Bizarre.Moogle Vs Barclaycard

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Hello people...

 

Just about to send out my S.A.R. tomorrow. Should I mention anything in it about the microfiche (as I can see some comments about that), or should I send the basic template?

 

I don't think I'll be able to get much as feel some of the info is going to b out of the 6 years limitation, but can only try.

 

TTFN

[isidore]

Hi Bizarre, same accounts as me then

 

I would probably preempt their reply as they are doing anything to stall.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Check with Royal Mail and its not showing that my letter to them has been received Thats been 7 days from when i posted it.

[isidore]

Check with Royal Mail and its not showing that my letter to them has been received Thats been 7 days from when i posted it.

 

Sometimes the update process doesn't work too clever. Give RM a ring and find out where your letter is. You should be able to find the correct number to ring from the RM website.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Spoke to Royalmail, they still have my letter!!!! How bad is that?

Advised that cannot confirm when it will be delivered But hopefully this week.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Had a letter today from Barclaycard saying that they have received my S.A.R. and that I should have it in 40 days. Due to the mess up with Royalmail I will not be able to start my 40 days from the two days after posting, so Barclaycard have a benefit as I will start it from the date of their letter to me, February 13th 2007. So come 25th March I should hopefully have all my info to make a claim against Barclaycard.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Checked my account today and can see that Barclaycard have cashed my cheque for the S.A.R.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Received today my statements from Barclaycard also a letter with it as well and will type it below.

 

Dear Bizarre.Moogle

 

BAARCLAYCARD CUSTOMER SERVICES

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

Further to your recent request for personal information held by Barclaycard, please find enclosed a copy of the card statements you have requested.

 

Statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfilm which is a means of storage that does not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the Act") nor within the bounds of what we are obliged to provide in response to your data subject access request as set out in the Information Commissioner's Office website at ICO – Information Commissioner's Office

 

The Information Commissioner has indicated his intention to amend this guidance. It is therefore as a gesture of goodwill to you, our customer, and in the light of this proposed change that we enclose copies of our pre May 2004 statements as you requested although we take a different view to the Information Commissioner's Office on whether these fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" as set out in the Act.

 

This information we have enclosed relating to this account is all that we hold.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Thompson (Mrs)

Customer Accounts Manager

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Worked out the took £282 in charges. So will have my prelim typed up and sent out tomorrow.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Hi peeps. Just got a letter of Barclaycard from my prelim letter. Not overly happy with there response. Tell me what you think please.

 

3 April 2007

Dear Bizarre.Moogle

I write further to your recent letter, your correspondence has been passed to me in order that I may investigate and respond in my capacity as Customer Relationship Manager.

 

With regards to your request for a refund of charges I am sorry you feel the charges you have incurred are unfair. We believe that our charges are both fair and transparent, and we make them clear in our Terms and Conditions, and on the reverse of every monthlystatement. These charges are avoidable by staying within your limit and making your monthly payment on time.

 

In your correspondance you have outlined case law which you say supports your view. As I am sure you will appreciate Barclaycard is aware of all the information you have drawn to our attention. I must inform you however, that we diasgree with your legal analysis.

 

However, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability Barclaycard is prepared to credit to your account the difference between the charges you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. In accordance with the charges incurred this would amount to £102.00. As the above Barclaycard account is now closed, please contact this office on the above telephone number with your bank details to enable us to process this refund to you.

 

I hope this now clarifie the situation. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet your expectations you may ultimately be eligible to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details of this service are on available on request.

 

If I have not from you within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, I will close my file in accordance with our usual practice.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Carol Jones

Customer Relationship Manager

As you can see this isn't even half the charges back, rough calcs make it to be around 36% back.

 

As far as I'm concerned is that the OFT have and will quote from her letter "recommended" that the fee be no bigger than £12, but if memory serves me correctly (and maybe someone can point me in the right direction) the OFT still feel this £12 fee to still be too high.

 

Opinions anyone?

[gizitbak]

Hi Bizarre.Moogle

 

Take a look here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/70359-about-oft-not-so.html

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Thanks gizitbak. Kinda what I was thinking. I have a certain % in mind that I will accept as a minimum, but 36% is taking the p*ss a little too much.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Just dug these out of the OFT report. Thinking of sending my LBA with some of these in. Again comments welcomed.

The statement released by the OFT in April 2006 does state the following,

“1.1 This statement sets out the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) view of the principles credit card issuers should follow in setting default charges in their standard contracts with consumers in order to meet the test of fairness set out in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs). The principles have far wider implications for analogous standard default terms in other agreements including those for mortgages, current bank accounts and storecards.”

 

“1.9 Our presumption will be that credit card default charges set above this level [1.8 … The threshold is £12.] are unfair unless there are exceptional factors…”

 

“1.10 Where we conclude hat a fee above the threshold is unfair we are likely to challenge the charge but will have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether to do so or not. We will regard default charges set below the threshold as either not unfair or insufficiently detrimental to the economic interests of consumers in all the circumstances to warrant regulatory intervention at this time. The does not affect in any way the statutory rights of individual consumers, or groups of such consumers, to challenge the level of the default charges, either above or below this threshold”

 

“1.11 The setting of the threshold is a provisional practical measure to move the whole market towards compliance. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold. Our position is that default fees need to be recalibrated in line with the principles set out in this statement to achieve consistency with the UTCCRs…”

 

“1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims.”

