Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!


22nd October, 2017. Updated 14th December, 2017. Written and published by Helen Gavaghan

During a witnessed exchange on 13th October, 2017 with a London-based Barclays' executive complaints' team manager I refused a non-specific apology, because that apology made no effort to put right what Barclays has done wrong. There are no words to express how wrong and abusive is the action by Barclays against my accounts, demonstrably and provably in perfect good standing for 11 years in every way -- I have all the records.

The trouble began when on 16th August this bank {To be clear I mean Barclays Bank PLC} wrote letters closing accounts consistently in perfect good standing. Accounts run by a woman - me - in good standing. Their action was sector ignorant, business ineptitude, needless and second rate. That act, and their manner of dealing with their own rank bad faith toward a customer in good standing, who had good will toward them - me - was the action of a bovver boy, belly kicking in steel-capped boots.

Banking is not about how much money the customer has. It is about faithfuilly looking after and accounting for the money with which that customer entrusts the banker. It is about knowing the customer, and not who you think the customer is.

I went to the FSO, and have refused FSO findings as nothing but rubber stamping in the face of abuse by Barclays. The FSO has told me this means that the FSO findings are not legally binding. Good.

Barclays Bank Plc does not deserve to have made the billion-plus profit it reported this quarter, especially since it has: given me incorrrect interest rate info; only acknowledged on my fourth call that I was telling them that AmEx, TSB and NatWest were telling me I was a victim of ID theft (Barclays paid proper recompense for that error and others); missed transactions off my accounts; told me the British pound is not sterling, and were quite abusive in trying to make me accept the British pound is not sterling; shown no understanding of limitations and dangers of Pingit in a world of international banking, trade and mobile telecoms; and left it to me to draw to their attention an incorrect currency conversion. I had thought all these disputes and others had been solved amicably. Seemingly not. I posit their abusive closure of my accounts in consistent good standing may be an attempt: to influence a civil judicial process I have instigated, and/or is an effort to prevent annulment of a bankruptcy order, something for which on the grounds of full repayment with Court determined interest I could petition a Court for, because my discharge from bankruptcy is without restriction orders or undertaking against me. I have kept 11 years of banking in good standing, so that Barclays' inexcusable abuse of my accounts cannot derail repayment to other banks. I further am quite certain that apportioning overheads within a single sole tradership is entirely legitimate, and consider there are a lot of half wits who seek to make evidence to suite some Pendle witch hunting, ill-educated idiocy of their own.

Or Barclays could be seeking to undermine an effort to prevent my legal exploration of whether had PPI paid out when in 2005 I made a claim and sought to make a claim (I have since received recompense for PPI missold to me by banks other than Barclays, and that was paid by me and the Official Receiver into my estate in bankruptcy) bankruptcy could have been avoided. Do the PPI sellers have partial liability? In my case medical abuse and misdiagnosis in 2004 followed by five-plus months consequential debilitation and inability to earn in the first half of 2005 was the main, but not sole, cause of the bankruptcy in 2006. I was, and am, self employed, and the self employed do not get sick pay.

I have now made alternate personal and business banking arrangements. Two months and more of business productivity destroyed by Barclays, because I could not blithely carry on as if their abusive truly vicious bad faith letters had not been sent. Their timing could not have been worse, and if they did not know that, they have no right offering business banking services.

The two letters sent by Barclays were a random piece of ignorant and unprovoked vandalism.

Additionally I wish it to be known I at no time downloaded to my computer the Kaspersky internet security software Barclays made available to their business customers. And that was because both Barclays and BT, as well as Uncle Tom Cobley and all were offering free internet security, and had zero idea about why I needed to know just what each was offering and needed me to use, or why, or gave any thought to software conflicts. Let me put it this way:
Uncle Tom Cobley and All