Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

kevin_ryan

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About kevin_ryan

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. To be clear, I am simply reporting what we have been told by Barclays previously and do not personally claim any expertise in this matter. I only know that Barclays insisted they were not obliged to provide the voice recordings. At the time we felt compelled to accept their decision as the staff member we spoke to insisted he had no discretion in this matter and they were following the rules. As the transcripts may well provide evidence of fraud, we reluctantly decided to await this as a necessary first stage. Now we are aware of their actual obligations, I feel more confident that we can compel them to comply if it proves necessary.
  2. Hi BankFodder. You may well be correct. However, this matter was raised with Barclays shortly before the GDPR came into effect. At that time they were correct in their assertion that they only had an obligation to provide written transcripts. Yes, they have dragged their feet over those transcripts. No surprises there. Hopefully they only need a reminder/nudge from us to reassess their obligations and provide those voice recordings. We shall see.
  3. Hi Slick. We are hoping that the family member who perpetrated this fraud will agree to return the stolen money to our mother. Ultimately that is our primary goal and presenting them with undeniable proof may be enough to persuade them to do the right thing. If they continue to prove intransigent, then we are indeed planning to report the matter to the police, but this will be done only as a last resort. As you can imagine, we are reluctant to see a close family member prosecuted and convicted if there is a less extreme solution. In addition, we took advice from a solicitor who warned us it was entirely possible the police would dismiss the matter as nothing more than a family squabble unless we could provide them with hard evidence to base an investigation on. Sadly the police do not always conduct themselves in as dynamic a way as is often depicted on TV! Advice on this forum strongly suggests the bank is required under GDPR to provide the voice recordings we suspect will prove conclusively (the smoking gun) that fraud occurred. As GDPR is a very recent development, it's entirely possible the bank is not yet aware that they have this obligation. Our next step is to inform them of this obligation and see how they respond.
  4. Hi Slick. Thanks for the feedback. The fundamental issue is not that we believe the bank did anything wrong. They may have, but we doubt it. By calling to check the account holder had in fact authorised the transfers and receiving the necessary security answers, they would have properly discharged their duty of care. However, the person we suspect was falsely claiming to be my father in order to authorise the transfers can (probably) only be identified by listening to the voice recording. The beneficiary of the transfers (who had no power of attorney to act on our father's behalf) and our father have distinctly different voices! This has been explained to the bank, but they insist they are only required to provide a transcript of these calls. However, under GDPR, we believe they are in fact obliged to provide copies of the recordings themselves. As I'm sure you can appreciate, these voice recordings may be 'the smoking gun' required to prove criminal fraud has occurred and enable us to pursue a criminal prosecution.
  5. Good question Ethel. According to the template provided on this forum for making a Subject Access Request (SAR), the Data Controller is required under the new GDPR to provide ALL relevant data, including recordings. We will make the bank aware of this as they have only offered a transcript. They may be unaware of the details in the GDPR and are operating according to the now superceded DPA (Data Protection Act). If anyone can confirm the GDPR requires them to provide copies of any voice recordings, that would be very helpful. My own research has proven inconclusive but strongly suggests voice recordings should, logically, fall under the blanket of 'all relevant data'.
  6. Hi Slick. The other person did not have power of attorney. We requested the recording via phone only. Following info provided on this forum, I think we will hv to send a written request under GDPR. My understanding is the bank will hv to comply. Fingers crossed!
  7. A few months before my father's death last year, a family member (who frequently helped him with his online banking activities and was therefore privy to his passwords etc) liquidated £145,000 of his shares and transferred the proceeds to themselves. We believe that this was done without my father's knowledge or consent. Barclays advise us that they called to check that this activity was in fact authorised by my father. These phone calls were recorded by the bank. We believe these voice recordings will prove the person claiming to be my father and authorising the transactions was, in fact, the family member who benefitted from these transfers. Barclays has refused to provide copies of these voice recordings and has offered written transcripts of the recordings instead (these have not yet been delivered). Clearly, identifying the person claiming to be my father from a written transcript will be impossible (apparently they answered security questions correctly). It is only by identifying the voice itself that will prove that fraud has taken place. N.B. We have the legal power of attorney to act on behalf of our mother (these were joint accounts in both parents names), as she is mentally incapacitated by Alzheimers and unable to act on her own behalf. Does anyone know of any way to compel the bank to provide these voice recordings?
×
×
  • Create New...