Barclays say retirees time only worth £10 per hour....

[Dog]

In November I transferred £5,000 from Barclays to my CA account by cheque.

A month later CA phoned to say Barclays had bounced the cheque and I was overdrawn.

I was perturbed - I phoned barclays Barclays and they said my signature was 'wrong'.

I demanded they transferred the money immediately - CA asked for a fax from Barclays to confirm the money was being transferred immediately.

Barclays told me they "Don't do faxes" - I suggested that they start right now!

They relented and sent one.

When the money went through the exchange rate had changed and the money was worth £251.62 less.

On a trip to UK I visited the bank and asked why the cheque had been bounced.

The rather over qualified assistant showed me the recently computerised signatures for the mandate - it would seem the person (tied to a radiator in Mumbai)  that scanned my wife and my signatures had uploaded my wifes signature twice and her signature was now mine as far as the bank was concerned.

So I wrote and complained and demanded they apologise to CA refund my loss on the exchange and I charged them seven hours time at £75 per hour - a considerable saving on what I would have charged when working.

The Customer Complaints Adviser asked me to ring him. When I rang the number it was a call centre they didn't know his name and wouldn't talk further as I couldn't tell them what I had spent on a debit card - as I had never used it. I

I was only ringing to say I wanted to correspond by letter.

Finally today I got a letter saying they are writing to CA to apologise - they have credited me with £251.62 for the exchange rate and deposited £70 in my account for my time as the Financial Ombudsmans guidlines say I should complain in my own time??? and that they suggest they pay me no more than £10 per hour.

I am not sure whether that means they have contacted the Ombudsman or just the guidlines.

He will not get away with such a measly offer - I will refuse such a pifling amount.

Meanwhile I will contact CA to make sure the letter of apology arrives and is suitably grovelling.

I will also contact the Customer Complaints Adviser to see if he responded in his own time or the banks - I guess the later as he used BB stationery.

 

[Chancer]

Well done to you, I reckon that you have already done relatively well so far but why not keep up the pressure.

Right now I would be delighted to get £10 for my time responding to the cock ups and inefficiency of others, in fact if I could make a backdated claim of only 10p per hour I would have more than enough to cover a big celebration party so for me what you have already gained is neither measly or piffling but I know where you are coming from.

[Will]

You are lucky. We had a similar experience a few weeks ago with Lloyds TSB bouncing a perfectly valid cheque for a similarly substantial amount that we had paid into an account with another bank (a UK bank in this case). The signature was used as an excuse on that occasion too. The receiving bank gives a scanned copy of cheques paid in automatically, fortunately, which proved that the signature was perfectly clear and valid.

Lloyds, however, offers precisely zero in terms of recompense for inconvenience, time, phone calls, postage and fax from France, interest charged etc.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people working very hard in France who would love to be thought worth £10 - or even 10€ - per hour.

[Dog]

Thanks for your messages.

I am only to happy to let people that want to work for £10 or less per hour to do so.

By charging more I am releasing lots of opportunities for these people.

I have contacted the Financial Ombudsman as I cannot find their guidlines on the amount to be paid per hour online.

What's amusing is that I have just made a kite in the shape of the Barclays eagle logo and I was going to ask them for sponsorship to fly it at big events.

If they don't reach agreement with me I shall fly it with an anti-message at some big events!

[Gluestick]

Just for reference, last year I had cause to formally lodge complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service, concerning Barclays Bank plc.

I won: after Barclays had devoutly refused to remove an adverse credit reference from the credit reference agencies: I had already gained whole recompense for unfair charges and interest charges, directly from Barclays.

Once agreement had been reached, I sent the Ombudsman a professional cost sheet for my lower professional scale of charges which totalled some £475: I received £96!

I was not desperate for the money: it was purely a point of principle.

Since Barclays stupid action had caused one credit card to downgrade my available credit (My credit Rating is unimpaired), from many thousands to just £3,500, I could have taken action through the County Court: unfortunately, Courts only allow loss of time in rare trials and invariably insist on applying the core dictum, "Strict Proof of Loss".

What a great shame the banks and credit card lenders are not tasked by the same tenet of law when charging customers for taking their accounts into microscopic debit!

