We've noticed that you might need to use your overdraft . . .

[stevensfo]

Funny. I have exactly the opposite experience.

I would not open an account with Barclays even if the CEO licked my boots and offered to feed our dog for a year. He would no doubt claim the wear and tear on his tongue as expenses and embezzle half of our dog's biscuits!

I don't understand your comments about Monzo being 'woke'. They're a pretty good online bank with an easy app and friendly customer service.

I hate Revolut's habit of freezing accounts until they receive a certain ID document or similar, but I understand how paranoid they are about being seen as 'squeaky clean' and the stupid attacks they used to receive from the press, no doubt encouraged by the big banks. Their app is amazing. Cheap exchange rates and able to hold and spend different currencies on the same card, good security features, ability to switch contactless on/off etc. No wonder the big banks are annoyed! Giving clients such powers is just so...courageous, as Sir Humphrey would say.

My favourite is Smile, part of Co-Op. Never a single problem after nearly 30 years. No regular salary going in, but the same overdraft as ever.

I get a shiver down my spine, just remembering when I banked with Barclays.

Steve

I've never had any problems with Barclays (except for when I used Barclays Stockbrokers years ago, but soon dumped them).

As for Monzo, there was a big hoo haa a while ago about them slagging off JK Rowling, refusing Jeremy Hunt an account etc etc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... ries-evil/

But the real point is that if you have accounts with several different bank, any issues with one are much less problematic.

As for Monzo, there was a big hoo haa a while ago about them slagging off JK Rowling, refusing Jeremy Hunt an account etc etc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... ries-evil/

If you read that article carefully, it's straight from North Korea!

Or the Daily Express.

All supposition with no real meat. One could write the same report about any organisation and copy paste the comments.

A great piece of Orwellian double think?

Steve

[Gersemi]

Just to finish off this issue, I telephoned Barclays, but they wouldn't budge. They couldn't consider savings apparently, only income from another source. My downfall appeared to be that I hadn't made a deposit every month, one month I put in a double amount and none the next month when I was abroad on holiday. That seemed like a prudent precaution to me! What annoyed me the most was that the party line was that this was all for my benefit, to stop me running up unmanagable debt. I did give myself the satisfaction of saying that I didn't believe that, that it was for their benefit and that I felt it was a shabby way of treating long standing customers. But no doubt that was pointless and the best I can do is move on, as I was unlikely to need the overdraft anyway.

[GeoffF100]

Does Chase have a branch network, or at least give you access to one?

No. You can withdraw cash at an ATM, but there is not way of depositing cash. (Most other digital banks support that via the Post office.)

[dealtn]

Just to finish off this issue, I telephoned Barclays, but they wouldn't budge. They couldn't consider savings apparently, only income from another source. My downfall appeared to be that I hadn't made a deposit every month, one month I put in a double amount and none the next month when I was abroad on holiday. That seemed like a prudent precaution to me! What annoyed me the most was that the party line was that this was all for my benefit, to stop me running up unmanagable debt. I did give myself the satisfaction of saying that I didn't believe that, that it was for their benefit and that I felt it was a shabby way of treating long standing customers. But no doubt that was pointless and the best I can do is move on, as I was unlikely to need the overdraft anyway.

Odd to be so incensed over the withdrawal of something you've never needed in 40 years. Personally I would find other battles to fight and hills to die on.

It's dressed up as being for your benefit, which I don't see the point of. Treating you like an adult and telling the truth would be better - although it's also probable the people you speak to won't know or understand the truth either.

Simply put an undrawn overdraft commitment is a contingent item on the bank's risk register. They will be charged capital against it (rightly) and so it is a "cost" to the business. Unlike a real overdraft, where the account holder would pay interest (and possibly fees), there is no return to the bank to compensate for this risk and capital cost. It's both unprofitable and something they can mitigate by withdrawing the facility. (The alternative is charging accounts for an overdraft facility - which some do).

It seems everyone likes to moan about banks generally, and often their own experiences specifically, yet also want banks to be safe, free from contagion risk across the banking system and economy, and often not make any profits either. That's an unrealistic scenario. UK banks are pretty good, and offer most basic banking services as "free banking" too.

[GeoffF100]

As has been said, capital has to be laid aside to cover the probability that unused overdrafts will be used, with no return for the bank. Nonetheless, banks have been criticised in the past for allowing customers to run up large debts on which they pay high rates of interest. There was a hoo har some years ago about banks unilaterally increasing customers' credit card limits without any affordability checks. It has already been suggested that regulatory action is behind this (a link would be good).