 

“3.3 Schedule 2 to the UTCCRs illustrates possible respects in which a term may be unfair to the consumer by means of a “grey list” of possible kinds of unfairness. Of particular relevance to the default charges is paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2, specifying terms that have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”

 

“3.9 So far as a failure to pay or a failure to honour payment are concerned, in general a party to a contract who fails to pay an amount of money due to the other side is not usually liable to pay any damages to the creditor except such interest as may be payable by statue or agreement. The presumption is that in the ordinary course of things a person does not suffer any other loss by reason of the late payment of money.”

 

 

 

The part I like is the last one, saying that the OFT feel that interest alone should be enough of a charge rather than having a default fee on.

[sortingitout]

Received today my statements from Barclaycard also a letter with it as well and will type it below.

 

Dear Bizarre.Moogle

 

BAARCLAYCARD CUSTOMER SERVICES

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

 

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

Further to your recent request for personal information held by Barclaycard, please find enclosed a copy of the card statements you have requested.

 

Statements held prior to May 2004 are stored on microfilm which is a means of storage that does not fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the Act") nor within the bounds of what we are obliged to provide in response to your data subject access request as set out in the Information Commissioner's Office website at ICO – Information Commissioner's Office

 

The Information Commissioner has indicated his intention to amend this guidance. It is therefore as a gesture of goodwill to you, our customer, and in the light of this proposed change that we enclose copies of our pre May 2004 statements as you requested although we take a different view to the Information Commissioner's Office on whether these fall within the definition of "relevant filing system" as set out in the Act.

 

This information we have enclosed relating to this account is all that we hold.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Thompson (Mrs)

Customer Accounts Manager

 

Get the rest of your statements..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/50148-barclaycard-microfiche-they-wrong.html

[sortingitout]

Following your complaint and others like it we contacted Barclaycard for a detailed explanation of its microfiche system, including how the information in it is stored and retrieved. It was not clear from the response whether or not the system was a relevant filing system; therefore Barclaycard invited me and a number of my colleagues to inspect it and see the system in operation.

 

Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your SAR within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.

 

...

[Bizarre.Moogle]

I have all of statements from Barclaycard. They did include them, either though they think still not a filing system. My concern at the moment is how I go about challanging the offer they have given me.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Hi peeps.

 

I'm going to be sending the following to Barclaycard soon. Using a mixture of two templates. First is the refusal of offer, and then attached will be the LBA.

 

I wont post the template bits, but have included the following.

 

RESPONSE TO SETTLEMENT LETTER

 

Standard Letter To Refusal Of Settlement Offer

 

 

The following is what I have added...

 

In your letter to me, you state the following, “However, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability Barclaycard is prepared to credit to your account the difference between the charges you have incurred and the £12 fee recommended by the OFT. In accordance with the charges incurred this would amount to £xxx.xx. As the above Barclaycard account is now closed, please contact this office on the above telephone number with your bank details to enable us to process this refund to you.”

 

After taking time to read the statement released by the OFT, I would like to draw your attention to the following.

 

“1.11 The setting of the threshold is a provisional practical measure to move the whole market towards compliance. We are not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold. Our position is that default fees need to be recalibrated in line with the principles set out in this statement to achieve consistency with the UTCCRs…”

 

 

“1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims.”

 

“3.9 So far as a failure to pay or a failure to honour payment are concerned, in general a party to a contract who fails to pay an amount of money due to the other side is not usually liable to pay any damages to the creditor except such interest as may be payable by statue or agreement. The presumption is that in the ordinary course of things a person does not suffer any other loss by reason of the late payment of money.”

As you can see and from my interpretation, the OFT feel that the £12 threshold is there to make the market compliant whilst it continues to investigate. Particularly interest of mine is 3.9, which suggests to me that the OFT is stating that any late payment or over credit limit should not incur a charge, as the company will charge interest under the presumption that they do not suffer any other loss as the money would be paid.

 

In the letter that I received from you, you state “We believe that our charges are both fair and transparent, and we make them clear in our Terms and Conditions, and on the reverse of every monthly statement.” When you mean transparent, does this merely imply that they are mentioned in your literature?

 

I feel that you are using the OFT recommendation to limit your liability as this proposal happened after my account was closed and I do not feel this should be applied retrospectively.

 

 

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

Standard LBA Text Here

 

 

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours faithfully,

Bizarre.Moogle

[Bizarre.Moogle]

The above I will be sending out tomorrow. Will let you know what Barclaycard response is.

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Had this today for my issue of rejection of offer and LBA.

 

16th April 2007

 

Dear Bizarre.Moogle

 

I refer to your letter dated 11/04/2007.

 

I note that you are dissatisfied with our offer to refund £102.00 however our position remains that we believe it is fair when custoemrs break the terms of their agreement with us, we recover the costs. Therefore, I am not prepared to consider your request for any further refund.