[:@]

[dragonrouge]

The legal position is that the loss must flow directly from the action (causation). I had a problem some three weeks ago and I too charged my hourly rate and which is the rate that I charge my services at. I was offered just £75 no movement from the bank. Then I simply went on line through the Courts Service and issued a CC summons and I picked a rather obscure address for the bank so that it would get lost in the system. It did and I then applied for judgment the bank squealed and appealed no luck I am afraid and the District Judge found in my favour. I had my money

[Wilko]

Love that D/rouge........well done. Could you explain further

"I picked a rather obscure address for the bank so that it would get lost in the system."

Rgds Wilko

[Araucaria]

Dog

I wish you the very best of luck. And maybe it might be best to get your retaliation in first and try dragonrouge's county court method.

A more obvious example of bank incompetence would be hard to find.

However one point makes me curious. Do you just take a sterling cheque drawn on your (UK?) bank down to CA and pay it in, with them fixing the exchange rate? If so, do you get a good exchange rate without massive charges? I'd not thought of trying that myself: I wasn't sure whether CA would know what to do with sterling.

But please keep us informeed of the results.

[Will]

In our experience you get quite a decent exchange rate, but the French bank makes a charge that amounts to about £25 (including tax). So it's not a bad system for paying in a reasonably large sum but useless for smaller-value cheques. I personally prefer to use inter-bank transfers.

[Dog]

[quote user="dragonrouge"]The legal position is that the loss must flow directly from the action (causation). I had a problem some three weeks ago and I too charged my hourly rate and which is the rate that I charge my services at. I was offered just £75 no movement from the bank. Then I simply went on line through the Courts Service and issued a CC summons and I picked a rather obscure address for the bank so that it would get lost in the system. It did and I then applied for judgment the bank squealed and appealed no luck I am afraid and the District Judge found in my favour. I had my money[/quote]

I have done this before and also applied to be heard miles away from their head office so it is expensive for them to appear.

You did well because in 3 out of four times the defendents were given another chance - one three times - or they didn't pay and appealed/applied for it to be struck out.

[Dog]

[quote user="Araucaria"]Dog
I wish you the very best of luck. And maybe it might be best to get your retaliation in first and try dragonrouge's county court method.
A more obvious example of bank incompetence would be hard to find.
However one point makes me curious. Do you just take a sterling cheque drawn on your (UK?) bank down to CA and pay it in, with them fixing the exchange rate? If so, do you get a good exchange rate without massive charges? I'd not thought of trying that myself: I wasn't sure whether CA would know what to do with sterling.
But please keep us informeed of the results.
[/quote]

I just write a cheque and send it to CA Britline.

I don't remember the exact charges right now but it is reasonable and sometimes they do it for no fee - though I suspect they tweak exchange rate.

I have been messed around by banks big time previously and if they use their weight and size to force me into a corner I have usually found a way to get them back...lol.. they suddenly once decided I had to put my house up against my companies overdraft - I had always refused - but it was the last recession and times were against me.

They sent me the forms and I didn't sign and return them and they kept reminding me - after six months they got shirty so I said OK I'll sign 'em and bring 'em down to you right now.

So I signed it Mickey Mouse and took it down and met a lowly jobsworth who on being told what it was took it straight of to be filed. They had it for over 15 years and never noticed. 

Don't give them a chance...

[AnOther]

Not defending the banks and three cheers for anybody who can score a point against them but since when did retired mean earning anything per hour ?

As fanciful as the idea is time itself has no intrinsic value and you cannot expect to be compensated for something you have not lost or a cost you did not incur.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="AnOther"]Not defending the banks and three cheers for anybody who can score a point against them but since when did retired mean earning anything per hour ?

As fanciful as the idea is time itself has no intrinsic value and you cannot expect to be compensated for something you have not lost or a cost you did not incur.

[/quote]

Absolutely correct and on point.

And, back to the tenet "Strict Proof of Loss": in an injury claim I fought following an RTA, years ago, the defendant's solicitors demanded my desk diaries, appointments list, fee cost files and annual accounts, under the Discovery (Now Disclosure) protocols, which were then handed to PwC's Forensic team, for analysis of the "Loss of Earnings" part of my claim. No doubt PwC's fees were far more than the non-injury aspects of the whole claim!

You can only "Lose" what you have; not what you do not. Loss, therefore, of productive paid time, must be proven: not assumed.

