bizarre settlement offer?!

**katiealvey** · 16th October 2006 10:41

I sent my S.A.R. to Barclaycard some time ago, and received the usual response i.e. ... microfiche ... yawn yawn yawn!

I decided that, at the moment I would just request they repaid the charges from the period May 2004 to September 2006, which amounted to a measly £60 (but worth it all the same!) - reason being that I was going through another claim with Barclays icon

at the time, and I do not want to get myself too confused with who I am sending letters too and not, etc. (Knowing me I would send the wrong letter to the wrong bank!)

So, I sent off my prelim letter asking for £60 in full, with a copy of my schedule of charges etc. They sent no response within the 14 days, so I sent off the lba icon

.

Have just received this response!!!???

'As a goodwill gesture icon

... I am prepared to credit your account with the difference between the charges that you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. This would amount to £60.'

So - they have offered me a gesture which is worth the same as my full amount request, yet they have apparently deducted the £12 fees!?!?!

What on earth are they playing at? Have they made a mistake? Or do they know something I don't?!

Has this happened to anyone before? Anyone got any ideas as to what my next step should be? All advice would be much appreciated.

Similar Threads:

Battleaxe · 16th October 2006 11:01

I would reply saying 'thank you but I require full reimbursement of chages and what they have offered is accepted as partial settlement of the original claim, refer them back to lba icon

and remind them that the clock is ticking and you will lodging your claim, don't forget to set your timelines.

Hope this helps

**katiealvey** · 16th October 2006 11:38

Ok, but the problem is I don't understand their mathematics.

I thought the full amount was £60 and that was the full reimbursement I requested. That was the total I calculated from my statements. They have offered me that £60 - but they are saying that £60 is the amount they have calculated after deductions.They are offering me my original total, but as a 'goodwill gesture'!?!?!

I am still confused.

Am I missing something here?
If I ask for a full reimbursement now, I won't know what I am asking for, because I don't understand how they have come to their calculations.

**neilbass** · 16th October 2006 12:52

I had similar to this in that they offered me my full amount (also £60!) after just the prelim letter. I couldn't believe it so soon in the process, but figured maybe they have a cut-off amount or something (maybe £100?) where they just give it all back?

My letter didnt mention the £12 OFT figure, but this is now what they seem to be doing as standard - giving back the £8 per charge difference bwetween the £20 they charge and the 'OFT £12'.

I think this sounds very much a case of :

1. They have a standard letter set up on their system.
2. They're meant to delete out the £12 bit if the charges reclaimed are low enough to refund the full amount.
3. Maybe they're just crap!

I wondered if mine was a mistake - but I said thank you very much and had the money in a few days.

Would say do the same and feel pleased with yourself!!

As long as you are happy there are no further charges due to you for the period in question - I assume you have your statements?

Well done!!

**katiealvey** · 16th October 2006 13:00

That sounds like the best thing to do. £60 is definitely correct, so I will simply claim it back as I won't missing out on any money.

With reference to Barclaycard themselves,
I suspect that option c) is the correct one!!!

Thanks for your help

**gizmo111** · 16th October 2006 13:14

The £60 is probably the difference between what they charged and al lcharges on your acount pre 2004. They refunded me on this basis in response to my SAR icon

- wierd systems they have.

**neilbass** · 16th October 2006 14:09

Hmm - if Gizmo is correct you could be accepting less than you are due by taking the £60. On my account it was only opened in June 2004 so it wasn't an issue.

I would be careful with my wording of the acceptance of the £60. Make sure you state that you accept it 'in respect of charges debited for the period May 2004 to date' ?

**katiealvey** · 16th October 2006 21:22

This possibility had crossed my mind.

In which case I should accept the £60 in respect of the charges for that period as you suggest, and then:
do I continue to push for my previous statements,
or can i calculate how much they owe me, based on the fact that they have given £60 as partial offer? Sorry - my maths is very poor!

It is all a bit too confusing!

Barclaycard seem to be running rings round us!!!

ian cognito · 16th October 2006 21:28

If you have previous statments you have not yet claimed or, it could well be that this amoount is correct once they've deducted the £12's, I'm a bit confused as to whether you do have charges further back? if you do I would accept this as partial settlement and carry on, if you don't I would just accept it!

**katiealvey** · 16th October 2006 21:41

Sorry - I am also v confused!

I cannot be sure that there are charges pre May 2004, but I would be very surprised if not, because I was useless with money during the period 2000 -2003.
So I am expecting there to be further charges, but without the statements (microfiche problem) I don't know how much.

I think I will accept, making clear the acceptance is for charges during that period May 2004 to Sep 2006 only, as suggested by neilbass. Then I will continue with the fight to get the rest of my Statements once they have settled this £60.

Thread: bizarre settlement offer?!

Thread Tools

bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!

Re: bizarre settlement offer?!