Hsbc dormant account

UKNOV

Well thats not the point here. I have adhered to what i was expected to do and that is remain within my limit.

PARIS_5000

UKNOV wrote: »

Well thats not the point here. I have adhered to what i was expected to do and that is remain within my limit.

I understand that you were within your agreed limit but HSBC also expect you to pay money into your account every month.

oldwiring

Setting aside the question of the rights and wrongs of HSBC's actions, ISTM that if you have an overdraft, even below its limit, you need consider what the minimum overdraft has been in the last few months before the latter was issued. If the bank does not see the facility fluctuating well, they will consider the borrowing is hardcare, and funds at risk.

I am not assuming that is the OP's position, but anyone's it is ought to make an appointment asap.

UKNOV

If the bank are concerned about lack of credits, would it not be appropriate to write to me? If they intend to mark me down as a so called "late payer" surely giving me some warning first might be in order?

oldwiring

On that as a 73 yo who retired at 51 from banking I do feel standards have gone down the pan. In the old days there would have been a letter or a phone call.

DVardysShadow

PARIS_5000 wrote: »

I understand that you were within your agreed limit but HSBC also expect you to pay money into your account every month.

Goodness me, no wonder the banks get away with bullying people and trashing their credit records for no good reason, when ordinary people come out cheerleading for the bank. It looks to me like the OP has failed to fulfil an overdraft condition which the bank failed to tell him about.

jonesMUFCforever

His credit record has not been 'trashed' - they have put on there a late marker as he did not pay into the account for 5 weeks.

In my day this would have been flagged up as high risk and possibly an account to look at in case the holder did a runner.

If the credit file has been truly trashed because of just this one entry then it was not very good to begin with!

UKNOV

I never said my rating was trashed! In these times any excuse for a lender to decline is all they need, so i wanted to check my file before i made a new application for a remortgage. Other than this my file is A1. This is more a matter of principle than anything else. Why should a bank be able to possibly effect my credit worthiness with unaccurate information.

UKNOV

An overdraft is supposed to be a flexible way of borrowing money, and as such i do not see anywhere in any terms and conditions (have checked my other bank as well) something that says if no credits are made in a 35 day period when you are overdrawn, we the bank will put a negative marker on your credit file. Its nuts....

DVardysShadow

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

His credit record has not been 'trashed' - they have put on there a late marker as he did not pay into the account for 5 weeks.

In my day this would have been flagged up as high risk and possibly an account to look at in case the holder did a runner.

This may be OK for a bank to do internally, but to publish the information externally, devoid of the context that there is no actual requirement to pay anything IS trashing someone's credit record.

If the credit file has been truly trashed because of just this one entry then it was not very good to begin with!

Trashing arises from minor tittle tattle, which this matter is in truth, being overzealously interpreted. The problem is not how the credit record was to start with, it is that tittle tattle can be put on it and other banks can then apply 'computer says no' rules.