 

As previously advised, when your Barclaycard account was opened, you signed and agreed to our Terms and Conditions and this included details of our charges. The information provided at application stage clearly explains our obligations to our customers, as well as their obligations to us. If we make any changes to the Terms and Conditions we provide details of these to our customers.

 

I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you expected, however I trust that the information I have provided has clarified Barclaycard's position.

 

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. If my reply does not meet with your expectations you may ultimately be eligble to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details of this service are available on request. If I have not heard from you within 8 weeks from the date of this letter, I will close my complaint file in accordance with our usual practice.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Matthew Tuppen

Customer Relationship Manager

 

Any idea people? Shall I send another rejection letter or now stick to the LBA that was also sent?

[isidore]

Don't see the point in responding. There's nothing to respond to. You've said no, they've said tough. Wait for the LBA to expire and proceed. Right behind ya buddy

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Going to send this tomorrow. See if anything comes from it, doubt it will but again it will show to Barclaycard what I am after and what I am willing to do.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 16th April 2007.

 

 

I must say that I am very disappointed by your negative response and unwillingness to enter into a sincere dialogue with myself.

 

As from my letter dated 11th April 2007 I brought to your attention several points from the OFT statement. You failed to comment on any of these that I mentioned.

 

You state in your letter the following, “… when customers break the terms of their agreement with us, we recover the costs”. The law is very clear that if a customer is penalised for a breach of contract by means of a disproportionate penalty, regardless of how the breach came about, it is unlawful. Banks are allowed to recover the costs but not at an excessive rate. Penalty charges must be calculated to reflect the losses sustained by the banks when a breach has occurred. But nothing more. Contractual terms must be applied in a reasonable and lawful way. Banking contracts must be operated within the law.

 

Again in my previous letter I stated that I do not feel you are able to justify applying the ruling of the OFT retrospectively on an account that was run and closed before this ruling.

 

The OFT has clearly stated that the £12 is not lawful, in fact they stated that only a court can decide. “A fair default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default”.

 

Please can you send me a breakdown of your costs which allows you to charge £12.

 

In my Letter Before Action I gave you 14 days to respond, which you have. This deadline will expire on 3rd May 2007. If at this time I have not heard a positive response from you I will be submitting the following amounts to my local court.

 

£282 in penalty charges, currently £90.37 in 8% interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 that would be applicable if this went to court, court costs of approx £50, fees for sending letters to you at £6.75 per letter and £1 postage per letter (including this will be 4). Currently this would be a total claim of £453.37.

 

Again, I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours faithfully,

Bizarre.Moogle

[isidore]

Was expecting this letter too.....and I got it today

 

Going to see what opinion it gets on my thread (if any) and will let you know if I get a response.

[aronski]

I would go for it. Even be prepared to go to the small claims court.

 

I was told on the phone today from a member of staff from barclaycard customer services that barclaycard will not disclose what the £12 charges cover for reasons of confidentiality.

 

This is why they don't want to go to court - they don't want to reveal this confidential information.

 

I suppose that in the small claims court through the help of the judge you would be able to establish the real term cost of late payments etc

 

This, in reality, is what is fair.

[isidore]

The member of staff is not entirely correct.

 

By law, any financial company can only charge you for their costs. They won't disclose what the £12 charges cover because THEY DON'T COVER ANYTHING. If they were to disclose what the charges honestly cover (and let's face it without being forced to do so, it will never happen), they would immediately have to reduce their charges to EQUAL their costs. So if they could only find £3s worth of costs, the charge would immediately have to be reduced from £12 (having already been reduced from £20) to £3. That's a hell of a lot of money to lose! This is the reason why they don't want to go to court.

 

There are no confidentiality reasons....just financial ones!!!

[Bizarre.Moogle]

Just had a response from my letter. Do Barclaycard actually read what we send them? From the letter I got today, I don't think so.

 

24-04-07

Dear Bizarre.Moogle

 

Thank you for your letter 20th April 2007.

 

I have noted your comments. However, I can only reiterate our response as outlined in our letter dated 16th April 2007.

 

Please be advised that Barclaycard does not provide customers with lists of charges on request. The charges that have been applied to your account are set out on your monthly statements for the relevant period.

 

The Data Protection Act provides you with the right to a copy of your own personal data. However, before the data can be made available to you, a fee of £10 is required. The information will then be sent to you within 40-day legal time-scale, subject to us receiving the fee. Please make cheques payable to Barclays Bank PLC, and send to the Data Protection Team, Barclaycard, Dept LRC, Northampton, NN4 7SG.

 

I am sorry if this is not the answer you wanted, but I trust I have clarified Barclaycards position. If you would like to talk about this further please call me on the above number. I will; keep your complaint file open for 8 weeks so you have time to consider my response. If I have not heard from you by then, I will regard your complaint as closed.

 

Yours sincerely

Carol Jones

Customer Relationship Manager

Like I said, not even responding to what I said. Breakdown of costs? How that if not a positive response then from 03-05-07 would submit claim via the courts.

 

Looks like this one will be going the distance and wasting more of Barclaycards money.