Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a long time issue and a little complicated so I'll attempt to condense.   Barclays account: held with them over 25yrs, opend in the 90's £6800 overdraft   15 years ago the account became a problem due to account holder due illness/company closing/long term disabilities.   No activity on the account other than what is stated below, card not used, balance always kept just under the o/d level so as not to incur further costs.   In those 15 yrs (2006)the account has been maintained each month by Barclays applying the o/d interest and the account holder paying that amount.  In the early years about £120 pm, then it went to £3per interest so worked out and around £90pm and late last year with the interest hike by the banks on O/d's it took the amount close to £180pcm    In  / around 2012 the account holder approached the bank with a view to receving some help, they were at that time somewhat ill, and registered as disabled. They asked that they convert the amount to a loan with them so that over time the balance would reduce. The Bank refused but instead put them through to another in-house lender, (woolwich) on internal line, they took the details but then didn't offer the loan.   Account holders health deteriorated but they insisted with their family members to continue to pay the overdraft, they were petrified of what may happen if they didn't.   In 2014 a SAR's was asked of Barclays which they sent but it didn't give much away, but importantly neither did it mention the customer going into the branch for the help.   In 2019 the customer via a third party who also obtained a third party mandate  approached the bank with a lengthy correspondence asking for help, they gave as much info as they could.   A month later then bank stated they believed they had not acted incorrectly as the account had been held to the good by the miniumum payments on the account being met, in short unless the account tripped they would not know there was a problem.   It was pointed out to the bank that under the terms of the original agreement and backed up by a letter from the bank way back as early as 2003 that the overdraft had been increased and that the account would be reviewed annually and that the account for the overdraft to remain in place would need to be kept in good order.    It's clear no annual review from at least 2006 had taken place as 'good order' was that the account was to be seen to be going in and out of credit whch of course was not the case, it hasn't been in the black since 2005/6   The bank refused to budge , also denied that the customer had been into the branch in 2012 and in any case as it was 2019 they didn't have to go that far back with a complaint if it had not been raised before.   Thats stage 1   A complaint was raised with the Ombudsman in late 2019, they accepted the complaint and lodged with Barclays that an account had been logged and that they (Ombudsman) were thus engaged on the account.   In the meantime the customer continued to maintain the account with Barclays as per the previous 13 years at the same time as providing info to the Ombudsman when it was requested.   Barclays wrote asking the customer to call them, but they had been put on notice in the original complaint that the Customer wanted all communication in writing, three times barclays asked for them to call despite them knowing the customer was 'vulnerable'  and still they continued the account knowing that the customer was only paying them out of the disability payments etc...   Barclays were sent 3 letters via signed delivery asking that all communication be put in writing, the customer wanted to establish a papertrail so no room for error or misinterpretation similar to Barclays 2012 denial that the customer had been into the branch, all 3 letters were signed for all 3 letters went unanswered.   Late 2019/early 2020 Barclays were out of desperation contacted on the phone but as the account had not been placed in collections' then nobody from the department could speak to the customer ????   In or around March 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the customer stating they were a week away from a resolution and that they were just awaiting for it to be signed off by a senior investigator.   3 weeks later Covid hit but no resolution had been sent, a month or so later an email was sent to the Ombudsman requesting clarification and a month later they wrote back saying 'it's a week away (again) and they'll be in touch and then the case went cold, nothing heard and no return of phone calls to them.   After months of delays and after not hearing from the Ombudsman a letter was sent to one of their senior Ombudsman who replied that they'd take a look and be back in touch in a week and which they were and where they stated that the case: A: Should not have been taken on by the original investigator as it was above their remit, it should also have been picked up by another investigator when it was looked at during the initial process but again it wasn't. B: As the case had been incorrectly assigned it was then unassigned and placed on hold and for the following reason: C :  The case was of a sort that the banks and the Ombudsman have been discussing, no reasons for the discussion was given but as the case fell into this criteria it was on hold pending the discussions being concluded by the banks/ombudsman.   In short just over 12 months of the case first being allocated/engaged it had been unallocated/disengaged and placed on hold.   A second complaint was therefore lodged with the Ombudsman which was duly investigated and a nominal amount was offered for what they stated was poor service.  This amount was refused and the complaint was then sent to the Assessor (next step) but they wrote back stating that until the case had been finalised by the Ombudsman the assessor would not be able to investigate the complaint.   Updated were occasionally given by the Ombudsman on the state of the original complaint against Barclays but even that dropped into the abyss early 2021.    After a recent request to the Ombudsman to ask if the 2019 onwards discussions with the banks had been concluded an email was sent back saying that the case was just about to be reallocated (no answer as to if their discussions had concluded.   A week later an new case investigator was placed onto the case, they had written to Barclays and were awaiting their response.   1 week later they investigator came back with:   Barclays are offering to write the account off and to close the account.   And that is where they're stuck,  15yrs of overdrafts fees being paid, (almost 2.7 times the orignal amount of the o/d) with Barclays refusing to budge, then out of the blue came the offer.   The offer is on the table for a few weeks, but is it an offer to take?   When intial contact was made the bank with the complaint in 2019 they did nothing on the o/d account but very quickly (1 week) shut down one of the Barclayscard credit cards the customer had with them and placed the other at £250 limit (the limits before that were collectively 25k but had not been used for some years)     I have read somewhere that this 'credit card' balance reduction affected the credit worthability of a credit card holder, it's an indirect hit on them and this seems borne out as although the customer has a good credit record (not really facilitating it) they have been refused credit from a source they have always used and who they have never had any problem with before and this is only after the Barclaycard issue.     Sorry for the elognated post but for me, the offer whilst it may seem ok, well if it's their offer now and whilst they may withdraw the offer I think it has more legs? The customer should never have bee allowed to get where they've been for the last 15 years......Barclays have had considerably more than the original o/d and they want to stick to terms and conditions but then seem to flout them themselves by not conducting regular reviews or even as recent as knowing a customer is struggling and they still continue onwards unabated.     Deb                                                          
    • cash cowed blind. just run the sb date to infinity for 15yrs.     who are moorcrofts client please   and i bet you have a bank account and or a card with hsbc too...
    • It was for an HSBC personal bank loan of 20k Was passed onto metropolitan collection services which agreed the £1 payment plan and have paid them every month since and they have left me alone. The new DCA is moorcroft and balance is still roughly them same.  I have always paid the agreed £1 as if I got a ccj I would lose my job.
    • What type of Bank loan ?   When you defaulted with the Bank, how much did you owe approx ?   Who did you agree the £1 token payment arrangement with ?  Is this the last DCA you were dealing with, before the debt was transfered to a new DCA ?    Which DCA's have been involved ?    There are many DCA's who have the same parent company owners and also there have been many DCA's bought out by new owners who have taken on the debts.   What is the current debt balance approx ?   Was there ever a period, when you did not make any payments towards the debt ?
    • Yes the £1 per month payment was agreed at the time and happy to continue this as a ccj would stop me from working in my current employment so have always kept to this.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

