Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

[Enforcer]

I complained to Office of Fair Trading regarding Barclaycards terms and conditions.
In particular section 16.3 where they state that "we may use money in your other Barclays accounts to pay us."

Now this is contained in a document that is standard to ALL Barclaycard account holders, and yet it only applies to a small minority, who actually have a current account with Barclays Bank PLC.

The reply from OFT is. Thank you for your letter regarding your complaint about Barclaycard's Terms and Conditions. As I understand from your letter you believe the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should take action against Barclaycard as their current terms and conditions discriminates against a small minority of their customers.

By way of background the primary duties of the OFT include the enforcement of competition law, and the application of consumer protection legislation in respect of matters that adversely affect the collective interest of consumers. However, the OFT has no power to intervene in individual disputes or seek redress on behalf of consumers, and therefore we are unable to assist you directly in this matter.

You may wish to contact the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA is an independent and non-governmental body given statutory powers to regulate most financial services markets, exchanges and firms. It can be contacted at the address below:

Unfair Contract Terms Team
The Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

Please note that the FSA do not have the power under the Regulations to intervene in your individual dispute but you can ask the
Financial Ombudsman Service to adjudicate if the company was unable to resolve matters to your satisfaction directly.
Their address is:

Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London E14 9SR
Tel: 0845 080 1800
Website: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

What do the members of this site make of this?
Comments please.
Can Niddy get this onto Google?

[oscar]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Make of what exactly??

The right of offset, or the response you recieved?

The right of offset is standard and doesnt just apply to barclays - other institutions will have the same condition for their customers and their bank accounts.

As for the response, thats a pretty standard response to an individual as well.

[Enforcer]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

As I see it, this term is included in the standard terms & conditions of Barclaycard. However it only applies to a small number of customers who also happen to have Barclays Bank accounts. It must therefore be an unfair term, as it does not apply to Barclaycard customers.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

How does it? It's a clause saying -

"we may use money in your other Barclays accounts to pay us."

Which is a standard right of setoff wording used by most (if not all) banks.

It's nothing to do with unfair, current a/c customers etc.

I don't see what the issue is.... Can you spell it out cos like Oscar, I'm failing to see you argument here

It's not unfair if Customer A calls into HBOS and gets a bank account then applies to Barclays for a credit card whilst Customer B stuck with Barclays for both their bank and card and which thus provided and allowed future usage of ROSO.

That's just unlucky for customer B.

Bit like someone having banking and borrowing with ANY bank. The bank can (and do) offset.

[mgfboy]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Can some one clarify something for me on the right of offset, can a bank offset a personal credit card debt against a joint account. I've read some info of the FOS site and it seems a little woolly????

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Yes only if you're the main account holder.

The queries arise for example when you're named on a child's account or similar. In such situations they cannot touch that account but with a normal joint one they can. Sure.

So you are a director of a limited company; they couldn't touch your business account either (assuming it was a business account in company name with you as named user)...

[mgfboy]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Yes only if you're the main account holder.

The queries arise for example when you're named on a child's account or similar. In such situations they cannot touch that account but with a normal joint one they can. Sure.

Thats worst than ever then, so in effect that make a person with a joint account personally liable for any debt there partner get with that bank even if they have no knowledge of the debt being obtained, that has got to be wrong!!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Not at all mate. Just don't have any bank accounts with a bank you're in debt to.

It's not wrong lol. It's more "stupidity" on the debtors behalf surely, why would anyone want to credit a bank with cash when you know you owe them on another account? Lol

If you are a sole account holder in debt and also have a joint account with a partner or spouse then they CAN utilise the funds in your joint a/c to fund any debt made on your sole account.

[mgfboy]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Not at all mate. Just don't have any bank accounts with a bank you're in debt to.

It's not wrong lol. It's more "stupidity" on the debtors behalf surely, why would anyone want to credit a bank with cash when you know you owe them on another account? Lol

If you are a sole account holder in debt and also have a joint account with a partner or spouse then they CAN utilise the funds in your joint a/c to fund any debt made on your sole account.

Niddy mate it's not stupidity , these days if your credit history is fucked you can't just jump around from bank to bank, your know this!!!!

Also I thought same name ,same rights apply.

