Is it legal for Barclays to force me to bank with them because i work for them?

fialko

I have an account elsewhere i am more than happy with (and get interest) but Barclays will not let me have my salary paid into that account! I have to wait for my salary to be paid into an account i dont want then transfer it to my own account every month.

They say this is policy for all new staff members going back around 2 or 3 yrs now.

This does also mean staff who have worked for them longer than this dont have to bank with them so surely this would come under the equality and diversity policy anyway

Thanks for any advice

anna42hmr

barclays are no way on their own in this. most if not all banks have this ruling, i worked for an insurance company owned by a bank, and it was also a term placed on us as well, and dad use to work for lloyds tsb before he retired and they had to have staff accounts for many years. i know for rbs/natwest (who own the ins co i work for) they enforced on all new staff members in clauses in contracts, and existing staff when new contracts get issued - ie promotions, change of work role/hours etc) at one point they tried to enforce all staff but think they hit a brick wall with the unions.



you may want to use the method that several colleagues use, that you get paid into the staff account and have all your direct debits/standing orders/bills on that account, you leave only what covers those charges and then transfer the rest to the existing account for general speniding (ie if you earn £1500, bills etc come to £800, you leave the £800 in account 1, and then transfer the remaining £700 into account 2 for general spending)

or if you have dd's etc on the existing account and dont want to transfer to barclays you can do the reverse, you can have salary into barclays (account 1) work out all your direct debits/bills etc to come out of your existing account (account 2) transfer that money out of account 1 into account 2 and live off the rest of the money)

ie £1500 salary is paid into account 1 (barlays) The bills etc are £800, so transfer the £800 to account 2 and then live off the rest.


i do a form of this and is great for budgeting as you know exactly what has or hasnt come out of one account and what money is left that is yours to spend as this is in a seperate account

opinions4u

fialko wrote: »

I have an account elsewhere i am more than happy with (and get interest) but Barclays will not let me have my salary paid into that account! I have to wait for my salary to be paid into an account i dont want then transfer it to my own account every month.

They say this is policy for all new staff members going back around 2 or 3 yrs now.

Perfectly legal.

This does also mean staff who have worked for them longer than this dont have to bank with them so surely this would come under the equality and diversity policy anyway

Policy and law are two different things.

Just set up a standing order for pay day to fund your main account elsewhere and make sure there's enough time for it to get there from your Barclays account ahead of the bills going out.

hippey

Barclays had that policy when I worked for them over 8 years ago! And you end up on refer stream 90 as well! So back then any overdrafts and loans when through the staff loans unit, but they were cheap!


You can set standing orders up to leave on 'Barclays staff payday' that way you money will be in and out same day and on it's way to you other account.

Organic12

I'm in the same position as OP. I use faster payments to send my entire salary each month to my favoured account. I've never had any problems.

While it may be policy, I will not be forced by my employer into using their bank account for anything more than receiving my salary. I have an offset account with my favoured bank, so every penny helps.

As my employer puts me to this inconvenience, I insist on taking a short walk to the nearest branch to get the transaction completed every month, in their time, not mine (ie lunch "hour"). If the queue is long, tough. I've had no negative comments only supportive ones, it's a shame most people are too scared to do likewise.

oxenryd

Organic12 wrote: »

I'm in the same position as OP. I use faster payments to send my entire salary each month to my favoured account. I've never had any problems.

While it may be policy, I will not be forced by my employer into using their bank account for anything more than receiving my salary. I have an offset account with my favoured bank, so every penny helps.

As my employer puts me to this inconvenience, I insist on taking a short walk to the nearest branch to get the transaction completed every month, in their time, not mine (ie lunch "hour"). If the queue is long, tough. I've had no negative comments only supportive ones, it's a shame most people are too scared to do likewise.

I have a friend who also does this every month. Having your salary paid in to an account does not mean you have to use for anything other than that.

chambta

I certainly keep a separate account for things I don't want my employer to know about.

I was once refused a refinance loan (reducing my debt actually) as there were gambling transactions on my account.

adamc260

I used to work for a bank who had the same policy

Starrystarrynight

When I started working for Nat West, we had to open accounts with them, and weren't even allowed to have salaries paid into joint accounts, even those with NWB, the money had to go into a sole account.

Valli

well look at it from a potential customer's point of view. If you work for Barclays but wouldn't bank with them and yet you are selling Barclays products to a customer but admit to banking elsewhere it would be off-putting to the customer which will be, I assume, the reasoning behind the ruling. Barclays would not want potential customers to think that their products are not good enough for their staff.
(hope that makes sense)
Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily want to be tied to the products and services of a bank if I worked there, so I'd go with the two accounts system.

Organic12

Valli wrote: »

well look at it from a potential customer's point of view. If you work for Barclays but wouldn't bank with them and yet you are selling Barclays products to a customer but admit to banking elsewhere it would be off-putting to the customer which will be, I assume, the reasoning behind the ruling. Barclays would not want potential customers to think that their products are not good enough for their staff.
(hope that makes sense)
Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily want to be tied to the products and services of a bank if I worked there, so I'd go with the two accounts system.

A very valid point. What I don't understand is why banks apply this policy to employees who neither work on the retail part nor are customer facing.