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

Never thought that i would find my self saying this, but I used to be a man


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5024 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

but CONGRATULATIONS ZIMBABWE!!!!!!!!

 

It is always nice to see the Aussies beaten!!!:D:D:D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

and bugger it all, guess who we are playing tomorrow :p

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that it did stick in my craw a bit, but it was worth it for the look on the aussies faces - priceless, and of course the excuses started when Australia had lost 3 wickets !!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest louis wu

The look on Punters face was priceless.....although I thought the smile was going to be wiped off my face when someone mentioned Duckworth-Lewis:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and then we go and beat them today - the arch crims tomorrow, hopefully, with the shambles that they look at the moment, we will royally stuff them, I dont care about winning the 20/20 world championship as long as we stuff the aussies lol

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a dream last night, that we beat the Aussies at Cricket and then stuffed South Africa in the Rugby !!!!

 

( another note to self.....Stop eating cheese before you go to bed :D )

Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh.

 

Its about cricket :-(

 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep and although we lost Collingwood was a master strategist in deciding to have a bat first - that way, there was no way that they could thump us and land us with a NRR lower than Zims, and i hadnt even thought of that - bloody genius!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that there has been a blatant abuse of power again!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Where?

 

Now, come on if you're going to discuss such boring subjects, somebody has to spice it up a bit to avoid people falling asleep.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

more intrest in a big steroid hewoman from the russian shot throwin compitition

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
Balls and stumps oh and players red stains umpires leg before!!! and other strange sayings
Indeed. The whole thing is quite bizarre.

 

For anybody who doesn't know what cricket's all about, let me explain. (Although I don't really know myself, this is just what I have grasped from the bits I have managed to see before falling asleep...)

 

Cricket as a game is not what I would call 'an exciting spectacle'. Come to think of it, there is literally nothing in life that I would call 'an exciting spectacle', as this is a phrase that I have never used, and will never use.

 

Although having said that, in the fourteen seconds it took me to think of the phrase and type it, I have come to feel rather fond of it. Perhaps I should start using it.

 

On the minus side, I've noticed that I've become quite prone to italicising words to place stress on them (if you don't know what italicising means, I'm afraid I can't help you, because you are eyewateringly stupid). I don't agree with excessive italicising as I think it is sloppy. Therefore, from now on, the deal is: more exciting spectacles, less italics.

 

Anyway, cricket. In my opinion, cricket is not an exciting spectacle. Not as exciting as, say, watching a retired chiropodist driving a motorcycle and sidecar on a Wall of Death, with a leopard in the sidecar, in Leatherhead, Surrey.

 

No sirree.

 

You'll have gathered, if you have read this far - and apologies if you have, this really is going absolutely nowhere interesting - that the voluntary watching of cricket is one of the many phenomena in this carnival of insanity we call 'life' that I find baffling. That there are people presently existing on our planet, sentient people, who would choose to watch a game of cricket being played, keeps me awake at night, disturbs me (though perhaps not as much as the fact that I am writing this, right here, right now).

 

It's not just the watching of the cricket though. There is also the phenomenon of 'going to watch the cricket' in a live setting. I find it mind-bogglingly, full-on eppy mental crazy that people would pay to go to "the Oval" or "the Triangle" (or whatever the other places are called) to watch a game of cricket being played. Not only that, but the fact that they would utilise a portion of the energy reserves available to them to move one leg in front of the other in a manner that carried them, either entirely on foot or via some other means of transport, such as a motor vehicle, or an omnibus, or a train, or even a bicycle, but I digress, to the aforementioned temple of cricket.

 

I haven't even mentioned yet the fact that said persons travelling to said temple of cricket to watch said sport probably thought, when they awoke the morning of their visit to the cricket, about what they might wear there. They actually used up precious moments of life thinking "will the slacks be uncomfortable or should I go for the jumbo cords?"

 

What's more, they possibly spent a good part of the day - while they were at work, or maybe while tending to their offspring (not in a dodgy sense, you understand) thinking about the cricket-based revelries to come. Actually cricket matches seem to be played during the day, so perhaps in these situations they look forward to the cricket-based revelries to come whilst actually watching them. This is how wormholes form in the fabric of time, according to my Readers Digest Book of Made-up and Briefly Amusing Absurdities.

