Koala Attack Vs Barclays

[Bookworm]

Also one thing to keep in mind: Fast Track means standard disclosure. Which means the banks will have to disclose how they reach the sum of £30 for bouncing a cheque. Guess what they don't want to do?

[Bookworm]

Basically, I'm 100% certain that something is going to happen and I think it will all happen soonish. Am I right in thinking that the OFT and the ombudsman have asked for extra time on their ruling? If so, I guess it'll happen at some point but may be after my claim has come to whatever end it is going to. The sad thing, and this may just come from having just finished 1984, is that you know that no matter what we do the banks won't be hit as hard as we would all like to think. Sure they'll be dented from this but I can guarantee they will find someway of getting it back off of us.

 

The OFT, not the Ombudsman. And they haven't asked for extra time. They don't have to ask for anything. Their 1st enquiry was to see if they needed to have a full enquiry into bank charges, and it took them 6 months to do that. We could have told them in less than 6 minutes, but there you go...

After the 6 months consultation, they have decided that yes, it is necessary to look into bank charges. NO sh*t, Sherlock.

 

The thing to remember, however, is that they will not have a "ruling". They will come out with a report, at the end of which they will make a recommendation, and this is the crucial part, for the banks. They do not, can not make law.

 

The only way for this to stop is: a) for Parliament to pass a law either overturning over 100 yrs of penalty laws, or restricting the Statute of Limitations 1980.

b) for the banks to stop imposing penalty charges.

 

I'm thinking in case of a), no party will try such an unpopular move, b) if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

 

As for getting their pound of flesh, they will, that's for certain. Although I feel that the defeatist attitude we are seeing of "Well, bang goes free banking then" is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are being primed into accepting that those unlawful profits have to be replaced somewhere else, and that we are somehow responsible for it. I find it incredible that the rhetoric is even being spouted, but the seemingly meek acceptance, the fait-accompli before the fact if you will, bewilders me. :-|

[Bookworm]

You're allowed, cos we put it in there. You didn't think we would let an opportunity like that pass us by, did you?

[Bookworm]

You can use it, but Barclays will say what they already said in their response to the programme, which is that it's one employee's opinion, and doesn't reflect accurately the company's position. It would be different if it were Barclay's MD!!!

[Bookworm]

Stop worrying yourself to an early grave.

 

There is no golden argument. Can they justify £30 charge? No. Therefore it's a penalty. Penalties are unlawful. Game, set and match. To us.

 

Cost wise, they have just settled a massive pay-out inside the Mercantile court, literally, rather than take the chance of justifying themselves to the judge, what does that tell you?

 

As long as it's our piddling little hundreds, yeah, they could use that excuse. When it comes to 15 or 20 000, not so plausible. ;-)

[Bookworm]

Bookworm - as ever the voice of reason.

 

p.s.

 

Whats FNMF?

 

Thank you.

 

FNMF = First National Motor Finance, in their heyday, held over 60% of the car finance market, now "dormant", sold to Abbey in 200...3, if memory serves.

 

Apologies for brief hijack, KA!

[Bookworm]

Hi, KA.

 

I think you should write in and complain about Miss "Babe"'s behaviour and threaten the bank with reporting this disgraceful behaviour to the FOS. Ok, so you can have a laugh about it, but imagine how many less well-informed people will get suckered in and get pulled in deeper into debt because of her "advice".

 

My DD went into NatWest a couple of years ago to change from under 18 to over 18 accounts and got the same kind of assault on her, thankfully she had been well trained by her mother , but I still wrote to complain about the aggressive sales tactics and they did take it seriously enough.

 

It's a disgrace that anyone should be told to consolidate by taking a credit card and it seems to me her actions come under the CPUT Regs 2008:

 

Aggressive commercial practices

 

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and

(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;

(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;

© the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;

(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and

(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and

(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.

Sounds familiar?

 

In fact, come to think of it, I think if you do decide to write to the bank, you should quote this part of the CPUT Regs and threaten to report them to the OFT. This kind of outrageous behaviour should be stamped out and of those of us who do know better don't act, who will?

 

As for your newest query, since we are reasonably sure (ok, hopeful) the judge is not being influenced by the government or the banks, no it shouldn't make any difference. All we can do is wait for Mr Smith to come back from his extended leave to hand his decision on the historic terms and for the OFT to complete their investigations on the banks (which we pretty much expect not to go down too well for the banks. ) and then onto the next stage. :-|

[Bookworm]

Of course you can post it here, that's what we're here for. ;-)

 

Still looking good? Who knows? We know the banks are wrong, we know they have been bleeding us dry for years simply because they could, so common sense says justice must prevail... But who knows? :-|

 

Your cat makes a lot of sense, you can tell him that for me!

