-
Hi I was declined avios barclaycard because said I had held barclaycard within last 6 months. I did have another barclaycard card within last 6 months but cancelled within 14 day cooling off period because the card didn’t actually arrive for when I needed to use it. Does this really count towards having a card within 6 months even though it was cancelled in cooling off period and the card never used?
This is a subject I have worked on in some detail. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to write out a detailed reply, so I’ll skip some nuance. You should write to Barclaycard on this basis:
– You wish to appeal your recent decline
– You withdrew from your previous credit agreement by exercising your right to withdraw under Section 66A of the Consumer Credit Act
– S66A (7a) requires that the withdrawn agreement ‘shall be treated as if it had never been entered into’
– By declining you for having a Barclaycard in the past six months, they are treating the agreement as if it had been entered into and therefore acting unlawfullyWhy would it not count?
The fact you closed it in the cooling off period is irrelevant- you were still in possession of an account and card.
Why would it not count?
The fact you closed it in the cooling off period is irrelevant- you were still in possession of an account and card.
Because @aseftel is relying on governing statute, so Barclays literally has no choice and must obey.
Why would it not count?
The fact you closed it in the cooling off period is irrelevant- you were still in possession of an account and card.
Because @aseftel is relying on governing statute, so Barclays literally has no choice and must obey.
Must obey what? They still don’t have to give you a card; that decision is entirely in the gift of Barclays. The fact they may have given an erroneous reason for the decline doesn’t necessarily assist you.
Quite the opposite. We might be under Barclays’ mercy if some other reasons were given, but since the given reason is unlawful, it gave you a cause of action. Barclays therefore have to correct their original decision, otherwise they have to explain their decision-making process to the ombudsman.
Hypothetically, they can still reject your application with another reason, but since the new reason was not given in the first place, arguably it might also deemed unreasonable and therefore unlawful (there should be some statutory provision or case law on this point).
Quite the opposite. We might be under Barclays’ mercy if some other reasons were given, but since the given reason is unlawful, it gave you a cause of action. Barclays therefore have to correct their original decision, otherwise they have to explain their decision-making process to the ombudsman.
Hypothetically, they can still reject your application with another reason, but since the new reason was not given in the first place, arguably it might also deemed unreasonable and therefore unlawful (there should be some statutory provision or case law on this point).
The reason for rejection was not unlawful! The six month rule is a matter of Barclays policy and they made a mistake in the application thereof. If someone were to take this to the FOS, what would be the measure of compensation? £0. Barclays is under no obligation to “correct their original decision”. The way they seem to look at this is that they check whether you have had a card, and if you did, the process stops there so they don’t check your overall application but if you ticked ‘no’ at the beginning then maybe they did only spot the old application later so you have a credit search on file.
In any event, if you still want the card, going in so aggressively with unjustified allegations of unlawful conduct and threatening to go to the FOS is hardly likely to encourage them to give you a card which they can refuse again for a whole host of generic reasons.
I think a very polite letter saying that you were disappointed by the decline based on apparently holding a card applied for on xx date but cancelled within the 14 day period owing to certain issues at that time as it was your understanding that in the event of a card being cancelled in the cooling off period, that credit agreement/contract is void ab initio such that the correct position is that you have not held any Barclaycard in the last six months. I think this is much more likely to yield a positive outcome. Be aware however, that whatever the precise technical argument is, it may not cut any ice with them as you did in a practical sense have a card. The six month rule isn’t apparently a hard rule, but they do say it is at least six months.
- This reply was modified 55 years, 4 months ago by .
Why would it not count?
The fact you closed it in the cooling off period is irrelevant- you were still in possession of an account and card.
Because @aseftel is relying on governing statute, so Barclays literally has no choice and must obey.
No they don’t.
Whether you cancel in the 14 day period is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t mean you’re treated as a new customer. You’d still be treated as a returning customer.Otherwise everyone would be taking out new customer offers, cancelling in the 14 day period then take it out again and repeat.
– S66A (7a) requires that the withdrawn agreement ‘shall be treated as if it had never been entered into’
That’s not the same as voiding the initial application though.
Sorry that I cannot figure out how to quote…
As you said, Barclays made a mistake, then they are obliged to correct it. Their decision is not necessarily unlawful, but it is certainly unreasonable. The unlawful part is that they have treated it as if there was an agreement (I don’t think the point here is whether there was a card, rather whether there was a contract between the parties). The reason is therefore unlawful and they made their decision on the basis of this unlawful reason. I don’t know any relevant regulations, but FOS say that ‘we have a duty to resolve complaints based on what we think is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case’, then Barclay’s decisions have to be reasonable. A decision made on the basis of a mistake is unreasonable.
In terms of damages, you are probably right, it is £0, but you are not claiming for damages. The remedy sought here is indeed to ask Barclays to reconsider the application. Then the question would be whether it is reasonable for Barclays to reject the application again on the basis of a new reason which was not given in the first place. I would say, no.
Of course, you can always ask nicely.
@aseftel and @rrcz are right. The fact is Barclays have given an unlawful reason and the statute says this. If they try and turn around now and change to a different reason this won’t work.
We’re not all after compensation so that point does not seem relevant. We’d just like things to be done fairly.
And understanding the law, is one thing. How you go about getting the outcome you want, with that knowledge, is another. But politely incorporating the advice given by @aseftel in a response to Barclays should definitely do some good, as now that Barclays have been caught making a decision ln a legally incorrect way, they might find it wise to reconsider in this case. And possibly to update their decisionmaking processes as well.
Quite the opposite. We might be under Barclays’ mercy if some other reasons were given, but since the given reason is unlawful, it gave you a cause of action. Barclays therefore have to correct their original decision, otherwise they have to explain their decision-making process to the ombudsman.
Hypothetically, they can still reject your application with another reason, but since the new reason was not given in the first place, arguably it might also deemed unreasonable and therefore unlawful (there should be some statutory provision or case law on this point).
You have mentioned the Financial Ombudsman twice – are you suggesting that the FOS could actually consider such a case? I think they would precluded from considering it unless the OP is a customer (and the whole point is that they are not) and in any event the FOS can’t consider credit decisions. This whole ‘unlawful’ thing seems barking.
– S66A (7a) requires that the withdrawn agreement ‘shall be treated as if it had never been entered into’
That’s not the same as voiding the initial application though.
Quite. The point of that clause under the Consumer Credit Act is to allow you to withdraw from the credit agreement without penalty. You still applied for the card, and BC is under no obligation to offer its products to anyone. I don’t think trying to force them to change their mind in this way is likely to get you anywhere.
As JDB suggests you can try to explain the circumstances and ask them to reconsider. Bear in mind though that the fact you applied for the previous card for a specific short-term purpose and exercised your right to walk away when it didn’t work out doesn’t exactly sell you as the kind of longer term prospect they’re probably looking for.
You may be better off waiting it out and trying again, especially if you’re some way into the six month period.
Barclays have not made a mistake.
It’s quite shocking here some of the advice being given that is completely wrong and will send people completely round the block for no reason and yielding no results.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
