Annoying - Barclays on line payment. £0.55 not allowed

dzug1

pqrdef wrote: »

And they tried to make out cheques were redundant.

Some banks won't handle cheques for under £1

NFH

The OP has a good point and indeed has cause for complaint.

I've had to make payments below £1 on several occasions, and this restriction can be a major inconvenience. On one occasion, I needed to pay ground rent of 11p for a lease as part of a legal contract. I couldn't do it online, so I went into a Barclays branch and did it as a CHAPS payment. Although the branch could have done a BACS payment, I insisted on CHAPS as a protest against this pointless restriction in online banking. Fortunately I don't pay for CHAPS payments as a Platinum Banking customer.

casper_g

It may sound silly, but as NFH says there are times when you need to make a payment for a few pence. The other day I was closing an account with Nationwide, which only had about 70p in it. I transferred the money to another account online before sending them the (snail mail) form asking for the account to be closed. The alternative was they'd send me a cheque, which would have been annoying as it'd hardly be worthwhile going into the branch to pay in such a small amount, but I'd never want to throw a cheque away!

System

casper_g wrote: »

...
The other day I was closing an account with Nationwide, which only had about 70p in it.

You could have asked the bank to donnate the remaining balance to charity

Lokolo

casper_g wrote: »

It may sound silly, but as NFH says there are times when you need to make a payment for a few pence. The other day I was closing an account with Nationwide, which only had about 70p in it. I transferred the money to another account online before sending them the (snail mail) form asking for the account to be closed. The alternative was they'd send me a cheque, which would have been annoying as it'd hardly be worthwhile going into the branch to pay in such a small amount, but I'd never want to throw a cheque away!

But as already said - what you could do is transfer £1 into the account, then transfer £1.70 out.

Simples!

NFH wrote: »

The OP has a good point and indeed has cause for complaint.

I've had to make payments below £1 on several occasions, and this restriction can be a major inconvenience. On one occasion, I needed to pay ground rent of 11p for a lease as part of a legal contract. I couldn't do it online, so I went into a Barclays branch and did it as a CHAPS payment. Although the branch could have done a BACS payment, I insisted on CHAPS as a protest against this pointless restriction in online banking. Fortunately I don't pay for CHAPS payments as a Platinum Banking customer.

It's not a reason to complain. If it's been said in the T&Cs and they agreed to it - how can they complain about it? It's like me going to a parking area, seeing I can only park for 30 minutes, then get a ticket when I've been there for 45minutes. I knew the rules and I don't like them and I complain when it's your own fault in reality (not the best analogy but I am sure someone can think of one better!).

NFH

Lokolo wrote: »

It's not a reason to complain. If it's been said in the T&Cs and they agreed to it - how can they complain about it?

Where is this £1 minimum stated in the T&Cs? A link would be helpful.

In any case, even if it is in the T&Cs, then I'm entitled to complain to Barclays about their policy in this respect, and to use administratively more costly payment methods to demonstrate the point that it would be more cost effective for the bank to allow such micro-payments to be made by online banking.

Lokolo

NFH wrote: »

Where is this £1 minimum stated in the T&Cs? A link would be helpful.

In any case, even if it is in the T&Cs, then I'm entitled to complain to Barclays about their policy in this respect, and to use administratively more costly payment methods to demonstrate the point that it would be more cost effective for the bank to allow such micro-payments to be made by online banking.

But it most probably isn't cost effective because no-one is that petty, well I thought so anyway, guess I was wrong.....

tagq2

All progress depends on the unreasonable man.

NFH

Lokolo wrote: »

But it most probably isn't cost effective because no-one is that petty

What isn't cost-effective? To make micro-payments by online banking? Why not? And what is petty about making such payments?

Lokolo

NFH wrote: »

What isn't cost-effective? To make micro-payments by online banking? Why not? And what is petty about making such payments?

Because its 55p.... you can't even buy a Mars Bar with that nowadays.

And why is it not cost effective? You means changing their infrastructure to accommodate this? Basically they would need to hire consultants and soft engs, they would need testers to test it out, then they would need a live test, then they would need to roll it out. All in all, it'll cost a lot more than a couple of complaints whereby the response will be a letter saying "Sorry we do not offer this service, thank you for your comments.".