Barclays personal reserve

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

If anything, we've made the system fairer for the "long suffering British public."

That is obviously your biased opinion, I would say that an " opt in " system is the only fair and reasonable option, I certainly do not want any system imposed by an " opt out " default on to me by any bank, or anyone else for that matter.

It is a dangerous precedent that could lead to all kinds of horror stories, it should have been outlawed at it's inception by the regulatory system, but of course we all now know that they didn't see the banks as a threat to us all.

We all know better now, of course.:rolleyes:

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

That is obviously your biased opinion, I would say that an " opt in " system is the only fair and reasonable option, I certainly do not want any system imposed by an " opt out " default on to me by any bank, or anyone else for that matter.

It is a dangerous precedent that could lead to all kinds of horror stories, it should have been outlawed at it's inception by the regulatory system, but of course we all now know that they didn't see the banks as a threat to us all.

We all know better now, of course.:rolleyes:

"The banks" is a generalization and hardly valid considering that a relative few brought about the majority of the problems of this recession.

It is not a dangerous precedent as the facility was already in place: you could already go over your overdraft, and you could already be charged for it. All that's changed is you now know how much you can go over (previously a bank secret), how long we will let you do it for (5 days) and how much it will cost (£22 for a five day period with unlimited transactions, as opposed to up to £35 per transaction).

No system was imposed because it already existed; it was merely altered.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

No system was imposed because it already existed; it was merely altered.

I think that you are playing on words, the system was imposed by an " opt out " option, even if it was only altered from the existing.

Oh and a " relative few banks "? are you on the same planet as the rest of us? I would suggest that the majority of UK banks have been guilty of playing a part in this mess that we now all find ourselves in.

We still do not know the full extent of the financial mess that some of them are in.

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

I think that you are playing on words, the system was imposed by an " opt out " option, even if it was only altered from the existing.

Oh and a " relative few banks "? are you on the same planet as the rest of us? I would suggest that the majority of UK banks have been guilty of playing a part in this mess that we now all find ourselves in.

We still do not know the full extent of the financial mess that some of them are in.

If a customer buys a junk bond that's been erroneously classed as an A, are they at fault? Of course not.

Are the UK banks responsible for the US housing market and their regulatory structure? Of course not.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

If a customer buys a junk bond that's been erroneously classed as an A, are they at fault? Of course not.

Are the UK banks responsible for the US housing market and their regulatory structure? Of course not.

I think that you need to get a reality check if you think that the UK banks are not at least as bad as the US ones, the UK banks played a major role in this mess, caused by pure greed and gross incompetence.

joolsybools

teeni wrote: »

my barclays on line state ment clearly showa reserve value , in my case nil as i refused their kind offer.

Me too. It's not immediately easy to notice as its a little bit below the three other amounts (current balance, last nights balance, overdraft limit). This might explain it as I must admit I don't think I've ever noticed it there!:D

myners

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Two mailings were sent in July of last year in the run up to the August launch, as well as being advised in every channel we have (telephone banking, online, etc.)

I only recieved on letter and as far as I was concerned it was more junk mail.

Every other item they have either phoned or you have to ask for the service. This scam is entirely different, you have to `OPT OUT` Why?
IMO they knew if people were aware of all the facts it wouldn`t be wanted.

I don`t use this account to pay bills or anything that would go out automatically.

It is just used to either pay for shopping and using the cashback facility or rarely getting cash out of an ATM. So what I want is, if the money isn`t in the POT it doesn`t allow me to have any until I put more of my money in the POT.

Instead I have been put in this scheme without my permission, I DID NOT SEE ANY OPT OUT..

I have spoke to several people who are in Barclays and not one was aware they were in this scam. it`s not until you get caught, like me, that you becomes aware.

EarthBoy

myners wrote: »

I only recieved on letter and as far as I was concerned it was more junk mail.

...

So then, it's established that you did receive the letter. And exactly whose fault is it if you didn't read it? Yours mate, that's whose. Don't try and blame the bank if you can't be bothered to read their letters when they write to you.

This is far from being a scam.

myners

EarthBoy wrote: »

So then, it's established that you did receive the letter. And exactly whose fault is it if you didn't read it? Yours mate, that's whose. Don't try and blame the bank if you can't be bothered to read their letters when they write to you.

This is far from being a scam.

So you read all your junk mail? I doubt it. I have better things to do..

Two letters sent, I only recieved ONE!

you ignore the OPT OUT question. they knew many people would not OPT IN.

I did not ask for this service..

Inactive

myners wrote: »

I did not ask for this service..

Spot on, that is the whole issue on this matter, you did not request the service, it was imposed upon you by Barclays, which is shameful in my opinion.