The truth about Hermes parcel delivery service

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 155 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

The sign of a good company is not what happens when they get things right. It's what happens when they get things wrong.

Hermes gets one single star.


Hermes computerised systems make it almost impossible to reach any thinking reasoning human being in order to explain and understand your problem.

Hermes relies on a prohibited items list which contains over 70 items and which seems to exclude almost anything. Some of the things are quite reasonable such as glass, or fragile objects. However, other items are completely puzzling.


When Hermes loses items, they frequently deny responsibility on the basis that the item you are sending was in their prohibited items list. Of course this is a complete nonsense because whereas you can imagine that they include glass in order to protect themselves against breakages while in transit, the fact that an item is on the prohibited items list does not have any bearing at all on the risk that it might be lost.

It's completely unfair and also unenforceable at law to rely on their prohibited items list to justify refusing compensation for an item which is lost.


Secondly, Hermes – in common with all of the other courier companies require that their customers pay some insurance if they want to get compensation for items which are lost or damaged.
This is completely unfair and unenforceable. It is absurd to require your customers to to spend extra money insuring themselves against the negligence or criminality of the courier company.
It is the courier company which should be taken out insurance to protect themselves against these eventualities.
Unfortunately, many people give up their claim when they are told by Hermes that as they didn't have an insurance cover they have lost their right to any compensation.
This is unenforceable at law.


Even with insurance, a large number of people are still denied any compensation on all sorts of spurious grounds – but very often because the item they sent was on the Hermes prohibited items list – even though the item was fully declared in advance and so Hermes was fully aware of the risk that they were taking on.


Many people end up using Hermes because they buy items on eBay. The arrangements for the delivery are made using a company called Packlink and Packlink inevitably farm the work out to Hermes.

When Hermes loses or damages a parcel, they refer the customer to Packlink on the basis that there was no direct contract with Hermes but the direct contract was with Packlink.
Of course this is true, but the problem is that Packlink is in Spain and so if you decide that you want to bring a County Court claim, bringing it against Packlink in Spain is extremely complicated and pretty well impossible.
What Hermes don't tell you is that they bear equal contractual responsibility because there is an act of Parliament called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which provides that an official third parties enjoy all the rights of a direct contracting partner.

Hermes don't tell you this – even though they know about it and this means that an enormous number of their customers simply give up because they trust what Hermes tells them.



One of the most recent features of Hermes lost parcels is that they are now starting to tell people that their parcel has been damaged.
They tell people that their parcel is damaged and therefore had to be destroyed.
When those customers then approach Hermes and asked for evidence of the damage – there is generally speaking no reply but no evidence is ever forthcoming.
It's a mystery as to the basis upon which Hermes feels that they have the right to destroy somebody else's property simply because it is damaged.

The fact that they are able to tell you that it is damaged means that they know where the parcel is and they know who it belongs to – but despite this, they tell you it's damaged, it's destroyed – and that's it.

Destroying somebody's parcel simply because Hermes have damaged it does not absolve them of responsibility and actually amounts to a Conversion at law contrary to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.


The bottom line here is that if Hermes loses or damages your parcel then you should not accept their denial of responsibility as the final word. You should search the Internet and investigate your rights and you will find lots of help.

The same goes with all the other courier companies but Hermes is the worst.

Hermes deals with millions of parcels every year and I suppose that many of the parcels get through without any problem – but when things go wrong, Hermes attitude is shocking and you need to stand up to it.



  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...