Barclaycard automatically cancelled my card, £7000 credit limit now lost.

[caro]

I'm with slick.

 

You have options to apply for more credit, or maybe you could save so you have something to fall back on in case of emergency.

[gizmotesla]

I have no idea why you think a computer generated letter telling you they're going to close the a/c is not adequate notice of their clearly-stated intent.

Thanks for looking at the legal stuff.

 

Firstly, I think there is some significance in the form that the note took, and it's computer generated appearance, visually informal in the standard barclays blue headings used for promotions and t&c updates. Unfortunately, like most probably, I receive quite a few similar looking type unsolicited letters regularly, such that I have become a bit jaded in dealing with them, and most of them either go in the bin, or put to one side for filing. If I'm travelling, my mum will also go through them and alert me if anything looks important. There was nothing visually about the note that communicated serious, irreversible or contract terminating intent. I had no reason to expect that they would consider or suggest such an unusual course of action. There were no big changes in my card usage, or in my circumstances. I thought perhaps it might be about the expiry and issue of the new card in the following year, so not that urgent.

 

Secondly, on closer examination, the wording chosen is such that the intent, reason and purpose are far from clear and unambiguous from a legal standpoint. It starts with a question if I want to keep my account open, gives their subjective opinion that I might not need it, and then offers to close the account for me if I do nothing. I can assure you that from a contractual point of view, that is likely to be legally problematic. For example, which party closed the account?

 

No full date, no postal address, no appropriate warnings about irreversible loss, no markings as IMPORTANT, no means of tracking receipt, no follow up call, no second and final warning.

 

In my opinion, on balance of reasoning, they did not act in a very fair, clear and not misleading manner, and not appropriate for making subjective assumptions and

taking decisive and irreversible action.

 

I know that anyone can take any of the above points and try to argue the contrary, but my point would be that we shouldn't have to.

[BazzaS]

Thanks for looking at the legal stuff.

 

Firstly, I think there is some significance in the form that the note took, and it's computer generated appearance, visually informal in the standard barclays blue headings used for promotions and t&c updates. Unfortunately, like most probably, I receive quite a few similar looking type unsolicited letters regularly, such that I have become a bit jaded in dealing with them, and most of them either go in the bin, or put to one side for filing. If I'm travelling, my mum will also go through them and alert me if anything looks important. There was nothing visually about the note that communicated serious, irreversible or contract terminating intent. I had no reason to expect that they would consider or suggest such an unusual course of action. There were no big changes in my card usage, or in my circumstances. I thought perhaps it might be about the expiry and issue of the new card in the following year, so not that urgent.

 

Secondly, on closer examination, the wording chosen is such that the intent, reason and purpose are far from clear and unambiguous from a legal standpoint. It starts with a question if I want to keep my account open, gives their subjective opinion that I might not need it, and then offers to close the account for me if I do nothing. I can assure you that from a contractual point of view, that is likely to be legally problematic. For example, which party closed the account?

 

No full date, no postal address, no appropriate warnings about irreversible loss, no markings as IMPORTANT, no means of tracking receipt, no follow up call, no second and final warning.

 

In my opinion, on balance of reasoning, they did not act in a very fair, clear and not misleading manner, and not appropriate for making subjective assumptions and

taking decisive and irreversible action.

 

I know that anyone can take any of the above points and try to argue the contrary, but my point would be that we shouldn't have to.

 

In other words you are saying "I'm only interested in your reply if it agrees with me".

 

What if they had kept the account open and dropped the limit down to £260 after reviewing your usage?

You'd be in the same / similar position.

 

You are looking for technicalities to defend the fact that you didn't respond to a letter they sent you.

 

From the responses here, it seems not many (any?) share your fallacious viewpoint.

[gizmotesla]

Oops, I almost forgot. They didn't use the word "agreement" even once in the note (must be taboo like for the FOS:-)).

[gizmotesla]

You are looking for technicalities to defend the fact that you didn't respond to a letter they sent you.

 

From the responses here, it seems not many (any?) share your fallacious viewpoint.

 

What if the note was lost in the post?

 

I wasn't looking for a democratic consensus. Sometimes answers are outside the box.

[renegadeimp]

It wasnt lost in the post though. It was delivered. Royal mail would confirm it. You didnt reply to the mail, end of story. Once the letter is posted, its no concern of the bank whether you actually get it or not. Once they sent it, its out of their hands and the balls in your court.