[Bookworm]

"Dear Sir/Madam,

 

RE: Meeting with Barclays Personal Account Manager

 

I am writing to you to complain about a meeting I had with xxxxxxxxxx (Personal Account Manager, Barclays Bank xxxxxxxxxxxxx) at xxxxx on Saturday xxxxxxx 2008. I appreciate that I am sending this letter almost a month after the meeting, but this just serves to prove how angry this meeting made me. I have thought about the meeting everyday since and finally decided to write this letter after having spoken to a number of people about the issues raised.

 

I was telephoned by xxxxxxx during the week previous to the meeting and asked whether I would like to come into the branch and discuss overdraft charges. I currently have a claim outstanding against Barclays Bank to reclaim my overdraft charges which has been put on hold pending the Office of Fair Trading investigation. When xxxxxxx called me and invited me in I naturally assumed that it was to discuss this case and, keen to sort an amicable solution to the claim (as per the instructions of the Judge presiding over the case), I agreed to the meeting.

 

 

On the day, xxxxxxxxxxx, I arrived at the bank at xxxxxx only to find xxxxxxx had telephoned me to see where I was, something that I found a little unusual given that I was only one minute late. As I approached the desk, xxxxxxxx offered me a chair whilst saying:

 

 

“Oh well, you were nearly on time babe,”

 

 

I have to say, I found this more than a little unprofessional. When I explained why I was late, she replied saying:

 

 

“Never mind babe, you’re here now”.

 

 

Again, this struck me as unprofessional but I took it as a sign of friendliness and thought nothing more of it. Unfortunately, I was referred to as ‘babe’ the whole way through the meeting and I have to say that I began to find it very uncomfortable towards the end.

 

 

After about two minutes of chatting about my account, it became apparent to me that this meeting was nothing more than a sales pitch. xxxxxxxxx was desperate for me to change my account to one that would cost me more money, no doubt fuelled by the promise of commission (namely the Additions account) {I assume. BW}. Further to this, she pressed me to “upgrade” my joint account which, as I explained on a number of occasions, is by its very nature a joint account held by me and my girlfriend. I will not do anything to this account (save for paying in money) without talking it through with my girlfriend first – I think you’ll agree that this is best practice. Not only did xxxxxxxx encourage me to “upgrade” our joint account, she also tried to get me to increase our overdraft and use it to pay off my personal overdraft. When I once again explained that it is a joint account and therefore not for me to make decisions on alone, xxxxxxxx said to me:

 

“Oh, so you’re still with your girlfriend then yeah?”

 

Not only did I find this question completely irrelevant and unprofessional, I was amazed at how long it took for my message about how our joint account operates to sink in, especially as I was dealing with someone who is apparently an expert in personal banking. Up until this point I was a little disappointed with the direction that xxxxxxxx was taking the meeting, however I certainly wasn’t shocked or surprised especially given the way I was originally signed up to my Additions account some years ago (for the record, I was never asked about signing up I just received an information pack through my door letting me know that I had a new type of account).

 

It was her next sales pitch that left me angry, shocked and questioning whether I had made the right decision.

 

xxxxxxxxxx pointed out that I am eligible for a Barclaycard {no space between Barclay and card, it's a brand name}. I told her that this was not a route that I wanted to go down. I was given a Barclay Card some 12 years earlier when I started university and it ended up causing me no end of grief and cost me a lot of money. I recently paid that card off and do not wish to take out another one. I explained this to xxxxxxxxx and she eventually looked me straight in the eyes and said:

 

“Either you take out this Barclay Card and pay off your overdraft or Barclays will close your account”.

 

I was stunned by this. I can honestly say that when I agreed to the meeting the last thing I expected was to be sitting, chatting to a professional personal banker who was threatening to close my account if I didn’t take out a Barclay Card. If there was ever a classic case of aggressive commercial behaviour then I think you would have to agree that this would be it. I can only assume that xxxxxxxxx made this statement as a reflection of her personal beliefs as I cannot imagine Barclays Bank would promote such an attitude, especially when you consider the level of bad press you received after the BBC’s Whistle Blower programme and not least when you consider Section 7 of the CPUT Regulations 2008:

 

“Aggressive commercial practices

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and

(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;

(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;

© the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;

(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and

(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and

(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.”

 

As soon as she realised that this tactic would not work one me, and that she was not going to be able to sell me anything, xxxxxxxxxx lost all interest in the meeting and it was swiftly drawn to a close. I left, still amazed by her comment about my account and the Barclay Card application.

