PPI & Barclays

[reidnet]

LOL = Laugh Out Loud

Ian

[marcelle]

laugh out loud

[Milo19]

Should I bring up the rule 79 or whatever it is?

[reidnet]

Its the Rule of 78 that concerns how they work out a settlement figure when you pay off a loan early.

[Milo19]

Thats it, should I bring that in that letter. Sorry I've been away, so I actually haven't sent the letter that I post a few posts up!

[Milo19]

bump?!

[Milo19]

Ok, final letter to go tomorrow. Your thoughts please?


Thank you for your letter dated XXth February 2007 and for the enclosures.

I am writing to request that my complaint be escalated in line with the Bank’s internal complaint procedure. I am very unhappy at your initial response to my communications with yourselves, as I feel strongly that I have been mis-sold PPI, and that you have no concern whatsoever at this.

As stated in my previous correspondence dated Xth February 2007, this policy was mis-sold to me by a member of your staff at a time when I was in financial difficulties, and I was pressurised to take the policy on the understanding that otherwise the loan would not be approved unless I did so. In view of this the 30 day cool period you mentioned would not have made a shred of difference, as it would not have been an option.

On subsequent approaches to you in attempts to cancel the policy I would not have been able to have secured a new loan to cancel the PPI because of my financial situation.

This policy was sold in a deceitful manner by a member of your staff and this matter has also been discussed with the FSA and a complaint form has been filled out for the Financial Ombudsman Service.

I would like to bring to your attention the FSA principles of ‘Treating customers fairly – towards fair outcomes for consumers’.

Principle 7 “A Firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading”.

Principle 9 “A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”.

When I recently settled my loan, 30months ahead of schedule, I believe my Early Settlement figure was calculated using Rule of 78. The FSA recommended that all companies refrain from using this Rule with effect from May 2005. The FSA themselves viewed the Rule of 78 to be unfair to consumers, and I quote from their website:-

“We viewed this as unfair because it could result in the consumer paying a charge much higher than would reasonably compensate the firm for charges lost through early repayment.”

I feel that in relation to the above points, Barclay’s bank has sorely let me down.

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

I require repayment of £0000.00 in full of this money and if I do not receive this refund within 14 days I will be submitting the completed complaint form regarding this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service forthwith and will be submitting a county court claim to recover this money with interest and costs.

Yours sincerely

[Milo19]

Received a letter this morning from Barclays, saying the member of staff who I dealt with was very experienced, numerous oportunities to cancel etc etc. (I type the letter up later) They have admitted they got the settlement figure using rule 78 which is now deemed to be unfair, nd they have basically told me to do one. So, where to go from here?!

FOS or Court??? I wouldn't mind, but following that fantastic programme whistleblower, which tore Barclays aprat on how devious they are, and how I was told, NO PPI, NO LOAN, I think its gotta be court?!

Any thoughts anyone

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[reidnet]

Hiya,
Their letter is nothing less than you would have expected..lol Court or the FOS would ba available route, If you start court proceedings then the FOS will not take up your case.

Good Luck

Ian

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[Milo19]

just to add to my previous post, their closing statement is

I appreciate this is not the response you were hoping to receive and confirm you may regard this letter as our final response. I enclose a copy of the FOS leaflet for you information. The FOS normally 6months in which to refer your complaint to their office. Howver, in view of the unsatisfactory position of your current account, we would expect you to refer your complaint immediately. If we have not heard from the FOS within one month from the date of this letter, and in the absence of any repayments proposals from you, we will be left with little option other than to instigate our recovery procedures. I do hope this will not be neccessary.

Quite frankly, how fu**ing dare they, my account is £2.94 over its overdraft limit. I'm fuming after reeading this letter carefully. I need to calm down and write a detailed pi**ed off letter, but of cause do it politely.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[Milo19]

Should I go down the FOS roue then, rather than the court?!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[reidnet]

You can go to the FOS first and if you dont get a result there , then you can go down the court Route.. You cant do it the other way around though.

Plus the FOS route is free..lol

Ian

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[Milo19]

I'm going to go to the FOS first. Here's my response to Barlcays - What do you think??

Thank you for your letter dated 26th March 2007.
As you can imagine this is not the reply I was hoping for, as I had hoped after my previous letter, someone within Barclays may have realised that I will not just lye down and let this drop. In my letter I stated “I am very unhappy at your initial response to my communications with yourselves, as I feel strongly that I have been mis-sold PPI, and that you have no concern whatsoever at this”

I don’t know what you think you may achieve by merely reminding me of my complaint, and then to inform me how you work out the refund if a loan is paid off early – all of which was explained in the first letter that I received from Miss Kate Pooley. What is more of an insult is your comment regarding my current account that I hold with Barclays. My complaint is in reference to my Barclayloan, and in particular the Personal Payment Protection I was mis-sold by one of your “experienced” members of staff. For the record I have now deposited £2.95 into my current account to bring me back within the agreed overdraft.

