Barclaycard decline then uphold complaint.

[paulwlton]

If they are in breach of the SAR, you should also mention that and tell them that your court action will make a claim for breach of the data protection act as well

 

Will do.

[paulwlton]

DSAR just landed. I can confirm that there is no data whatsoever in relation to PPI even though I specifically requested it.

 

I'll send off a letter.

[paulwlton]

After a twenty minute phone call they agree to collate ALL data and comply.

[paulwlton]

I'm leaning towards a simple COBS claim.

 

Should have all data back from both BC and CMC next week and subject to positive data review a claim will follow.

[Guest]

ooi. why not s140 also?

[paulwlton]

ooi. why not s140 also?

 

Because I believe a section 150 claim is all that's needed. Unlike green v RBS I'm not asking for the court to apply COBS to a common law claim.

[Guest]

ok, cheers.

presume you have seen this, if not posted before, for eg re green https://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/publications/247-is-this-the-end-for-swap-mis-selling-claims-/

[paulwlton]

ok, cheers.

presume you have seen this, if not posted before, for eg re green https://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/publications/247-is-this-the-end-for-swap-mis-selling-claims-/

 

Is there anything there that would effect my claim. I cant see it.

[Guest]

Is there anything there that would effect my claim. I cant see it.

 

just posting for info looking back, mike has mostly posted on it.

from yr lba #99, you are claiming for the loss/expense for having to go to a cmc (successfully) after them rejecting your ppi complaint. i cldnt see how cobs wld be applicable re an initial complaint rejection, but am not as in the know as mike and bankfodder. and then seeing how loyds were recently 'reprimanded' for their handling of ppi complaints, maybe something similar that cld be mentioned.

[paulwlton]

just posting for info looking back, mike has mostly posted on it.

from yr lba #99, you are claiming for the loss/expense for having to go to a cmc (successfully) after them rejecting your ppi complaint. i cldnt see how cobs wld be applicable re an initial complaint rejection, but am not as in the know as mike and bankfodder. and then seeing how loyds were recently 'reprimanded' for their handling of ppi complaints, maybe something similar that cld be mentioned.

 

 

Would COBS be applicable if BC refuse to compensate me for loss now that i've made them awarethat my initial complaint was unfairly rejected?

 

I think I could argue a number of trigger points.

 

 

I may be wrong but, before COBS there was no legislation that required a customer to be treat fairly in a contractual relationship.

[caro]

What about UTCCR?

[paulwlton]

What about UTCCR?

 

The court has power to determine ONLY whether a "term" is unfair pursuant to UTCCR and similar with UCTA. COBS gives you rights to sue for loss if it emanates from unfairness.

[paulwlton]

I've done a little more research on the matter and I've come to the following conclusion.

 

A specific rule in COBS, ICOBS etc must have been breached and loss incurred to rely on a sec 150 claim by a private person.

 

You cannot plead breach of a principle because same is not actionable by a private person. However, the FOS has the power to award redress pursuant principle breach.

 

Claims are made under sec 150 fsma however, the FCA denies private person a cause of action for principle breach pursuant sec 150(2)

 

I'm certain I'm correct on this now. Does anyone have a different view?

 

 

My options now are a complaint to FOS or go down the CCA sec 140 route,

[Guest]

info re fca and loyds, maybe something similar was going on with barclays?

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/lloyds-banking-group-fined-for-failing-to-handle-ppi-complaints-fairly

[Mike_hawk]

I've done a little more research on the matter and I've come to the following conclusion.

 

A specific rule in COBS, ICOBS etc must have been breached and loss incurred to rely on a sec 150 claim by a private person.

 

You cannot plead breach of a principle because same is not actionable by a private person. However, the FOS has the power to award redress pursuant principle breach.

 

Claims are made under sec 150 fsma however, the FCA denies private person a cause of action for principle breach pursuant sec 150(2)

 

I'm certain I'm correct on this now. Does anyone have a different view?

 

 

My options now are a complaint to FOS or go down the CCA sec 140 route,

 

Yep, you need something within an FCA regulated instrument to trigger FSMA........ and, yep - the FOS would be the sensible first port of call but I have not got a scooby how much it may award

[brown1950]

info re fca and loyds, maybe something similar was going on with barclays?