 

There are no answers out side of the box, otherwise it would be very easy to launder money.

 

They gave you the chance to keep the account and credit limit, you didnt respond, they closed it. End of story.

 

As others have said, you had plenty of time to sort it, you didnt. Good luck in whatever course of action you choose to take, but you prob have a less than 5% chance of being successful. Perhaps you should try another help forum, as you obviously dont want to follow the rules and legal agreement you signed. The bank fulfilled their part, but you seem to think you can break it, then backtrack. You cant.

[BazzaS]

What if the note was lost in the post?

The Interpretation Act : it is presumed delivered unless you show otherwise.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

 

Are you going to prove it wasn't delivered?

Oops, you've already admitted : it WAS delivered.

 

I wasn't looking for a democratic consensus. Sometimes answers are outside the box.

 

Keep looking then ...... I'm sure you'll find someone who agrees with you.

Whether that then translates into you getting "what you feel you are entitled to" is another matter ......

[gizmotesla]

The Interpretation Act : it is presumed delivered unless you show otherwise.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

 

Are you going to prove it wasn't delivered?

Oops, you've already admitted : it WAS delivered.

Since their computer letter doesn't reference any Act, agreement, contract or law, I can only assume it's a rather tricky letter intended to confuse and cause loss to me.

[renegadeimp]

I think we need to end the thread. It's going round in circles now.

[slick132]

Lol. This HAS to be a wind-up !!

 

You've suffered no loss !

 

How can the letter be Rather Tricky when it said, "We've noticed you haven't used your Barclaycard Classic card for a while and thought your account may no longer be needed. That is why on 9 April 2014 we'll close your Barclaycard Classic account for you."

 

It couldn't be any clearer.

Edited December 30, 2015 by slick132

[Old Cogger]

The End

[gizmotesla]

Lol. This HAS to be a wind-up !!

You've suffered no loss !

I've lost use of a years held good history 7K facility to draw on credit.

 

IMO, probably their bulk letters automatically target customers that they perceive as unprofitable with highish limits, with the intention to catch some of them out.

 

Then they blame the customer and hide behind the rules of the agreement so as not to put it right.

 

Maybe been standard practice since 2008, but I wasn't aware until this, but probably fos is used to it.

[BazzaS]

I've lost use of a years held good history 7K facility to draw on credit.

 

IMO, probably their bulk letters automatically target customers that they perceive as unprofitable with highish limits, with the intention to catch some of them out.

 

Then they blame the customer and hide behind the rules of the agreement so as not to put it right.

 

Maybe been standard practice since 2008, but I wasn't aware until this, but probably fos is used to it.

 

Did you not inform them in advance of your special requirements viz a vis:

1) you must have a vast credit facility on a card you never use but they mustn't close the account nor reduce your credit limit

2) any communication must be sent via "Harry Potter owl & Howler" style so you can be aware of it warranting your attention, as (you know, reading letters) is otherwise beneath your exalted status.

 

Copernicus stated the earth revolves around the sun : gizmotesla seems to expect the earth to revolve around them.

 

If you can justify a 7k credit limit : ask for one.

If you can't justify it : they'd likely have reduced your limit anyhow.

 

You have suffered no compensatable loss.

[gizmotesla]

You have suffered no compensatable loss.

If they wanted to be fair they could offer remedy by reversing their decision, if they were reasonable they might apologize for the inconvenience, if they were as nice,

friendly and informal as their computer letter tries to portray, they could send a small gift of flowers.

[Old Cogger]

waste of space this thread

[caro]

I can't see that anything else can be said. The concensus is that BC have done nothing wrong and as I have nothing to add, I am not spending more time on this.

[renegadeimp]

If they wanted to be fair they could offer remedy by reversing their decision, if they were reasonable they might apologize for the inconvenience, if they were as nice,

friendly and informal as their computer letter tries to portray, they could send a small gift of flowers.

 

Why should they apologise? Theyve done Nothing wrong.

[BazzaS]

If they wanted to be fair they could offer remedy by reversing their decision, if they were reasonable they might apologize for the inconvenience, if they were as nice,

friendly and informal as their computer letter tries to portray, they could send a small gift of flowers.

 

"We've reversed our decision, and here is your new card.

In light of the fact we'd have reviewed your credit limit anyway, its new limit is £260"

"To keep you happy (if such is possible?), we apologise for the inconvenience, and here is a bunch of flowers, (just in case it'll stop your whinging)"

 

How would that do?