Well, I think this is not correct because the FCA have stated that since the EU directive re: CCA. Section V appears to apply to overdrafts and they have a statutory duty to provide an copy of the agreement. CCA 1974 does refer to 'overdrafts'. Current account information CONC 6.3.3R01/04/2014RP A firm must provide to the account-holder, in writing, the information in CONC 4.7.2R (2) at least annually. [Note: section 74A of CCA (partial implementation of article 18 of the Consumer Credit Directive)] Information to be provided on significant overdrawing without prior arrangement CONC 6.3.4R01/04/2014RP (1) A firm must inform the account-holder in writing of the matters in (2) without delay where: (a) the account-holder overdraws on the current account without a pre-arranged overdraft, or exceeds a pre-arranged overdraft limit, for a period exceeding one month; (b) the amount of that overdraft or excess is significant throughout that period; © the overdraft or excess is a regulated credit agreement; and (d) the account-holder has not been informed in writing of the matters in (2) within that period. [Note: section 74B of CCA] [Note: article 18 of the Consumer Credit Directive] And also: 61BDuty to supply copy of overdraft agreement (1)Where an authorised business overdraft agreement or an authorised non-business overdraft agreement has been made, a document containing the terms of the agreement must be given to the debtor. (2)The creditor must provide the document referred to in subsection (1) to the debtor before or at the time the agreement is made unless— (a)the creditor has provided the debtor with the information referred to in regulation 10(3) of the Consumer Credit (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2010, in which case it may be provided after the agreement is made, (b)the creditor has provided the debtor with the information referred to in regulation 10(3)©, (e), (f), (h) and (k) of those Regulations, in which case it must be provided immediately after the agreement is made, or ©the agreement is an agreement of a description referred to in regulation 10(4)(b) of those Regulations, in which case it must be provided immediately after the agreement is made. (3)If the requirements of this section are not observed, the agreement is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court only (and for these purposes a retaking of goods or land to which the agreement relates is an enforcement of the agreement).]

Hi, In the online business directory the definition of 'overdraft facility' says it is a 'credit agreement'.

Hi, I believe that an account with an overdraft where the 'agreed limit' is exceeded or when that facility is removed reverts to being covered by section 74, due to the ammendments.

Hi, Did you mean that overdrafts are exempt from part V of the 1974 Act or did you mean that only part V of the 1974 Act can be applied to overdrafts?

Hi, That's strange when I have called it a 'facility' I've been told (on the phone by Barclays) that it wasn't a 'facility'. What is a 'facility agreement'?

Hi, I was under the impression that 'overdrafts' are a form of credit and this overdraft has been referred to as 'credit' by the FOS investigator. If overdrafts are specified in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and there has been no enacted legislation to overturn that since, then the 'overdraft' should be covered by the terms of the Act. The 'overdraft' would be a form of running account credit and a CCA request should be valid. Barclays constantly refer to the 'agreement' and its terms and conditions without fully specifying what this 'agreement' constitutes. If it is not a 'credit agreement' how can they then put negative information about me on a credit reference agencies file? The implication is that this 'overdraft' is a form of 'running-line credit' and this is covered by the 1974 act. It is clear that they have varied the terms and conditions of the 'overdraft' on different occasions. I believe they use credit reference information in determing the level of facility. The overdraft has existed for years and is clearly a form of 'credit'. It is also unreasonable to use the 'our agreement with you' and 'as set out in the terms and conditions of our agreement with you' without specifying what these are or proving that there is an agreement if requested. I challenge you to tell me that overdrafts are not a form of credit and why.

Hi, Just to update: I have sent a CCA request (registered recorded) regarding the overdraft, but have not received any response to this request within the statutory time period. They sent me a letter saying that they were putting a hold on the account then immediately (within a few days) sent me another saying that it was available for use, but did not provide me with a copy of any "agreement" !!!! Back in April I sent a SAR and did receive some of my records. However there was no copy of any original agreement and no statements for the first two years of the account 1996-1998. I have no idea what kind of agreement I originally had with this bank. They keep referring to "Your agreement with us" in correspondence but have not provided me with any copy of that, if it exists, for years.

Hi, You must be a rare case of being happy to pay for something, that wasn't at all clear. 1) My overdraft fee was £5 per month when I was within my limit until 2000 2) I was overdrawn when Barclays started charging £6 3) I moved to Poland and realised I was being charged when in credit. 4) I questioned if the fee was not for the overdraft. 5) I never received any adequate answer 6) I always took out separate breakdown cover. 7) I paid thousands over the years in fees for what? 8) It was never made clear.