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/lloyds-banking-group-fined-for-failing-to-handle-ppi-complaints-fairly

 

Could be some merit in your comment regarding Barclays !

 

I have have just been informed by an adjudictor at the FOS of the following and i quote :-

''On a more senior level, are now looking at how Barclays are calculating redress settlement specifically relating to the interest that consumer’s such as yourself have paid. From what we’ve seen, consumers may have had to pay more in credit card interest because of PPI being applied on the account. This is something we'd expect Barclays to refund to you.

 

We have been in touch with Barclays about how it works out the extra interest you had to pay. So we're asking them for some more information about this - so we can see if what they're doing is fair.

At the moment I cannot provide you with a definitive timescale of when this will be completed but I will be in touch with you directly once we have received an update on your complaint.'' Unquote

I have been in discussions with the FOS regarding the level of 'Associated Interest' to be refunded in respect to the PPI monthly premiums. My argument has been if Barclays (Barclaycard) charge 24.90 % interest on purchases and PPI premiums then any redress should also be at the purchase interest rate compounded.

FOS have also been provided with copies of letters from Barclaycard where PPI refunds are made to me and Barclaycard explain Compound interest as :

Compound interest is a term used to explain the type of interest being charged on your account. When a PPI premium is charged it is added to the balance of the account and attracts interest charges at the purchase rate applicable at that time. Interest is also added to the balance and the following month any outstanding balance will also incur interest charges and so on. We have calculated the interest charged on the PPI premiums throughout the term of the policy taking into account the effect of compounding and using the purchase interest rates charges throughout the term.

Based on the above and as an example on my claim Barclaycard calculated associated interest as :-

 

PPI Premium £2.38 dated Sept 1995 = £1.59 associated interest ! I calculate associated interest on this one at £81.56 !

Interesting to see what the eventual outcome will be ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[paulwlton]

Just a quick update.

 

Whilst browsing through the CMCs SAR Barclaycard admit they failed to ask how I would keep up with payments if I was off work through sickness in their original investigation. They are sorry for this.

 

I'm still awaiting BCs final response to my grievance.

 

I'll try the FOS in the first instance before I issue sec 140 claim.

[paulwlton]

Barclaycard have circumvented my complaint, failed to supply data pursuant sec 7 DPA request.

 

Spoke with FOS yesterday and they agreed it was a case that potentially falls foul of COBS principles and they are to

Investigate the matter.

 

PW

[Guest]

sounds promising re fos

[caro]

Sounds hopeful with fos. If necessary at a later date it might be worth a sar to fos in case BC have supplied info to them that they haven't given to you.

[Mike_hawk]

Bear in mind that any data passed to the FoS can be protected, if the other side have requested the information is not shared with the complainant it won't be............ sometimes its more productive to keep things close to your chest in the early stages. If it proposes a settlement later on you could 'innocently' ask the Ombudsman to pass you any information that may assist you in making the decision whether to accept.

[Guest]

an eg. re a fos complaint (that was rejected by an adjudicator), i just verbally asked for a copy of their file. they obliged, and it showed a discrepency re one important letter that the creditor produced to the fos as having been sent, but it was not actually the letter sent by the creditor!

[paulwlton]

FOS adjudicator just rang, BC has agreed to compensate me for distress and inconvenience which is just more than the CMC fee I paid. I'll take that.

PW

[BankFodder]

Good. Well done.

 

However, I'll bet that this will be framed as a gesture of goodwill by BC in order to avoid the FOS actually being forced to make a decision against them.

 

Anyway, it's a result for you – but BC are being let off lightly – again.

 

They've tested you until the FOS and now they realise it serious, this is the way they bottle out of it without too much harm done.

[paulwlton]

Good. Well done.

 

However, I'll bet that this will be framed as a gesture of goodwill by BC in order to avoid the FOS actually being forced to make a decision against them.

 

Anyway, it's a result for you – but BC are being let off lightly – again.

 

They've tested you until the FOS and now they realise it serious, this is the way they bottle out of it without too much harm done.

 

 

Not sure I'm going to accept the offer yet though, I'll give BC a ring when I receive their letter and then have a chat again with the adjudicator.

 

Just for the record they haven't explained to the FOS why they declined my original request,

PW