I have had the same bank account for over 30 years and I do not expect that I have ever been profitable. I have never used my overdraft facility and would not be bothered if the bank slashed it or took it away entirely.

[Urbandreamer]

Just to finish off this issue, I telephoned Barclays, but they wouldn't budge. They couldn't consider savings apparently, only income from another source. My downfall appeared to be that I hadn't made a deposit every month, one month I put in a double amount and none the next month when I was abroad on holiday. That seemed like a prudent precaution to me! What annoyed me the most was that the party line was that this was all for my benefit, to stop me running up unmanagable debt. I did give myself the satisfaction of saying that I didn't believe that, that it was for their benefit and that I felt it was a shabby way of treating long standing customers. But no doubt that was pointless and the best I can do is move on, as I was unlikely to need the overdraft anyway.

Odd to be so incensed over the withdrawal of something you've never needed in 40 years. Personally I would find other battles to fight and hills to die on.

It's dressed up as being for your benefit, which I don't see the point of. Treating you like an adult and telling the truth would be better - although it's also probable the people you speak to won't know or understand the truth either.

Simply put an undrawn overdraft commitment is a contingent item on the bank's risk register. They will be charged capital against it (rightly) and so it is a "cost" to the business. Unlike a real overdraft, where the account holder would pay interest (and possibly fees), there is no return to the bank to compensate for this risk and capital cost. It's both unprofitable and something they can mitigate by withdrawing the facility. (The alternative is charging accounts for an overdraft facility - which some do).

It seems everyone likes to moan about banks generally, and often their own experiences specifically, yet also want banks to be safe, free from contagion risk across the banking system and economy, and often not make any profits either. That's an unrealistic scenario. UK banks are pretty good, and offer most basic banking services as "free banking" too.

I suspect that it's a reaction to the Banks stance.

I moved from Barclays very, very many years ago. Over a simple matter that is now common to all banks. They wouldn't cash a cheque that I issued as it was "for cash". At the time such cheques were uncommon, but should have been accepted at the branch where you banked. I also canceled my Barclaycard.
Barclays phoned me explaining that the credit card, despite acting as a cheque guarantee card, was separate from the bank account and wouldn't I like to keep it. NO I didn't. I was incensed with them. The cheque WAS guaranteed by that card, and refused!

I have since calmed down about the issue, but the reaction was not due to what was being denied me, but to the attitude.

As you say, banks offer a pretty good service in general. However if unhappy MOVE! If nobody does, then their service will become less good. If you want branch services, move to a bank that has a local branch. If you want to keep an overdraft facility, move. If they won't pay the likes of Coinbase, and you WANT to pay Coinbase, move banks.

"Free banking" has a different meaning from banking for free, as I suspect dealtn knows.

However a number of "banks" do charge for a different level of service. Santander come to mind as an example. A basic current account does not offer an overdraft and is free. The "Edge up" account has a £5pcm fee, but offers an overdraft facility and 0% FX (not a recommendation for the OP, other restrictions apply).

[GeoffF100]

Here is a rubbishy article on the subject:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/b ... r-AA1f7N8J

[GeoffF100]

However a number of "banks" do charge for a different level of service. Santander come to mind as an example. A basic current account does not offer an overdraft and is free. The "Edge up" account has a £5pcm fee, but offers an overdraft facility and 0% FX (not a recommendation for the OP, other restrictions apply).

Not really. Everyone's usage is different. My 123 Lite account is slightly profitable for me after accounting for loss of interest. The "free" Everyday Saver and the Edge account would both leave me down a small amount of money (about the same in both cases). The Edge Up account would be leave me down rather more.

The more expensive accounts do not appear to benefit from better service. My account is a Select account at no extra charge. I could upgrade to Private Banking by paying the Edge Up monthly fee (they said that I would not have to transfer any investments to them). There do not appear to be any tangible benefits (for me) in doing that. It would just be a sales opportunity for them.

[RockRabbit]

A similar thing happened to me when I cut up my John Lewis credit card after their move to Newday. I already have a card with another bank but wanted an alternative/backup card as well. I applied for a new credit card with a couple of other banks and got rejected, despite a spotless credit history. In the end, I managed to get a 2nd card on my wifes credit card.