Also remember that  a core aspect of the Small Claims Regime is that no costs may be claimed by either party, win or lose, excepting in truly unique and very rare circumstances, other than the Claim Fee for preparation of the "Pleadings" and limited legal fees for so doing.

 

[dragonrouge]

Yes of course years ago it was really held that t any paperwork should be served on a limited company at its registered office so say Lloyds Gresham Street London Barclays Lombard Street and the like.

Not any longer so I picked up this trick initially through my banking career! and then my career in the law. You pick an address of the bank say I do not know say Llandudno or wherever or a service centre which is better and sometimes in fairness they do pick it up but sometimes they do not.

Therefore by the time they get around to it the clock is ticking. When I said three weeks in my earlier posting I meant six weeks for it takes about 28 days to get judgment.

The cost was nothing in reality so I got what I wanted and some fun in so doing.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="dragonrouge"]Yes of course years ago it was really held that t any paperwork should be served on a limited company at its registered office so say Lloyds Gresham Street London Barclays Lombard Street and the like.[/quote]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part06.htm#IDARII5B

Civil Procedure Rules. Part Six.

6. Company registered in England and Wales

Principal office of the company; or

any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction which has a real connection with the claim.

Also, consider the implications of the 2006 Companies Act which came into force, finally October 2009.

I would suggest, dragonrouge, you were rather fortunate: I would have defended any claim by firstly filing for any judgement to be Set Aside, paying the claimed sum into Court: and then fighting the substance: even after you had obtained Summary Judgement on the grounds that the claim had not been defended and/or counter-claimed.

Since the OFT case was lost (Unfair Bank Charges), banks have girded their loins and tend to fight even smaller claims: whereas before, they would cave in and settle purely on a Cost-Benefit basis rather a matter of what was right and supportable in law.

Under the current protocols for Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions flowing therefrom, filing a claim in say Abergaveny against a defendant whose registered office was London, on a matter where the branch office was in say Mugstown would normally be treated as vexatious.

Further to the suggestion offered by Dog, the actual Court selected by the Judge handling the matter, will be one that is convenient to both parties if private parties: and one nearest to the claimant or defendant if the, respectively, Claimant or Defendant is a person and the opposing side is a company.

However and that said, a judge may well use their absolute power to determine a vexatious litigant who has employed an arcane address must attend Pre-Trial Reviews and etc in that location!

Comes under the current Case Management Regime post the Wolff Reform Access to Justice et al.

Use Small Claims Court and Money Claims Online by all means: but don't think for a minute  that "Losses" and "Expenses" scribbled on the back of a fag packet or serviette will have any integrity when examined.

 

[Dog]

[quote user="AnOther"]Not defending the banks and three cheers for anybody who can score a point against them but since when did retired mean earning anything per hour ?

As fanciful as the idea is time itself has no intrinsic value and you cannot expect to be compensated for something you have not lost or a cost you did not incur.

[/quote]

You have lost something - time - and all I did was value my time, just as you would value the loss of a limb for instance in a different sort of claim.

BB must think my time is worth something even if they only value it at a paltry £10 an hour.

The Ombudsman hasn't got back to me yet.....

[dragonrouge]

Dear Dog I have no wish whatsoever to discuss your previous banking relationship or the need to put up your house. However a point of law if your house was indeed in joint names? Interesting I think but thats me.

Have a look at Barclays Bank v O'Brien it is a Court of Appeal case 1985 and I did some work on another CA judgment later on in the raft of cases that followed the initial judgment. It deals with undue influence and the need to protect say a wife where the house is jointly owned and the need for her to receive totally independent advice especially where she was not a Director of a Company owned by her husband or a shareholder and where she received no benefit from depositing essentially the deeds of the house and where later the bank exercised or tried to exercise its security. Obviously that did not happen in your case in any event. But the Banks are now on warning and it was one of the first cases that I became involved in.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Dog"]

You have lost something - time - and all I did was value my time, just as you would value the loss of a limb for instance in a different sort of claim.

BB must think my time is worth something even if they only value it at a paltry £10 an hour.

The Ombudsman hasn't got back to me yet.....

[/quote]

When Quantum is under dispute, then each separate component of a claim is valued according to actual real loss; personal injury is very different, since what is valued in these cases is (i) Loss of Amenity: (ii) And Pain and Suffering.