Hi, Before 2008 when a 'personal reserve' facility of £1,000 was (automatically) added to an existing 'overdraft' facility of £700, there were periods in which Barclays would allow payments from my account whilst I was over the £700 'authorised' limit, often for quite large sums. This was in 2006,2007 and early 2008. Barclays thus had stopped bounicing cheques and preventing cash machine withdrawals from my account. T his was being done without any apparent arranged facility. From the statements it seems Barclays were also charging an 'unauthorised overdraft' monthly fee as well as transaction fees in 1998 and 1999 whilst allowing payments. Should they have been doing this? Regards, AH

Well it was a monthly fee (while overdrawn) and is called 'overdraft fee'. which was probably from 1996 a least until additions appeared (the 'overdraft fee' disappeared when additions appeared in 2000 except for the first month in which there was both an 'account fee' on 3/7/2000 and overdraft fee on 17/7/2000). I would have to count them up and estimate between 96 and 98 because they didn't send these statements, so I guess about 30 or so (some of £5 and some of £20) I believe the account was changed to a packaged fee account without my knowledge and certainly without me realising that anything much had changed. 'overdraft fees' appear to be charged within a limit but there are also 'unauthorised fees' of £20 which are also monthly. At this time I was not charged any fee for individual transactions, only for being overdrawn - transactions were effectively protected within the limit through the payment of a monthly fixed fee (if I was overdrawn during that period). This was one current account I had with Barclays. However there appears to be 'pots and pooling' with a different numbers flagged for PPI with an I, rather than an N for everything else. However I think the overdraft was protected though they say that account wasn't because within authorised 'overdraft' there were no transaction fees at all. When I first had 'first' additions it was initially £6.00 fee in 2000 and went up to £7.50 in 2003 and finally £11.50 in 2004. Additions plus was £12.00 initially in 2004 and Additions I After my account became 'additions' in 2000 the "overdraft fee" (for up to $400 limit) disappeared but the limit remained. I was still (at this time) - for example, in Nov 2000 charged the 'unauthorised fee' of £20 for going over limit within that month. The fees appear on the statements with begin/end date of that charging month. There is no reason not to assume that the £6.00 fee was payment protection for debits within the overdraft facility - after 2000 this was paid whether in credit or debit. Interest and transaction fees were not paid within the limit (at first). No one who had a bank account with Barclays would ever have chosen to 'buy' a packaged bank account with so called benefits that were 'added' back in 2000 or before. The 'features' were purposefully ridiculous - these were automatically provided with changes to many bank accounts and presented as 'benefits' which came with the account. Otherwise there was no obvious difference until you saw the statements.

Hi again, I have finally after nearly 40 days received the statements for my SAR request back to 1998. At that time I was paying a monthly fee of £5.00 for overdraft protection. This seems very much like PPI because it was to cover Barclays to honour cheques and direct debits within an overdraft limit. I only paid this in a month in which I was overdrawn. However, this morphed into a £6.50 'account fee' in 2000, which I thought was a continuation of the 'overdraft fee'. The statements after this are headed additions. This was certainly a miss-sell because either I was still paying for the overdraft protection OR it was for the packaged features. In any case there was no reason for me to assume it was for featueres because I believed that I was being charged the fee only while overdrawn. The change in 2000 occurred while I was overdrawn and it was not until later (when living in Poland) that I was in credit for long enough to realise that I was now paying the monthly fee whether in credit or overdrawn. Does anyone have any knowledge of this kind of monthly overdraft fee account? Alex

Hi, Sorry, I should've posted this in the last message. What are CLI rules?

Hi dx100uk, But it could be material to whether a customer knew that they were paying for a third party service provider via Barclays. In which case, if the customer didn't know that they were paying for a third party provider's service then there is no reason to assume that there is a problem with the account. - Because then the additional 'features' would be free of charge. As long as that is the situation, the customer cannot be deemed to have been 'aware that there was a problem', even if they were aware of 'features'. 3 year rule - 'when you first became aware that there was a problem'

Hi, In the case of Additions accounts were Barclays providing current account customer data to third parties? I thought customer infomation was supposed to be confidential. Also, if not, what sort of contract was between the customer and the third party and what proportion of the 'account fee' was being provided to the third party?

