I've had an ongoing complaint with barclaycard that I wondered whether any members had a view on.
My cashback card was originally with Morgan Stanley. Cashback was paid by cheque on the card anniversary. As I used this for about 40k of work expenses per year, this should have been a nice tax free bonus coming up to christmas.
A short time after Morgan Stanley got swallowed by Barclaycard the terms were changed so that cashback got taken off the card balance on a monthly basis. Rather than me getting a tax free sum my company just got the saving instead. Rather annoying.
In my complaint I said that I understood the change in terms, but did not see how this could be retro-actively applied to purchases that I had already made. In essence they are trying to change the terms that applied at the time of transaction after the event.
I've just had quite a final letter from them explaining how much better the new system is for THEM and how by removing the choice of settlement method gives their customers "more flexibility" (not quite sure how that works!).
What do people think? I suppose I should just let this drop now, although the option does exist to go to the ombudsman.
Has no-one else had issues with this then, or have any advice?
aww poor you, having 40K plus for expenses, ex-public school boy are we, Considering you are able to charge upto 40K (maybe even more,) assumign cashback was at 2% (surprised if it was more than this) then thats 800 right?
Would it be that hard to upgrade your room suite buy extra drinks for buddies etc to make up the 800, cab fares etc.
Its not really a big deal now is it.
yes for the 95% of customers they have, i.e retail customers its cost effective for them to have the cashback paid to the card, also means less interest (if carrying a balance) potentially for the customer as the cashback reduces the balance rather than them being temped to fritter away the cheque back, responsible lending and all that,
Wow - a reply as rude as it is poorly thought out. Nicely done.
40k in expenses has little to do with my earnings actually, which are not far removed from the national average. My job just requires that I spend out a lot in order to earn and it certainly isn't on things like hotel rooms, more usually fuel, couriers, telecoms and other really exciting things like that. I can only assume that from your concept of expenses you are a lot less honest with them than I am.
Not quite sure how it affects UK contract law, but my school was hardly the public school you are picturing either. In fact before today I generally thought it was quite a poor school. However it obviously equipped me with far more in the way of both common sense and manners than yours did, so maybe it wasn't that bad.
Just in case someone more intelligent comes along (not setting a high bar here!), I am well aware that the change in the way cashback is being paid benefits the card issuer. My point was really whether it was right/legal for them to change the way it had been dealt with for historic transactions.
Come on man i was only jostling with you:money:
You can see how one might interpret 40K as a rather large expense account but i guess you dont really see much of it in the way most people might think, me personally it wouldn't bother me too much and i'd find a way to squeeze out the money from my employer, thats if the pay rise route or looking for a similar job elsewhere with better pay didn't work out.
First i've heard about one ever paying out by cheque anyway, maybe use a different card and convert to airmiles fuel vouchers etc, shell do one of these i think.
Well, I always love a good dig back at someone - so no harm :)
I'll probably just let it go. Shame - would have been very helpful money at the moment, but it probably just isn't worth the effort. We're changing the way we're handling a lot of the expenses anyway, so it was only really relevant to the historic stuff.
Just felt a bit "done-over" by them and the smug reply from customer services didn't help much.
I think the change was expressed in terms of cashback paid to you after a certain date.
You could have asked for a cheque from MS just before then so as to minimise your 'losses'. (or maybe you did)
As you say, I doubt if it's worth pursuing. It probably does suit the majority of their customers
I have the same card
When they switched they paid up the amount to date (on the second statement)
So I didnt lose anything
I would have thought that B'card changed your terms and conditions when they took over MS cards, and they do refund cashback monthly on thier cards anyway.
One thing to note as well, it can been deemed that making money from your expenses in this way is an income, and can fall within the remit of PAYE. Many companies do ignore this, but more and more are catching on...... just one to be aware of......:rolleyes:
