gesture but i dont know what i'm going to see as acceptable until i see that figure.

Again, taking the past 4 months into account, which they clearly wont account for (but clearly would obviously be understood by 99.9% of people) it'd have to be an amount i'd never expect, do you know what i mean? But i know 100% thats not the case, whatever they come back with is going to be insulting, i know that already. Im going to tell them to keep their money and instead just compile it and post it all online once i get all the hard evidence that ive requested from them.

Even if they offer me a grand or two right now on the spot, i'd feel like i'd pretty much just decline it, because its not something i know that would actually hurt them in the sense that it'd be a hard lesson learnt. Itd be a 'sweep under the rug' situation for them.

I guess when you've annoyed a person that much, they genuinely care less about the figure you offer them, only that it needs to be big enough that its hurt them to have to give it out (if that makes sense), and hence give them a wakeup that they cant keep treating customers like this.

I think they call it "forget about it" money or something? Thats how far they've basically pushed me at the moment.

TheSpectator

Genuine question, what do you expect 'going public' to achieve. Virtually nobody is going to see that and say 'that's it, I'm leaving Barclays'. It may make you feel better but in reality it achieves nothing.

It won't affect them.

Emily_Joy

I sense you want some sort of revenge and would need a lawyer from Ambulance Chasers team. I feel sorry for you, but I think the best you can do is to get CIFAS protection and get Barclays to pay for a nice holiday package for both of you  to get over it.

Nasqueron

dinosaur66 said:

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

Zanderman said:

dinosaur66 said:

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

The first UK credit card was 1966 (Barclays), Access (NatWest) first debit 1987 (Barclays), Switch launched 1988 (Midland/NatWest/RBS). People sure may not have used the tech much but you're tarring 20m people all as not tech savvy, that's rude to say the least.

OP got scammed but the weakest link is always the problem - 1 customer being scammed of 9k indicates something different to thousands being scammed which would indicate a bank issue.

 i started work in 1982

i opened my first bank account with barclays in stratford in 1982

i was given a cheque book

everything was in cash bar this.

i even had to put 50p into the back of my rented tv for it to work

i turned on a computer for the very first time in my life in 2001

can i use a computer yes

can i do things a 12 year old can do if asked / no

i looked it up

13% of my generation and older consider themselves tech savvy

i would guess most of them would be people like my brother who worked as a money broker in the city of london when he was a boy and was sent on courses to learn by his company .in the early 80s as would have the older people in his firm had to learn same computer skills.

maybe people on career changes in there 30s might have been trained but computers were not the all powerfull  thing they have become now.

I started work in 1983, I had a bank account from 1979. I had a cheque card from the start, which became a debit card within a few years, and I also had cards to use in cash machines from about 1981. I've used computers since 1984. And I wasn't ever trained, I learnt how, because I wanted to know and realised I would, inevitably, need to know. Always useful to look ahead, and to try not to become a dinosaur!

this is op goldmine2011 thread and not ours

facts are  13 % of the country population born before 1970 are like yourself who are tech savvy

87 % are like myself a dinosaur

This is a false interpretation of a survey done in 2023 by BT Group.

The 13% figure is for people who consider themselves "very good" with digital technology, it absolutely does not mean 87% cannot cope. 

Actual data from the survey:

Away from those who are not "very good", 57% stated they wanted to be better at using and understanding digital technology, a far cry from your suggestion 87% are basically digital outcasts 
91% regularly use a mobile phone
56% of over-65s have and use a tablet
52% said if they were unsure they would ask their kids while just 5% said they would give up 
65% use facebook

A more useful survey of digital banking specifically, according to Age UK, 70% of 65-69 year olds use online banking, and around 68% of 70-75, even 75-79 is about 38% while 85+ understandably was 14% (given the health issues, incapacity etc that can affect people as they age)

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

Zanderman said:

dinosaur66 said:

Nasqueron said:

dinosaur66 said:

banks are pushing and pushing for everyone to use online banking

i grew up on cash basis as did everyone who is over 50

anyone in there mid to late  50s to 100 left school before computers were a thing

i disagree IMO it is the job of bank staff to root out scammers

goldmine2011 was scammed

she told the bank

bank agreed

how is it possible that red flags were not put on the account and when the exact same thing happened

to use myself as an anology / i have been selling dvds/cds/videos before that for 4 decades / if i was asked to pick out the 1 counterfeit in 100k dvds i could do it at a glance when i came across it no matter how good it was

anybody who has been doing any job know what they are doing and know there job inside out is my arguement

how many ways are there for crooks to phone up and scam a customers account

my arguement is that bank staff should be expeirenced enough to root out the scammers from the genuine customer

if they are not then they should not be in that role

they went against there own policy and rules despite the customer having just been scammed in the same way before.

goldmine2011 is tech savvy

20 million of the uk older population by and large are not and they have the largest savings and largest ammount to lose on average

The first UK credit card was 1966 (Barclays), Access (NatWest) first debit 1987 (Barclays), Switch launched 1988 (Midland/NatWest/RBS). People sure may not have used the tech much but you're tarring 20m people all as not tech savvy, that's rude to say the least.