Hi, I am not very happy with this. Barclays have sent me a reply but say it is 'out of time'. They argue that I became aware of the problem more than 3 years ago, so they don't have to consider it. They say: "I have used the following complaint points to establish the 3 year limit" They use a series of statements I made in the complaint, most of which are in the negative. such as, "you were not made aware of any alternative options such as a free bank account" "You did not know about the cost associated with the account" etc. In the letter they 'thank' me for my 'visit' to the branch. (???!!!) I quote: "I have made my decision after reviewing the information provided in the letter we received from you on 28th February 2018, reviewing your visit to the branch on 9th February 2018 together with our internal evidence set out below" However, I phoned them on the 9th of February from the Scottish Highlands (where I have lived for 4 years). The nearest branch is 2 hours away (in Inverness). I have not used the account since 2016 and certainly not been to a branch. I informed them that I had not been 'in branch' as stated in an earlier letter of acknowledgement of my complaint. Why do they insist on pretending that I went (physically) to a branch when they know it is a lie. My own branch of Barclays is still in Hull as far as I am aware; where I used to live. I have not visited Hull since 2003. Not that there's anything wrong with Hull. If this commission is a mistake it shows total incompetence. It is the first falsehood - WHY do they not say 'over the telephone'?? Regarding the 'internal evidence': " I can see from our records that we sent you a personalised annual summary on 30 August 2012, 30 August 2013 for your Additions Plus account." "The statement included information about the benefits.." etc. and "made you aware of the packaged bank account, its associated costs and would have highlighted concern regarding consent at that point" -So they are agreeing there was a problem, but saying I was made aware in 2012 (which is longer than 3 years and therefore out of time). Can this be correct because, if so, it means no one with a package bank account (who also received a statement) can reclaim any longer because it is, now, more that 3 years after these particular accounts were provided - making Barclays packaged bank reclaims team without a raison d'etre since 2015. and "The statement made you aware of the key features and benefits of the account, enabling you to assess whether it was suitable for your needs. Within the statement we also invited you to contact us should you have any questions relating to the account" Next is a bit about 'benefits usage', where they claim I used one of the features in December 2003 once. I do not remember using this and may not have actually received any service. In 2000 when Additions started I did not have a car and did not want or need breakdown assistance. From 2001 to 2003 I was resident in Poland, which was not covered by Barclays breakdown cover and after 2006, I was resident in Scotland (at this time Scotland was also not covered by Green Flag) This so called 'usage' was not in the period 2004-2012 which is the Additions Plus period and does not make this feature appropriate at all. I can prove that I was a member of the AA for most of the period and I can prove that I had RAC membership (independently of Barclays and included with my RAC insurance annual fee and starting in August 2012). I have the RAC membership welcome letter and insurance certificate for 2012. The payment for this is on a Barclays statement from 2012. I have direct debits for AA membership on my other current accounts for the period I had Barclays Additions and Additions Plus. If (and I still don't know!!!!) I was paying for breakdown cover, this should be refunded for the period in which I was not resident in a country in which the breakdown cover would have been potentially of use. This would exclude 2001 - 2003 (in Poland); and 2006 to whenever Barclays switched from using Green Flag to RAC. Since I already had breakdown cover with AA and RAC membership I do not think Barclays breakdown cover can be regarded as being appropriate for me. No other feature could have been, or was, of any use to me. Barclays have extracted more that £2000 from me (by stealth) for features that were inappropriate and I had no access to. Asking if I was 'aware' of these features is like asking me if I am aware of Walmart. I don't use Walmart, I've never been there, I am not aware that I am paying for it in any way. I was not aware (Barclays did not make me aware) that I was paying for these features. "Account fee" is "Account fee" not Walmart fee. Hi, The other falsehoods in the letter Barclays have sent me about Additions and Additions Plus relate to agency (or who made the change to the account). I have underlined the parts that are misprepresentations. The letter states under the heading: "Significant Account Changes": "Our records show you changed your account to a non-fee paying one on 5th October 2012. Changing your account to a non-fee paying account ought to have reasonably made you aware that it wasn't a requirement to pay for a current account and other fee-free options existed. At this point you ought to reasonably have been aware of the cost associated with the account through the changes you made. The changes you made to your account would have highlighted a concern regarding your consent to the account at that point. After you changed your account to a non-fee paying one you obtained an overdraft. At that time you ought to have been reasonably aware that it wasn't a requirement to pay for a current account to obtain other financial services and that other fee-free options existed." I did not make these changes. Barclays made these changes. This account simply stopped being an Additions account. I regularly complained about this account, but at the point in time referred to (October 2012), my account was downgraded by Barclays. Barclays had also converted my account to Additions Plus in 2004. The part "you obtained an overdraft" means Barclays increased my overdraft of £700 into one of £1,700 by converting a pre-existing 'Personal Reserve' of £1000 (which had previously been added by Barclays without my consent in 2008) into extra overdraft facility in 2014. In fact I can prove that no change to the overdraft facility was made in 2012 when Additions Plus ended. The final part of this section in the letter states: "Whilst I have not addressed all the points you have raised, my investigation places your complaint outside the time period where we are required to carry out a full investigation. I am satisfied that you would have been reasonably aware of your reason to complain much earlier." I don't understand this but it seems to be based on the false premise that it was not one of Barclays staff (or a computer) that downgraded my account or 'obtained' an overdraft, but me. What can I do now if they are prepared to misrepresent the facts to this extent? I can prove that much of what they are saying is false. Hi, Thanks for the info. I need to contact Barclays (not again!) regarding their fact checks. The copy of 2012 annual summary they sent me is the same as the one I posted. It is the one describing the features. They use one example for why they think the features were of use - car breakdown cover. BUT, the breakdown cover described on this statement was already being provided by RAC, because I had paid (independently) for RAC membership, and insurance for the same period. I have the insurance certificate and RAC membership card and welcome letter (with breakdown cover). This means that their example is spurious. How can I now make this argument to them. Should I go to the ombudsman about this or will that just confuse things further? I am fairly certain that for at least 90% of the time I had additions I had separate breakdown cover through my AA and RAC membership. The only years in which I could have had breakdown cover with Barclays were Dec. 2003 (when I moved back to UK and bought a car) until May 2006 when I moved to Scotland (Green Flag company did not operate there at the time). I don't know what percentage of the fee was taken for breakdown cover and until very recently I had no idea that I was paying for breakdown cover. Who do I respond to with these 'completed investigation' letters if I am unhappy with their representation of the facts. Rgds ah1234