Klandestine
-
Posts
298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Klandestine
-
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
You've literally messed up every thread on which I have previously posted on though. Clear you inbox, let's discuss this via PM -
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
Very clever, you thought you'd found a way to hide my posts without me knowing. -
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
You don't know your audience then. Many new posters here won't know the intricacies of the action needed before going to the FOS or issuing a county court claim. Explaining this to new posters is hardly trolling. The negative opinion of yourself and CAG on MoneySavingExpert speaks for itself. I actually first came to CAG from MSE because I wanted to try and change that opinion by giving sound realistic advice. If you consider that trolling then I guess nobody can tell you otherwise because you're never wrong are you? -
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
Because in your first reply to this thread you told the OP to "begin a complaint to the Ombudsman service" even though they haven't had a final response from Barclays. So quite obviously you didn't know this before. It's also quite obvious that you have only just added that info in the fos link about the final response and 8 week deadline. Google cache also confirms this to be the case. -
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
The OP sent an email so I doubt that it was concerned inline with Barclays' complaints policy because that is not an the proper way of making a complaint. From the quotes, the thread doesn't follow correctly now. I also notice that you removed my first post in this thread where I pointed out that your advice to go the FOS was wrong because the OP needs to exhaust Barclays' complaints procedure first. Well now you can see that Me_Too's posts confirms that this is the case and I was correct. Well Barclays have forwarded the OP onto their Financial Assistance team to do exactly that. But if the OP is refusing to talk to them what more can Barclays do? -
Barclays turn down financial hardship application
Klandestine replied to gribzig's topic in Barclays Bank
Well it needs to be directed to the appropriate team. Whoever responded to your most recent email has correctly and kindly said they would schedule a callback for you. Your mis-conceptions are working to your detriment. Quite obviously that is not the type of advice they would be giving - it would be about money management/re-structuring lending etc. If you won't accept their help that's up to you, but I doubt you will get anywhere near the outcome you are seeking but following the "advice" from the site team. -
No. And anyway you wouldn't receive an redress against Lloyds - your brother would. Your brother did not have to renew his policy with Lloyds. And had he negotiated with them they may have been willing to offer him a better deal.
-
The adjudicator took into account your side of the story, it's only right that they hear Barclays' side. That's not what the ICO guidelines say. There is no strict maximum of 6 months. That isn't what the ICO guidelines say either. It says that other internal policies and practices (such as collection activities or decisions to write off debts) should not be the determining factor in when and how a default is filed. Indeed. The FOS looks at complaints based on what is fair and reasonable as opposed to sticking rigidly to the law and industry guidance. In any case, the ICO guidance does not state that defaults have to be registered strictly within a 3-6 month timeframe. Assumably, each account had a different balance and possibly even a different interest rate and therefore a different minimum monthly repayment - so you can't really compare one to the other. Is the formal demand letter the same as a notice of default letter?
-
RBS Bank accounts getting closed, no reason given.
Klandestine replied to BobBobson689's topic in Royal Bank of Scotland
They are not required to give you any reasons. It could be due to suspected fraud or money laundering. Or maybe they suspect that you are using your personal account for business transactions which is a breach of their terms and conditions. No. It's simply a commercial decision. They are entitled to choose who they do business with, just as you are entitled to choose who you want to bank with. No you don't need one. Just open a new account elsewhere. You can complain but they won't overturn the decision. No. Complete rubbish. -
The above information isn't even true, so don't let it catch you out robinsky. As you have found out, as soon as you pay the cheque in it will reflect in your account balance (not your available balance). 4 working days from the following working day that you pay the cheque in, the funds will become available (so reflected in your available balance too now). However, the money is only considered cleared 6 working days from the following working day that you pay the cheque in. Up to this point the cheque can be returned in which case both your account balance and available balance will decrease.
-
Bank accounts have a sort code and account number. Bank accounts can have card. So the card is tied to an account and they will each have individual card details (such as card numbers, expiry dates etc.) So ordering a new card will not give you a new sort code and account number. Your Mobile Banking will give an overview of your all accounts. You have never needed your card details (or even your sort code and account number) to login. You login to the mobile app using either your internet banking details or just your memorable information if you have the new app.
-
What type of transactions were these? ATM withdrawals? Card payments? Branch withdrawals? Internet banking transfers? Do/did you actively use the card for the account? What number did you ring and who did you speak to? General customer services? Fraud department? Does your wife though? Or anybody else in your family? It's not something you've probably thought of but you honestly never know and this type of situation isn't that uncommon. Card transactions are different to direct debits. The bank doesn't always get the chance to intervene with card transactions. And in any case your friends eligibility for an unplanned overdraft would have been different to yours. If Lloyds thought you were negligent with your card or card details you would still be liable for the transactions. Did you get sent statements in the post? Note all the transactions that were not your own and submit a formal complaint (in writing) to Lloyds, explaining the situation including the details of when you first called to report the transactions in question.