 

It has taken me some time to decide to write this letter but it’s the fact that I have not stopped thinking about this since the meeting that finally persuaded me that I had to let you know about what happened. I can laugh off being referred to as ‘babe’ for the whole meeting however unprofessional it is. I can even cope with a poorly disguised sales pitch and having to repeat myself about the joint account. What I am absolutely appalled at is being threatened into taking out a Barclay Card. I am lucky as I am a strong person and I am relatively savvy when it comes to banking matters, what worries me is how many people would have ended up bowing to the pressure and would have taken out the card, further spiralling themselves into debt.

I trust you can see that this is highly inappropriate behaviour and that something needs to be done to ensure that it does not happen again.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely"

 

Like I say, any changes would be great!

 

Thanks,

 

KA.

 

My replacement version for the part highlighted in blue, bear in mind that I pull no punches, so feel free to disregard if too aggressive for your liking, I won't get offended ;-):

 

(...) that I needed to lodge this complaint.

I find it unacceptable and unprofessional that xxx called me "babe" throughout the meeting. I am a customer, not one of her Facebook mates.

I find it unacceptable that I was summoned under what can be interpreted as false pretence to pitch me a product.

I find it unacceptable that even if there were no false pretence, I was summoned for a sales pitch full stop.

I find it unacceptable that xxx made the comments she did about the relationship between me and my girlfriend or that I had to repeat myself over the modus operandi of our joint account.

More importantly, I find it totally unacceptable that xxx repeatedly tried to talk me into a high interest product (the Barclaycard, which carries a much higher APR than say a fixed term loan) as a way to consolidate an existing overdraft facility. This is nothing short of irresponsible lending practices and is further compounded by the threat to close my account if I didn't take the product coerced upon me. I consider xxx's behaviour on that day to be a clear breach of s.7 of the CPUT Regs and am currently considering reporting the incident to the OFT.

I estimate myself lucky that I didn't fall prey to these aggressive sales tactics because I am relatively astute when it comes to banking matters, but I can not help wondering how many more people less experienced bowed to the extreme pressure and took the card further spiralling into debt.If xxx can coerce 1 person per 1/2 hour (maximum), this could end up being a very effective way to reach her sales targets, don't you think?

I am totally disgusted with the whole experience and expect from you:

a) an enquiry into what happened that day, whether xxx acted on her own initiative or with the branch manager's collusion, or worse with head office's approval.

b) a full apology from yourselves for this absolutely inappropriate way of trying to do business.

c) an undertaking that this sorry state of affair will not be allowed to be repeated.

d) appropriate compensation for wasting my time and travel costs.

e) an undertaking that xxx will be re-trained with emphasis on the relevant parts of the CPUT Regs 2008.

Yours faithfully,

**************************************

That should give them the kick up the backside they so justly deserve.

[Bookworm]

here is my letter KA - i feel great! (thank you for not minding me post on your thread) what do you and others think ? ta very much - laters maz

 

Maz:

 

1) It would be easier if you had your own thread on this, it will save confusion as your situation and KA's are quite different.

 

2) You can't really use the CPUT in your case as there was no actual attempt to flog you anything, only you guessing that this was the aim (we all know you're right, of course, but they'll be able to wriggle out of it, since nothing actually happened!)

 

I would still complain, but more stressing the humiliation of eveyone staring at you for what you assume was going to be a sales pitch, complain about the fact that you were given no explanation following this and the rudeness of the person who was in the office. Say that you want an explanation of what made the staff acting in such a manner, demand to know whether there is a flag on your account which marks you as a sales prospect.

Say that you want an apology for the way you were dealt with. Don't say that you are a reasonable person etc... to them that just means doormat.

 

If you need help, just holler. ;-)

[Bookworm]

Hi guys,

 

Bit facetious I know but do you think, should someone get a claim through and win, Barclays could claim economic hardship given everything that is happening in the banking World at the moment?!

 

In all seriousness, is the current climate likely to affect our claims?

 

Cheers,

 

KA.

Having heard on the news that Barclays are now going to buy off some of Lehman's core assets, I think that question has been safely answered now.

[Bookworm]

Like Slick says, over £5k = outside the SCC, so costs apply. However, if part of the £6k comes from the 8% APR + fees, I think that as long as the principal keeps it under £5k, it should still be SCC, where the rules for costs differ. It's been a while since I have dealt with a near or over the £5k, but it's what I remember, although I could be mistaken. (Brain not working well lately, so sorry )

[Bookworm]

Sorry, not going to re-read the whole 19 pages of your thread, but you mentioned right at the start that your claim was for £2450, so how did it comes to £6k now?