Just found this on the FOS site , it make quite interesting reading

40/1
transfer from joint account to pay debt on sole loan account

Mr G, an elderly widower, needed help with his financial affairs. He decided to make his daughter, Mrs B, a joint account holder on his current account. In that way, she could pay bills for him. It would also be easier for her to tie up his affairs after he died.
Some time later, Mrs B took out a personal loan with the same firm. Her father was quite unaware that she had difficulties paying the monthly instalments, and that the firm eventually called in the loan. Because Mrs B was unable to repay the money, the firm transferred funds into her loan account from the joint account she held with her father.
When she discovered what had happened, Mrs B was extremely upset because it meant that she had to tell her father about her financial problems. This was not only an embarrassment for her – it became a serious worry for her father.
When she complained, the firm defended its actions, telling her that the terms and conditions of the joint account allowed it to transfer the funds from the joint account. Unhappy with this, Mrs B then brought her complaint to us.
complaint upheld
The edition of the terms and conditions that the firm referred to was the most recent version. It had been issued some years after Mr G had opened his current account – after Mrs B had become a joint account holder and after Mrs B had taken out the loan.
Mrs B did not recall seeing the leaflet containing the updated terms and conditions. However, she accepted that she might well have received a copy as part of a regular mailing from the firm – probably with her monthly statement.
We noted from the latest version of the terms and conditions that there was a term allowing the firm to take money from the joint account to pay debts owed solely by Mr G or by Mrs B, as well as to pay debts owed by them jointly. However, we thought that this was such a radical departure from the normal position that it was an "‘unusual" term. It was also an " onerous" term, because its effect was to make Mr G liable for Mrs B’s debts.
A firm can only rely on terms that are "unusual" and "onerous" if they have been brought fairly to the customer’s attention. The Banking Code says that customers must be given personal notice of any terms that are to their disadvantage. We did not think it enough for a firm simply to include the revised edition of the account terms when it sent out routine statements to its customers, which is what had happened here.
We also thought that the term was "unfair" within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This was because it created a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, to the detriment of customers. Specifically, it had the effect of making Mr G a guarantor of Mrs B’s debts – but without giving him the information that a guarantor should usually be given.
We told the firm to transfer the money back to the joint account – leaving it to find other ways of recovering the money that Mrs B still owed.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Couple of examples in FOS case studies

Most recent - issue 84 -recent banking complaints involving 'set off'

Older version - issue 40 - banking: firms' right of

As you'll see in the older version above there's more relevant examples to your question but it is still very vague although the FOS will usually find in favour of the bank in such cases.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Mate I've just linked to that but notice my earlier post - I clearly said spouse/partner.

In this case it was his daughter hence he was not liable to pay so they could not use ROSO. Had it been his wife, he'd have had lost the appeal.

I'm not being funny. I'm just answering your question in the knowledge you ain't liking what I'm saying but I'm not going to say what you want to hear. That's not me.

Sorry mate. In your case if you have a joint bank account with the mrs and you had a sole debt with the same bank then they MAY utilise RoSO. Fact.

[mgfboy]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Mate I've just linked to that but notice my earlier post - I clearly said spouse/partner.

In this case it was his daughter hence he was not liable to pay so they could not use ROSO. Had it been his wife, he'd have had lost the appeal.

I'm not being funny. I'm just answering your question in the knowledge you ain't liking what I'm saying but I'm not going to say what you want to hear. That's not me.

Sorry mate. In your case if you have a joint bank account with the mrs and you had a sole debt with the same bank then they MAY utilise RoSO. Fact.

Fair enough Mate, you should know I would rather get it right, I'm not interested in what make me happy if it's wrong. I still think it's wrong though mate and I would have thought you would agree with me in this, or perhaps for once your on the side of the banks

I'll just have to make sure all my accounts are overdrawn all the time

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Lol not likely - I hate banks!!

What I agree with doesn't really matter but for the record I think it's crap that they can nip into other accounts and I've always argued that. BUT for the same respect I wasn't asked what I thought of the rules. The post was asking a question which I answered based on my personal experiences and knowledge of the system.

The fact is the banks are using RoSO incorrectly on numerous methods and flaws but unless people complain it never gets dealt with. The examples above are a couple of probably thousands.

Point is; try and not use a joint account. If anything take your name off it. The a/c name doesn't really matter nowadays does it.

[mgfboy]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

Lol not likely - I hate banks!!

What I agree with doesn't really matter but for the record I think it's crap that they can nip into other accounts and I've always argued that. BUT for the same respect I wasn't asked what I thought of the rules. The post was asking a question which I answered based on my personal experiences and knowledge of the system.

The fact is the banks are using RoSO incorrectly on numerous methods and flaws but unless people complain it never gets dealt with. The examples above are a couple of probably thousands.

Point is; try and not use a joint account. If anything take your name off it. The a/c name doesn't really matter nowadays does it.

And there was me thinking you where going soft, your right though i didn't ask for views just the facts

[Enforcer]

Re: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) Barclaycard (the Company)

I can remember reading case law where the Judge stated that an individual cannot complain about Unfair terms of contract. I know that is in case law section, anyone know where to find it please.