Newday are a joke. When they took over running the John Lewis credit card in 2022 they forced me to re-apply for my account. I was rejected despite an unblemished 20 year record and significant expenditure over that time. Then several months later I noticed that JL/Newday were offering significant incentives for new customers to take out their CC. I applied as a new customer and was accepted immediately. This must have cost Newday £100s in client acquisition costs just for me - bonkers.

[GeoffF100]

I expect this has a lot to do with it:

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-relea ... le-changes

Banks can now only charge interest on overdrafts. 10,000% APR for overdrawing by 1p for a day has gone. Keeping £x in your current account to avoid the possibility that you might accidentally overdraw by £x arguably does not make any sense. If you are getting 5% on your money and an overdraft costs 30%, you would have to be overdrawn for on sixth of the year to break even. That should not happen with any reasonable management. Nonetheless, I allow an extra £50 after my direct debits have been paid, to cover the possibility that the technology fails, and I will not will not be able to refund until my next pension payment arrives.

[Gersemi]

Odd to be so incensed over the withdrawal of something you've never needed in 40 years. Personally I would find other battles to fight and hills to die on.

It's dressed up as being for your benefit, which I don't see the point of. Treating you like an adult and telling the truth would be better - although it's also probable the people you speak to won't know or understand the truth either.

Simply put an undrawn overdraft commitment is a contingent item on the bank's risk register. They will be charged capital against it (rightly) and so it is a "cost" to the business. Unlike a real overdraft, where the account holder would pay interest (and possibly fees), there is no return to the bank to compensate for this risk and capital cost. It's both unprofitable and something they can mitigate by withdrawing the facility. (The alternative is charging accounts for an overdraft facility - which some do).

It seems everyone likes to moan about banks generally, and often their own experiences specifically, yet also want banks to be safe, free from contagion risk across the banking system and economy, and often not make any profits either. That's an unrealistic scenario. UK banks are pretty good, and offer most basic banking services as "free banking" too.

Exactly that I think. You might understand if you'd read the letter which was all dressed up as concern about me, how the cost of living crisis might be affecting me blah, blah, blah, but bore no relation to my actual record. If they'd just said that offering the overdraft came at a cost to them, and as I didn't appear to need it they would withdraw unless I contacted them to discuss my needs I'd have probably been OK about it.

Of course there's no point in getting angry with what is a faceless organisation. But I'm human and I do have an emotional reaction to things. I doubt I'm the only one. Thing is I'm also a shareholder in Barclays* - so if they're treating their customers like this it doesn't bode well. But maybe I'm not the sort of customer they care about. (Well probably not, I don't make any money for them beyond what my credit balance earns in the interest they don't pay to me).

*OK, confession, my parents used to work for the bank and my Dad had a lot of share options that I inherited a share of. I guess I'm too emotionally attached to them. This really should be the kick in the backside to cut the cord.

[GeoffF100]

If you are looking for a bank that cares about you, you are in for a long search. If what you really want is a bank that will offer you an overdraft, some banks have eligibility checkers, e.g. Starling:

https://www.starlingbank.com/current-ac ... lity-tool/

Starling only does a soft search if you apply for an account, so it should not affect your credit rating.

[Lootman]

Simply put an undrawn overdraft commitment is a contingent item on the bank's risk register. They will be charged capital against it (rightly) and so it is a "cost" to the business. Unlike a real overdraft, where the account holder would pay interest (and possibly fees), there is no return to the bank to compensate for this risk and capital cost. It's both unprofitable and something they can mitigate by withdrawing the facility. (The alternative is charging accounts for an overdraft facility - which some do).

On the commercial side banks typically charge both ways. So the mere provision of a credit line attracts a "commitment fee", payable even if the credit facility is never used.

Then if/when it is used, there is a "utilisation fee", plus interest of course.

So the banks get you coming and going.

[stevensfo]

If you are looking for a bank that cares about you, you are in for a long search. If what you really want is a bank that will offer you an overdraft, some banks have eligibility checkers, e.g. Starling:

https://www.starlingbank.com/current-ac ... lity-tool/

Starling only does a soft search if you apply for an account, so it should not affect your credit rating.

This idea of a Credit Rating is really starting to p*ss me off!

Ever since the Financial Crisis, the banks have been trying to push all the angst onto their clients. Like Fawlty Towers where he's stealing cash from their luggage every day, then gets caught and promises to tighten up his system. So every visitor gets asked for ID, inside leg measuremant, blood group etc, but he continues to fleece the clients.

