Duty of Care, while negotiating

As per the FCA findings, Barclays did not fullfil it's duty of care in many of the cases under review. In our case for the last 10+ years it's been near impossible to make any head way into negotiations, this has always taken 2 distinct paths.

The first has always been a vailed threat from Barclays, it's part of the statement... "your case has been referred to barclays legal, if any actions need to be taken any costs incurred will be added to the overall debt!" This is simple threat as the numbers in question get big really quick... Our debt (this mystical amount that was invented by Barclays when without warning they closed my account siezed or otherwise lost my money)

it started as an anomaly and the question was can you please give me my account back and give me access to my money. In a matter of weeks the total debt was nearly 100K

As the victim in this, it's very hard to understand what is going on. In my case it was made worse as the medical tests I was undergoing, the confusing injuries and the brain injury all had taken a toll on me. I doubt I was able to think my way around the problem for the first 3 years, I was also stuck in a compensation claim that took up most of my time.

Looking back now, I'm sure Barclays used this to further strengthen it's grip and tried to reduce my ability to regain control. This raises a few questions are these actions ethical and legal.

All businesses are geared up to make profit, however should the work be Ethical, in Barclays case this is questionable at best. Why? well how did we arrive at the debt, it was invented in a instance by Barclays after I told them what had happened to me. It could be seen as opertunistic on their part. As we have a vulnerable person, a property worth well in the excess of a million pounds and a way to leverage the victim out of the position.

Is this ethical? I doubt it. Is this a fair way to treat a client? I doubt it. Is this a reasonable way to behave after being told all the facts in the matter...? I very much doubt it!

The more stressed you are in this matter the happier Barclays are, the levels of stress involved will keep you from asking the simple questions. Having to go over and over the same matter. shifts the focus from the original complaint to complaints about complaints. It makes the victim forget what the real issue was, allows the bank to claim to have answered the complaint and close the matter.

When in reality nothing has been resolved, the victim has been sent in a massive circle and has not found out the fundamental question.

What happened

Why did it happen

Who aurthorised this action

What basis was used to test the actions criteria

How does it affect both parties

This would be a fair assumption, based on Barclays actually responding to any letters written, however in my case they've never responded, so my next complaint was about not hearing back and slowly over time we've moved away from the initial complaint to a new set of complaints the answers to which do not in anyway get us any further towards a resolution. It's as if the banks wants to draw this process out to strengthen it's grip and force compliance.