Furthermore, your comments regarding instigating recovery procedures against me I take the most exception too. My complaint was in relation to my loan and PPI I had with yourselves, and absolutely nothing to do with my current account – would this action be retaliatory?? - If so, I’m sure the Financial Services Authority would be delighted to hear of this.

In May 2005 the FSA recommended that all companies refrain from using this Rule stating on their website:-
“To use a method called the 'Rule of 78' to calculate a consumer's early repayment charge, we viewed this as unfair because it could result in the consumer paying a charge much higher than would reasonably compensate the firm for charges lost through early repayment.”
The FSA themselves viewed the Rule of 78 to be unfair to consumers.
So why in 2007, nearly 2 years after this statement, did you use rule 78 to work out the refund I would received from my insurance.

I understand your position on this matter, but rest assured I will take this to the highest authority I can. Comments by your staff members would said to mislead me into thinking that if I didn’t take this loan protection, then my loan would be declined – a sales tactic that was highlighted in a certain BBC television programme broadcasted just recently.

I feel that I have provided Barclays with more than enough time and information to repay this money, and therefore, you may consider this my final response to you on this matter, I will now be taking this to the Financial Ombudsman Service and via county courts if necessary.

Yours Sincerely

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[reidnet]

Nice One...

Ian

[Milo19]

I think I should make some comments regarding rule 78. This cannot be used anymore, is this correct?

Also, added some more stuff to the letter above!!!!!

[reidnet]

I think they will state that since your agreemnet pr dated the Rule of 78 statement etc by the FSA they will have taken the terms and conditions of your agreement at the date it was taken out. No harm in challenging it though, I did with Firstplus and they Paid up ..lol

Ian

[Milo19]

I had a final response letter from Barclays regarding my claim, telling exactly the same, just laid out diffferently on the page, so this was my reply.

Dear Mr.

Thank you for your letter dated 26th March 2007.
As you can imagine this is not the reply I was hoping for, as I had hoped after my previous letter, someone within Barclays may have realised that I will not just lye down and let this drop. In my letter I stated “I am very unhappy at your initial response to my communications with yourselves, as I feel strongly that I have been mis-sold PPI, and that you have no concern whatsoever regarding this”

I am unsure as to the motives behind your continued reminders of my complaint, and how you worked out a refund if a loan is paid off early – all of which was explained in the first letter that I received from Miss Kate Pooley. What is more of an insult is your comment regarding my current account that I hold with Barclays. My complaint is in reference to my Barclayloan, and in particular the Personal Payment Protection that I was mis-sold by one of your “experienced” members of staff.
Furthermore, I take particular exception to your comments regarding ‘instigating recovery procedures against me’. My complaint was in relation to the loan and the PPI that I had, and has absolutely nothing to do with my current account.
Just to clarify this comment, please would you confirm if ‘instigating recovery procedures’ would be a retaliatory action by Barclays?? I look forward to your confirmation on this point please.

For the record I have now deposited £2.95 into my current account to bring me back within the agreed overdraft.

In May 2005 the FSA recommended that all companies refrain from using Rule 78 stating on their website:-
“To use a method called the 'Rule of 78' to calculate a consumer's early repayment charge, we viewed this as unfair because it could result in the consumer paying a charge much higher than would reasonably compensate the firm for charges lost through early repayment.”
The FSA themselves viewed that Rule 78 to be unfair to consumers.
So why in 2007, nearly 2 years after this statement, did you use rule 78 to work out the refund I would receive from my insurance? Again, I would be grateful for a full explanation on this point.

I understand your position on this matter, but rest assured I will take this to the highest authority I can. Comments made by your staff members misled me into thinking that if I didn’t take this loan protection, my loan would be declined – a sales tactic that was highlighted in a certain BBC television programme broadcasted just recently.

I feel that I have provided Barclays with more than enough time and information to repay this money and therefore, you may consider this as my final response to you on this matter.

I will be speaking to the Financial Ombudsman Service and possibly the County Courts if necessary.

Yours Sincerely

[Milo19]

I have since had another letter saying

"The comments you allude to in respect of the Rule of 78 made by the FSA relate to mortages and the calculation of PPI refunds on Barclayloans?!"

Is this correct? My next stop will be the FOS to complain, I assume I just write a letter to them asking them to investigate my claim?

[iris14]

Hello
This just goes to show how conniving Barclays are just to get money out of people.
I was informed by my friend that her Mum was persuaded to take out a consolidation Loan with Barclays, she also had to have the PPI. My friends Mother is 68 years old and the PPI only covers you if you are below 65 years of age. This raises a few questions! why did the insurance company keep taking the premiums knowing full well she did not qualify for the insurance from the outset. How low will this bank go on defrauding people. This also begs the question is this a criminal matter, any suggestions!

My friend has written to Barclays head office and the insurance office in Dublin asking for an explanation and has sent copies of the letters to both the OFT and the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is about time these banks are bought to task.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[Milo19]

Just a letter to the FOS?

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.