Steve

PS Starling is the twin of Monzo. There is very little to choose between them.

PPS I would be far more concerned about the bank's credit rating!!

[GrahamPlatt]

They probably have this on every account, and as it seems a not uncommon issue then there's probably some odd liquidity requirement where they have to have a continency if everyone suddelny used their max overdraft limit at the same time and they're tidying their books up.
Paul

contingency, or incontinency?

[GeoffF100]

This idea of a Credit Rating is really starting to p*ss me off!

Ever since the Financial Crisis, the banks have been trying to push all the angst onto their clients. Like Fawlty Towers where he's stealing cash from their luggage every day, then gets caught and promises to tighten up his system. So every visitor gets asked for ID, inside leg measuremant, blood group etc, but he continues to fleece the clients.

Steve

PS Starling is the twin of Monzo. There is very little to choose between them.

PPS I would be far more concerned about the bank's credit rating!!

Banks are not going to lend money to people unless they are confident that there is a low risk of default. Considering that Santander is paying me to bank with them, I do not have much to complain about. Banks have to ask lots of questions to satisfy the regulator, and satisfy themselves that outgoing payments are not going to fraudsters. If we make banks pay compensation to customers who give their money to fraudsters, there are consequences. There is a big difference between Starling and Monzo:

https://www.starlingbank.com/resources/ ... -payments/
https://monzo.com/help/account-and-prof ... untlimits/

With Monzo, it is clear that I could only make small Faster Payments and debit card payments. With Starling, there is a good chance that I could transfer up to a £million by Faster Payments and perhaps match the £50K that I can pay by debit card with Santander. (Santander says £50K is MasterCard's limit.)

If a bank is not solvent, the BoE does not allow them to operate. Monzo is hoping to make a profit next year. Starling has been profitable for over two years and made a healthy profit last year. Starling looks a lot more promising to me.

[Gilgongo]

I guess banks like to see regular amounts going into an account on a monthly basis, and that is not happening. I am in a similar position to you and just move chunks of cash into my current account as I need to. There is no pattern to that - it is ad hoc.

Interesting - I guessed this might be the case on retirement. I plan to replace the monthly salary from my employer (currently coming into my Santander current account) with the same amount on a standing order from a Lloyds account. This will get an irregular drip-feed from dividends, some manual top-ups from a savings account perhaps, and any sundry earnings I might make. That way, I'm hoping Santander won't notice and I can keep all the perks they give me today.

[stewamax]

"Dear Barclays
I've noticed that, due to your placing unwarranted restrictions on the accounts of long-standing customers, the value of my substantial shareholding in Barclays PLC is at risk. So I am withdrawing it."

[UncleEbenezer]

Basically they have noticed that I no longer have a regular source of income. This is because I have retired and haven't yet started drawing my pension. I am living off my savings and investments and so I am making ad hoc transfers to the account which cover my expenses. The account is being used as it always has been, with various standing orders and purchases throughout the month. The major standing order is to another account (a joint account with another bank) from which household expenses are paid, so they can't see these payments.

I have a somewhat-similar position with Nationwide. No regular income lost me their £100 giveaway earlier this year I don't have a regular income, though I do take an annual payment from the pension each March, designed to minimise lifetime taxation. Nationwide don't like the absence of a monthly income.

But it was not always thus. During my time in Italy (most of the 1990s) my income went into my account with Banca di Roma, but my Nationwide account remained open and got used when I visited Blighty. No problem back then with having no regular income.

As for "might need to use your overdraft", that's just monumentally stupid wording. Perhaps you should be sharing it with comedians and satirists who might send it up?

[GeoffF100]

I guess banks like to see regular amounts going into an account on a monthly basis, and that is not happening. I am in a similar position to you and just move chunks of cash into my current account as I need to. There is no pattern to that - it is ad hoc.

Interesting - I guessed this might be the case on retirement. I plan to replace the monthly salary from my employer (currently coming into my Santander current account) with the same amount on a standing order from a Lloyds account. This will get an irregular drip-feed from dividends, some manual top-ups from a savings account perhaps, and any sundry earnings I might make. That way, I'm hoping Santander won't notice and I can keep all the perks they give me today.

I do not think that Santander is too bothered. I was upgraded to a Select account many years ago (without any intervention by me), despite not having regular £5,000+ payments coming into my account. I was recently offered a Private account without meeting the published criteria. My old 123 Lite is the most favourable account for me, so I am sticking to that.