How you can open an account without providing a copy of your signature is beyond me. Whilst not so many cheques are issued these days the Bank certainly has literally thousands of copies of my signature plus loan requests and various other correspondence. Taking and copying of signatures is possible but if this was a common practice do you not think that word of it would have got out, instead all you get is heresay. If still paranoid simply write or type something like "For use with DPA request only" and then sign over the top of it, the signature is then unique for that request, problem solved all round.

Why not just sign the request!

In reply to DX100Uk how is it your money? The Bank have lent the money on the understanding it will be repaid in a set manner. From what you say if a freind borrowed say £500 from you saying he would repay you in say a month you would be happy if after that month ended he said well it's my money you can have it back at £1 a year. If emb78 went to his Bank and asked for a new loan with lower monthly repayments they may agree but surely this has to be a two way agreement not a one way default take it or leave it approach. Remember a loan with reduced repayments means it will go on for longer and will incur higher interest over the new period.

Sorry but am I missing something here. You were desperate for money and went to the Bank who lent you money then you complain. As far as your note goes the only new money they lent you was to tide you over for the month the rest you had already taken by way of overdraft and credit card. By having the loan the interest must have been cheaper than credit card and overdraft interest and also saved you late payment and unpaid item fees. I would have said the Bank were stupid for helping you but not irresponsible as you still had more or less the same level of indebtedness all be it in a more structured format. You had a fairly good level of income, you say yourself your job was secure, no mortgage payments so on the face of it it would appear you could afford the repayments. PPI is a completely different matter.

Indeed sorry to hear of your loss both for you and for all the other potential claimants on here. I actually got paid by HSBC on my second claim just before they started up the formal case. Wanted interest but DG sols would not pay that and advised me it would be in my interest to accept their offer so fair does to them there and I have managed to keep in credit since, more by controlling my wife than anything to do with the Bank.

certainly. 8 Canada Square London E14 5HQ.

Looks like they have just sent you a standard response to me, probably a template letter. Doubt you will get any further at this level. Just an idea but why not send a further letter to the CEO at HSBC Head Office in London explaining the circumstances. May not work but they do not like complaint letters at their Head Office and have more clout to get something done.

I remember seeing a TV programme concerning these additions accounts. It seems it was fairly common for accounts to be upgraded without the a/c holders permission. It may be that the threat of going to court will make Barclays realise they should repay in full as any publicity, certainly from them losing a case in court, would bring in a deluge of further complaints. Good luck to you.

What an interesting point. Effectively they have charged almost £500 for returning 2 cheques on what then became a dormant account. Seems therefore you have a hardship argument as the effective charge is excessive and your complaint has a good chance of being upheld.

Yes looking again does appear the Barclays solicitor made the amendment and agreed to it on behalf of Barclays, shame he/she did not sign by the amended amount but as we know the Banks solicitors were running around like headless chickens at that time agreeing to anything. Do Barclays realise this amendment was made by the solicitor however or have they reached the same (probably incorrect) conclusion as me

I note on the copy agreement that the amount has been changed from £1,525 to £2,000 by hand. If this was done by you then you did not accept Barclays offer as made and they have not renaged as they only agreed to pay you the lower amount and you did not agree to that but in effect put in a counter claim for a higher amount. I may be reading this wrong as obviously do not have all details but that is my reading of the situation and therefore Barclays on this occasion have done nothing wrong.

In the decision by the Lords overdraft charges are defined and DO include the charges you mention

It is always more complicated with accounts opened online as their argument is that all terms and conditions are there for you to see. However, if they have not sent you the necessary documents for you to fully use the account they have not fulfilled their side of the bargain (contract). I should point out to them that you never received any benefits from the account so why should you be charged for them. Whilst I doubt they would persue you with any great vigour for such a small debt you do need to be careful re your credit rating. The Banks are not known to be particularly reasonable these days and with you having already tried to speak to them I suppose your best way forward is to make a charges reclaim via the small claims court thus putting the account in dispute and stopping them taking the matter any further. You would have to amend the standard claim to take into account your individual circumstances. best idea I have, hope this works or someone has a better idea.

Thank you for the further information. I note with interest that the further loans were for different purposes. ie partly the original purchase, partly alleged improvements partly debt reconciliation. Under CCA regulations I believe these should have been seperate loans not rolled into one as they were for different purposes. This may give you a different angle to make repayment unenforceable. (Fingers crossed for you). Whilst it is disappointing that your sons friend did not do a good job I feel that was not the Banks responsibility. If you take that argument forward you are basically saying that whenever the Bank lends money they should check it is used properly. Bankers would have to check out all cars purchased, building work done etc which they are not qualified to do. The only time they do check is on property purchases and that is to protect themselves not the customer. As I say this is just my opinion but the banks lend trillions each year without checking how it is used. PPI whether right or not has to be added to the loan in almost all cases as most customers cannot afford to pay the premium up front. Should this extra payment then make an afforable loan unaffordable would it be declined, I think not. My main point re PPI is that in theory they are a good idea and it should not be presumed that all loans with PPI have been missold. However I have been pressured by my Bank in the past to have PPI despite being long retired and I agree they do not look into personal circumstances or usefulness nearly enough and are now getting their come upence. I am sure you have looked at the PPI threads and these of course have a lot more useful information on them.

Sorry don't know this type of account but from looking at their web site you are supposed to get something from them. Have you received notification of these "goodies" and have you used any of them. If you have such as the two for one tickets then you appear on dodgy ground. The old addage is that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that would appear to apply to this account. Why did you choose this account when it details there is a fee whereas their normal account does not. Why put your surpus money into a current account, would have been much better to open an ISA account and at least earn some interest on the money. However, if have have not used or received any notification of the availability of the "goodies" you will be in a much better position