Now a claimant may very well suffer attendant losses in other ways: for example, he is unable to work in his garden for a finite period and has to pay someone else to do it for him. If he can prove (That word again) he was compelled to pay a third party to do essential works he would normally discharge and that he was wholly unable to do such work himself as a direct result of his injury then he would normally succeed.

Any other "Consequential" losses which may flow from the core matter, must then be actually valued: if you are retired, then your income continues without interruption: if you work for yourself, for example and are incapacitated for a period, this is far different: that said, you are still bound to prove such alleged loss. A man may well say, "I charge £100/hour!".

Now the key point is how many hours does he actually proveably earn £100/hour, on average? It may well be (And invariably is!) that the man would rather like to earn £100/hour: but in point of fact is fortunate to gross £50!

Simply jotting down the theoretical hours lost is wholly meaningless: defendants will test actuality against theory by demanding accounting records which would either support such an assertion: or indicate it was pie in the sky!

 

[dragonrouge]

Sorry disagree Gluestick simply a good advocate. I have done it three times and I do not intend to argue the point but there is recent case law on the point at issue. Both CA and what was then the House of Law both of which dealt with delays and the test of which you are obviously aware reasonableness.

If you go into a M and S store and you will see a sign saying where documents should be served so you are on notice.

However I still say if no sign you are not on notice thus serve wherever.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="dragonrouge"]Sorry disagree Gluestick simply a good advocate. I have done it three times and I do not intend to argue the point but there is recent case law on the point at issue. Both CA and what was then the House of Law both of which dealt with delays and the test of which you are obviously aware reasonableness. If you go into a M and S store and you will see a sign saying where documents should be served so you are on notice. However I still say if no sign you are not on notice thus serve wherever.[/quote]

In which case, one might suggest you should urgently advise Jack Straw where and how his department is in error...........

 

[dragonrouge]

Why should I in that my Grandfather was one of the original founder members of the Labour Party. I have no relationship with the present organisation that suggest it represents the concept of Labour values.

This one-time card carrying member is no longer.

See the DLA concept with typifies what I am saying.

Again and with respect Jack Straw is a failed Barrister and behind that comment I stand firm. See his history see his appearance before the Iraq enquiry. The guy beggars belief.

Also Gluestick if you were to research you will find that more MP's let us say go one to become a QC than other practitioners as in Jack Straw as in Michael Howard who had more Judicial Reviews against him than any other Home Secretary.

[Gluestick]

I quite agree.

As no fan of politicians in general and NuLab in particular, ideologues such as Jack the Lad Straw have tried their best to destroy the essential balance of English law.

I also concur that far too many failed barristers became and become politicians: you could add, of course, Thatcher, and Mellor, Clarke, Hamilton and Harman and Blair to name some of the more odious specimens.

No doubt the subtle attractions of getting one's snout deeply into the public trough hold more promise than struggling past pupillage to gain eminence in an already overcrowded profession.

Rather confusing, however, as many have taken silk prior to becoming MPs...................

 

 

[NormanH]

This is a sad thread which reveals the difficulties people (often male) who  previously had jobs which fed their egos have in coping with retirement.

A retired person's time is worth nothing, and there is no status. That was left behind.

Get over it and get on with your life.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="NormanH"]This is a sad thread which reveals the difficulties people (often male) who  previously had jobs which fed their egos have in coping with retirement.

A retired person's time is worth nothing, and there is no status. That was left behind.
Get over it and get on with your life.
[/quote]

Glad to see your usual assumptions are surviving intact, Norm.

I fear some basic Freudian elements colour your objectivity.

 

[Dog]

[quote user="NormanH"]This is a sad thread which reveals the difficulties people (often male) who  previously had jobs which fed their egos have in coping with retirement.

A retired person's time is worth nothing, and there is no status. That was left behind.
Get over it and get on with your life.
[/quote]

Highly amusing - my retirement time is worth something and my status is now higher than it has ever been I am now the housework overseer and head beer drinker.

For the first time in my life I know what I am doing.

If I had an ego you are welcome to it. (Sounds like the name of a small Japanese eco car).

A retired persons time should be worth more as there is less time still available and experience is at its greatest.

Having typed that - when I was young I thought young people should be paid more as they were more atheletic and worked harder and needed the money to buy a house and set up a home etc. Older people had all the stuff and yet got paid more.