OP got scammed but the weakest link is always the problem - 1 customer being scammed of 9k indicates something different to thousands being scammed which would indicate a bank issue.

 i started work in 1982

i opened my first bank account with barclays in stratford in 1982

i was given a cheque book

everything was in cash bar this.

i even had to put 50p into the back of my rented tv for it to work

i turned on a computer for the very first time in my life in 2001

can i use a computer yes

can i do things a 12 year old can do if asked / no

i looked it up

13% of my generation and older consider themselves tech savvy

i would guess most of them would be people like my brother who worked as a money broker in the city of london when he was a boy and was sent on courses to learn by his company .in the early 80s as would have the older people in his firm had to learn same computer skills.

maybe people on career changes in there 30s might have been trained but computers were not the all powerfull  thing they have become now.

I started work in 1983, I had a bank account from 1979. I had a cheque card from the start, which became a debit card within a few years, and I also had cards to use in cash machines from about 1981. I've used computers since 1984. And I wasn't ever trained, I learnt how, because I wanted to know and realised I would, inevitably, need to know. Always useful to look ahead, and to try not to become a dinosaur!

this is op goldmine2011 thread and not ours

facts are  13 % of the country population born before 1970 are like yourself who are tech savvy

87 % are like myself a dinosaur

This is a false interpretation of a survey done in 2023 by BT Group.

The 13% figure is for people who consider themselves "very good" with digital technology, it absolutely does not mean 87% cannot cope. 

Actual data from the survey:

Away from those who are not "very good", 57% stated they wanted to be better at using and understanding digital technology, a far cry from your suggestion 87% are basically digital outcasts 
91% regularly use a mobile phone
56% of over-65s have and use a tablet
52% said if they were unsure they would ask their kids while just 5% said they would give up 
65% use facebook

A more useful survey of digital banking specifically, according to Age UK, 70% of 65-69 year olds use online banking, and around 68% of 70-75, even 75-79 is about 38% while 85+ understandably was 14% (given the health issues, incapacity etc that can affect people as they age)

people have no choice

banks closed all the branches in there towns

my mother stays in west kilbride in scotland

bank and post office both closed

we have a different definition of what being tech savvy means

to me tech savvy is not someone who uses the internet or facebook or has a phone

i included myself in the people who are not tech savy

to use an anology

i can do some odd jobs on my car / but i take the car to a mechanic to do anything that requires anything but the basic jobs.

This is called moving the goal posts. Your post said 87% of old people are "not tech savvy" but the definition you use has shifted to suit the point your are making. I have quoted a survey from Age UK which showed that in fact it's the complete opposite, the vast majority of people of pension age, up to 75 have no issues using online banking and a significant minority of 75-79 can as well - I would further suggest of those who cannot and those older, many are willing to learn and many are unable to for other reasons such as ill health, rather than being simply unable to use technology. The internet in the modern form was created by Tim Berners-Lee, a 69 year old, there are a great deal of people of pension age who helped build the modern computing era and suggesting they're all stuck at home unable to do banking without a trip to a branch is incorrect. Telephone banking is also an option as well as web based rather than app/mobile

goldmine2011

TheSpectator said:

Genuine question, what do you expect 'going public' to achieve. Virtually nobody is going to see that and say 'that's it, I'm leaving Barclays'. It may make you feel better but in reality it achieves nothing.

It won't affect them.

The people that I have already told about this incident (in person) and shown them the actual conversations within the app that were had and told them about the experiences with Barclays have already switched banks and left Barclays (back in Oct) because they saw how clearly easy it was to do this, and yes clearly it could happen to anybody. I told them the exact same thing as I have done here (minus the 2nd occasion obviously) and they chose to do what they did because us as the general public are subject to the same service, we call the same 0300 number to speak to CS / Fraud, we speak to the same pool of agents from Barclays, the same processes etc and I doubt that this would have been any different for anybody else if it happened to them. They would've gone through the exact same experience as I just did.

So I'm not being funny but leaving a bad review on google maps is essentially 'going public', no?

Complaining about anything on social media is 'going public' is it not?

And yet somehow you're saying its of no use? you've never been persuaded or dissuaded to by something based on good/bad reviews? as if I have a target demographic in mind or a specific numbers of views I would try to get based on your 'virtually nobody' comment? No, its just whoever see's the information and is then wary of the situation they now have a more informed decision of the lack of security (and follow up) when having an account with Barclays. Simple as, its not like anything I'd say would be false, hence why I've requested the hard data evidence from them.

Whether that helps somebody or not I'll never know clearly because it's a 'what if' situation? Its like someone who moves an object from the middle of the road when theres no cars there, that person isn't going to be stood there waiting to be thanked by randomers, you just do it because you see something that could be harmful to someone else and act on it. So just because you clearly don't have that intention to (potentially) have help out a random person and not expect something in return doesn't mean everyone else is like that

goldmine2011

Emily_Joy said:

I sense you want some sort of revenge and would need a lawyer from Ambulance Chasers team. I feel sorry for you, but I think the best you can do is to get CIFAS protection and get Barclays to pay for a nice holiday package for both of you  to get over it.

In all honesty I do genuinely feel like that, its a mixture of revenge/justification and I am not going to shy away from that at all. I've been honest with all the information, updates and my feeling towards it thus far.

And yes fully agree that you probably would need that kind of lawyer to seek something like this because it is literally down to subjectivity, haven't thought that far yet but I guess I'm just waiting to see what their response is going to be, given them the usual 14 day response-time window, which I doubt they will adhere to, but we never know.

Yes thank you we have already registered for CIFAS, we were hesitant about it originally because apparently it makes taking out other products harder so we set up the new bank account before we applied to CIFAS just so we didn't have to jump through as many hoops.