 

Why do they do it? For anyone who doesn't know what cricket is, here is a definition (just realised that's what I said I was going to explain, so here goes I'll finally do it): two men (women are forbidden by law from playing cricket by the Women and Cricket Act, 1981) stand in a field with a load of other men standing around watching them. One stands in front of some whittled down planks, whilst holding another plank in his hand which has been whittled down but not quite as much as the ones behind him. The man without the planks has to throw a ball at the planks behind the other man, whilst he tries to hit the ball back at him with his plank. Then somebody thought that was a little boring so for some unkown reason when the ball is hit by the plank the man runs around the field for a while, whilst the other men on the field go and look for the ball. The man who runs the most wins a game (called a Crick). Whoever wins the most Cricks wins the entire Match and has to shout "I AM CRICKET" to seal the victory. Ridiculous.

 

What other sporting event would require spectators to travel to a place that is named after a geometrical form, then sit in rigid silence, without even the possibility of being allowed out to enjoy a snack or a chat with a friend, for up to seventeen hours? Pro-celebrity ludo? Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not, as this does not exist. Yet.

 

Ok, as Americans often start their sentences, so it's theory time.

 

Next time you happen to catch cricket on the television, take a good look at the crowd. I mean, a really good look. In fact, a gooooood look. Their blank stares. Their beige cardigans. Their palpable approval of tinned 'travel' sweets dusted in icing sugar. Their attention, focused - uncannilly, wordlessly, even psychically - on the same thing. What does this all mean? Let's take a look at the evidence.

Dead-eyed crowd

Beige cardigans

Geometrically-themed venue

'Umpire' and 'players'

13 men in the field

Green field

Weird trousers

Cricket ball

You might want to sit down before reading my conclusions. Comfy? Westside.

 

Dead-eyed crowd - Chosen ones preparing for the final reckoning

Beige cardigans - Symbolically also worn by Four Horsemen of Apocalypse

Geometrically-themed venue - Actually just a fad

Green field - Obviously represents Garden of Eden

13 players - Can it be coincidence that there were 13 people at the last supper? Is there a hitherto-unbeknown cricket reference in Da Vinci's famous painting? No. Of course there's not.

'Umpire' and 'Players' - Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Weird trousers - Extra pockets handy for storing valuables while soul ascends to Heaven

Cricket ball - Represents purity of the soul

 

 

What I'm trying to tell you is that, when you watch a cricket game on television, you are witnessing that most exciting of spectacles, the actual fulfilment of the prophesy of Revelations from the bible - ie the end of the world. The ultimate battle between good and evil.

 

 

Just thought you should know.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fly_glasses.jpg

 

Seen it all, worked at Trent Bride House which overlooks cricket ground of said name, when big sides got there it was like parking got took over and had to pay even though worked there, work, well sad gits watched for free from office windows, us proper workers got interupted by resounding cheers or other explitives when every ball got bowled (that ws a hard one to type)

Take it it's not cricket for one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For anybody who doesn't know what cricket's all about, let me explain. (Although I don't really know myself, this is just what I have grasped from the bits I have managed to see before falling asleep...)

 

There are two sides, one side out in the field and the other side inside.

Two of the men that are inside go out because they are in and when one of them is out he comes inside and another man goes in until he's out. When a man goes outside to go in, the men who are already outside try to get him out, and when he is out he comes inside and the next man in the side inside goes outside because he’s in. When all of the men (except one of course), who are in the team that is in are out everybody comes inside and the side that's been in goes outside and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out and, if they feel like it, they come inside and then the other side which was inside is in and has to go out.

 

There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. These two men are appropriately dressed in white coats and wear several hats and jumpers. They have pebbles in their pockets.

 

When all the men in each side have been in and are all out, they go in and do it all again until they are all out again. Finally, when the sides have been in and all out twice, both sides come inside, that is the end of the game and one side wins. This doesn’t happen very often.

 

Sometimes, if one of the sides is not out because their men are still in and the other side has scored more, it’s a draw. This should not be confused with a tie, which is not the same thing.

 

Another reason why neither side wins is that, unlike all other team field sports, if it rains, nothing happens. Sometimes, nothing happens for five days, in which case both teams wear sunglasses, play cards, look through the windows and then go home.

 

Armed with this information, Barracad, you will now be able to fully appreciate the game of cricket and enjoy the cut and thrust of England’s premier summer sport.

 

Next week: Fielding Positions

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites
Armed with this information, Barracad, you will now be able to fully appreciate the game of cricket and enjoy the cut and thrust of England’s premier summer sport.

 

That's basically what I said, except you missed out the tinned travel sweets and beige cardigans.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...