-
The same would happen at any other bank. They are correct to say that they can't do anything until the transaction shows up on your statement. As far as the FCA, the relevant law (the Payment Services Regulations) and the Visa/MasterCard/AMEX regulations are concerned the payment transaction doesn't actually exist yet so it can't be disputed. As of yet, Santander hasn't done anything wrong. The issue has been caused by KwikFit. If you already cancelled with them or told them not to renew your policy then they shouldn't have taken the payment. Have you tried talking to KwikFit yet?
-
Isn't it standard accounting for it to be done that way (debits before credits)? I would make a friendly and apologetic call to somebody from Customer Services first of all, explaining that you didn't realise debits would be processed before credits. You might find that they will be willing to waive any incurred fees as a one-off. Failing that, you could make a formal complaint. But unless you are complaining about financial difficulty I would avoid basing your complaint on BCOBS.
-
Claimed back under direct debit guarantee...
Klandestine replied to garmcqui's topic in Barclays Bank
The indemnity claim (which is Barclays taking the money back from EE's bank) may well take a minimum of 3 working days. But Barclays are supposed to be issuing you with a refund immediately (realistically this means same-day or overnight) as per the Direct Debit Guarantee. You are correct about the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). You need to make a formal complaint to Barclays and wait for a final response from them (which they have up to 8 weeks to do). Only then can the FOS look at your complaint. -
Halifax Ultimate Reward Current Account
Klandestine replied to 1Mango's topic in Halifax Bank and Bank of Scotland
So has the account been downgraded now? Whether the sale was advised or non-advised depends on the wording of the advisor and whether they made a personal recommendation. If they simply gave information about the account and left your mother to decide how to proceed then it was a non-advised sale. If your mother remembers anything more about this meeting you might be able to identify some grounds for your complaint on this basis. I have a feeling you may have shot yourself in the foot by mentioning the fee-free and interest-free £300 overdraft in your complaint. They are correct to state that this does reflect recent FOS technical guidance. Even if the FOS were to agree that the insurance side of the sale was unsuitable they wouldn't usually award any compensation because of the savings made. Now I would now try and establish if your mother would actually have saved money with the overdraft. Currently overdrafts for other accounts are charged at £1 per day (so that's £365 per year if you were continuously overdrawn up to £300, compared to £180 a year for the URCA). I don't know what the overdraft charges were in the past but in an earlier post dx100uk suggested that they were "about £27" for a whole year. Now that isn't true but Google may give some results and some other posters who are/were Halifax customers may have a better idea. To be honest, I would consider this to be a result. Of course you are still entitled to take this to FOS and you may well get more of the fees refunded - if you do I would focus on the suitability of the extras and possibly the advised-sale of the account. -
The terms and conditions of most banks will state that they can close your account for any reason by giving 60 days/2 months notice. Only in certain cirumstances will they close your account immediately - e.g. if they believe you are doing something illegal/fraudulent, have been abusive to their staff etc. (If you're considering legal action against a bank why would you even want to continue banking with them?)
-
You have a FlexDirect account. They're certainly allowed to reduce or totally withdraw the overdraft facility. But in their terms and conditions document I can't see anything in regards to the interest free element of the overdraft which allows them to start charging the standard fees before 12 months has elapsed.
-
In my opinion, the only issue that may have any weight to your case are these "pings". And I don't really know what they are so I can't really comment any further. What reasonable rationale do have that leads you to believe that I am a bank representative or employee? You're assuming, and as you mentioned in your earlier post "TO ASSUME WILL MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME". (I'm don't work for a bank btw. As I have explained to you before, I am a frequenter to consumer forums such as this). And with regards to the Visa International Operating Regulations, yes, it is a large document. And as I have already explained you need to tell me what information you're looking for. With the volume of this thread, it really is difficult for me to know what you're expecting me to find for you. A pending payment line on your statement would just be visual representation of an authorisation hold affecting the available balance. It would disappear after a few days aswell. Look at it from another point of view. Would it be reasonable for the bank to keep your funds unavailable even though a transaction isn't going to be "claimed"? The 2 day rule is Natwest's own choosing. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why they have chosen that length of time. Presumably, it's because they have previously had complaints where cancelled transactions did not return to the available balance in a timely fashion. I'm sorry but they were your own transactions, so surely you should have some knowledge of them. You can't really argue that they concealed information. Without seeing your statement I have no idea what you mean - but I wouldn't expect you to post that up. (Also, they wouldn't be at fault for allowing you to go overdrawn. That's their risk but it would be your fault). No, I just mean I've never heard of it. Even after searching I can't find any information about this. What does the line on your statement say for each of these "pings". Most definitely not. What information? I'm not avoiding anything. I asked for clarification about what information you are seeking.
