I'm too good with money and have no credit history / Halifax just refused me !!

jalexa

opinions4u wrote: »

Don't forget that a debit card can be used recklessly regardless of authorised overdraft availability.

Indeed, but I think the poster asserts that their credit file provides no grounds for an assumption (and that is what you are suggesting) of "reckless conduct"

lanstrom

I made it quite clear to her that I was neither interested or wanted an overdraft. I have NEVER been overdrawn in my whole 39 year old life.

I firmly believe in saving up for something and then buying it when I have enough money, although now I realise that this has been my undoing !

She did say I can post 3 statements to them by post but quite frankly I can't be doing with all that. They will have £50,000 of my money and if that's not good enough to secure my accounts then I don't know what will be ... I mean what's the maximum overdraft they would give ? ... £250 ?!

Thrugelmir

MacMickster wrote: »

Given that Lloyds group are one of the banks in which the taxpayer has a significant stake, I would then write to my MP about this. Financial exclusion is a problem for many in this country. When the banks try to exclude someone with your means and attitude to finances from the system then it demonstrates how flawed their processes are.

The issue has been rumbling on since 2009.

An extract from the FT in April. There are bigger issues at stake than a single current account. More a board policy.

Six weeks into the top job at Lloyds Banking Group, Ant!nio Horta-Os!rio has had his first big wake-up call on the pressures of running a state-backed bank.

After making his number one priority the forced sale of 600 branches – a condition of the state aid Lloyds received before his arrival as chief executive – the Portuguese executive discovered early on Monday that he might have to rip up his plans and start again.

In arguably the most radical of the measures put forward in the hope of strengthening banks and making them more competitive, the Independent Commission on Banking recommended that Lloyds’ divestment be “substantially enhanced”.

The logic, according to Sir John Vickers, who chairs the commission, was that the 4.6 per cent share of UK current accounts that Lloyds was ordered to sell in 2009 would not be large enough to create a viable new competitor.

The commission is keen to push up the share of current accounts Lloyds must sell to 7-8 per cent, according to a person familiar with its thinking – a move likely to increase the total number of branches it must sell to about 900. This would give a new entrant more weight in the market.

The commission’s proposal prompted an angry outburst from the usually mild-mannered Mr Horta-Os!rio, who claimed there was no evidence to support the view that a buyer would need more market share, or that Lloyds’ dominant position in current accounts was disadvantageous for consumers.

The European Union-mandated sale would already reduce the bank’s share of current accounts from 30 to 25 per cent.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1066e52-6790-11e0-9138-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ThQ2MEuJ

rb10

lanstrom wrote: »

They will have £50,000 of my money and if that's not good enough to secure my accounts then I don't know what will be ...

That's the key bit ... their computer cannot possibly know that you intend to put £50k in Halifax accounts - they have no way of knowing that you have this money.

But if you send them the statements ... then a person will look at it individually, rather than the computer, and they'll be able to see your savings.

Or, try again fir the current account once the money is in Halifax, and again they'll be able to see that you have that money.

opinions4u

jalexa wrote: »

Indeed, but I think the poster asserts that their credit file provides no grounds for an assumption (and that is what you are suggesting) of "reckless conduct"

The OP asserts that their credit file provides no grounds for any sort of assumption positive or negative.

Give the bank something to hang their hat on, or why should they take on somebody else's risk?

MacMickster wrote: »

OP. If a company does not want my business then I wouldn't waste any time trying to change their minds. Instead I would take my business elsewhere.

A quite fair and reasonable response.

Given that Lloyds group are one of the banks in which the taxpayer has a significant stake, I would then write to my MP about this.

What a complete waste of time that would be. If an MP wishes to protect the taxpayer's invesment in Lloyds Banking Group (s)he certainly won't be insisting that they start accepting every application for a current account.

Financial exclusion is a problem for many in this country.

The OP is not financially excluded. All but a handful can access some sort of banking or saving facility with a major bank.

When the banks try to exclude someone with your means and attitude to finances from the system then it demonstrates how flawed their processes are.

Just because somebody has savings doesn't mean that they have a prudent or sensible approach to their current account or other credit facilities.

The OP is most likely a paragon of virtue when it comes to operating his finances. It certainly sounds like it. But credit scoring systems make much better decisions than bank managers. And they will certainly make better decisions than a random poster on a messageboard or n MP who isn't even capable of submitting a reasonable claim for expenses.

lanstrom

Well the manager of the branch was supposed to phone me today to talk to me about the situation and let me know if she could resolve the matter but guess what ?! Yup ... No phone call !

I wouldn't bother closing the accounts I opened but that will probably make my credit score worse.

Going to look for a fixed rate ISA deal now.