-
Transaction Process When you use your card the money does not actually leave/debit your account until your account balance (NOT your available balance) reduces AND it appears as a line on your statement. The merchant may well pay extra to immediately place an authorisation hold which will affect available balance. But they do not "claim" the money immediately. If the merchant doesn't claim the money in a timely fashion your bank may remove this authorisation hold after a few days because it simply doesn't know if the merchant is going to claim the money in the future or not. Most merchants claim the money quickly so, it's reasonable for the bank to assume to transaction has been cancelled and remove the authorisation hold after a period of time. Liability The authorisation holds and your available balance are a potential safeguard for preventing overspending. I know you are trying to argue that because the authorisation holds were removed prematurely this led you to overspend. But that doesn't shift the liabilty for your spending away from you and onto the bank. You are responsible for your spending and Natwest's terms and conditions do state words to that effect. Transaction Order The "transaction date" will be the date the money actually debitted your account - NOT the date you used your card. So the order on your statement is the correct order. Ping Feature I admit I have never banked with Natwest and I have never heard of this "ping" feature. But I do have accounts with numerous other banks though and I haven't heard of a similar feature either. Fraud Allegations Don't get carried away and misled by misinformed opinions from some other posters. This situation does not fit any legal definition of fraud. (See here for more info: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/) Visa Operating Regulations I'm not trying to make you feel small. I'm just not sure what you want me to find for you.
-
This is how card transactions generally work: You use you card to buy something The retailer places what is called an authorisation hold. This reserves the amount and only affects your available balance. At this stage no money is actually debited from your account, your account balance remains the same and the transaction does not appear on your statement. Usually a few days later, the different organisations involved settle up. The money is now "claimed" and is actually debited from the account and the account balance also reduces to reflect this. The transaction will appear as a line on your statement - the date will appear as the date the money was "claimed", although the description may state the date on which you actually used your card to buy something from the retailer. The problem that Pixifox has faced is that these authorisation holds are automatically expire after a few days and the available balances will therefore increase again. But the retailer will still claim the money at a later point. So Pixifox is saying that transaction information was concealed from her and this means that he/she has then overspent to the tune of £16,000 and that for the same reasons he/she doesn't feel responsible for this. In any case, the bank will argue that you are responsible for managing your own spending. The authorisation holds which reduce your available balance are there to help with this but shouldn't be relied upon.
-
The Visa Operating Regulations. It's a hefty document and only the international version is publically available: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-international-operating-regulations-main.pdf I did try and research what you meant by "Payment Pending Indicator" and I couldn't find anything. But I do understand what you mean from your explanation. However, that feature would not have helped in your situation. This pending payment description on the statement would also have disappeared if the retailer didn't claim the funds in time. Good luck to you. But I honestly think it would be easier to educate others to budget and keep a record of their spending (even if it is just rough estimates in a notepad) rather than just relying on what their available balance shows.
-
Probably because it isn't set by them. The authorisation hold process is managed by Visa, MasterCard or American Express (of course, depending on which type of card you have). What is a payment pending indicator? Like I said, card transactions work this way because of Visa, MasterCard or American Express, so they will work in exactly the same way at every single bank. I'm a frequenter of this forum and also other consumer forums. When someone creates a post asking for help and advice I simply do some research and investigate further and just discover the relevant information.
-
This is simply how card transactions work. And it works the same way at every other bank. Most retailers are good and will claim the money before the available balance is "reset" which is probably why you have never noticed this before. And even then some retailers won't even place an authorisation hold (affecting the available balance) and the amount will just appear as a line on your statement at some point. There is nothing dishonest and misleading about this. The banks and retailers will probably argue that you are responsible and liable for keeping track of your spending.
-
OP, if you do decide to contact the bank again to try and get them to waive the charges please do not raise silly issues and claim that they are "fabricating interest rates". You should be polite and keep in mind that you are relying on the good will of the person on the end of the phone. Some additional advice from one of the posters over at MoneySavingExpert: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66600495&postcount=7 Evidently. You're being naive in thinking that interest rates and charges are just fabricated. The £6 a day charge reflects the risk involved with unarranged borrowing.
