MSE News: Financial inclusion fears as Barclays ups basic bank account fees

2sides2everystory

This is the bank that likes to call overdraft facilities by another name and it unilaterally blanketed most of its current account base about 5 years ago I think introducing a "personal reserve" limit which Barclays chose.

Mine was £750. Many were much smaller. My aged parents have them - they haven't a clue what they are because they have never have an overdraft in their lives. It is the elderly and the vulnerable who blunder into using these things which are out of the same stable as payday loans. It is opportunism without morals.

I hadn't a clue either about this until I had cause to find out. And it wasn't as if I had borrowed £750 personal reserve - it turned out to be just £30 that happened two months running without me noticing. Costing £22 a hit!

In 2008 I understand it was still possible to go into a branch and complain about the arbitrary application of £22 on your account and for someone in the branch to remove it. In fact it was possible to get up to £100 of mixed charges removed in the branch at the discretion of the member of staff. I recall I had a business account with Barclays and from time to time I used to call up and ask the business banker to remove the charges. And they did.

But in 2009 apparently, Barclays decided this was all a bit too easy for customers - they found their branches were giving back thousands a month. "Why give it back if the firm doesn't want to" is of course a relatively new phenomenum in business which has gained considerable traction in an employment market which has become "Do exactly as we say or else". So, surprise surprise, in 2009 the £100 discretionary reimbursement of charges at the branch was suddenly cut to £40 and personal reserve charges were excluded. Only head office could authorise such.

As some branches were already netting tens of thousands a month in personal reserve charges alone then one of those bright sparks at Barclays (you know - the ones that sit at their desks dreaming up ideas about what might happen if they try something no-one has ever done before) dreams up with this change and secures their next promotion "for innovative services" to UK humanity.

They even set up a special section in their computer complaints system to monitor customer reaction to it (I know because I complained and saw what was on the screen as the complaint was being filed). Barclays had already worked out the reasons people would ask for personal reserve charges back so the person at the branch who was handling the complaint just had to tick a box against personal reserve complaint variant #63 or whatever.

So now Barclays are deliberately hitting the vulnerable - the majority of bank customers never have a basic bank account - it is only those who have no credit history e.g. those whose parents never set them up with a childs current account or those who arrive as immigrants or those who have previously messed up their credit record that get the basic bank account.

Don't confuse "basic bank account" with the other type of basic current account many of us have which is a current account with no fees / no insurance perks. Basic bank accounts arose out of equality law to guarantee 100% inclusion of all those who might otherwise have been denied a bank account.

So this is the sub-prime group Barclays now wants to hit and milk for all their worth. We get the picture.

meer53

pmduk wrote: »

Can you prove that Barclays actually makes a conscious decision to decline such transactions? In my experierence they are more interested in opening accounts against the customer's wishes than anything else. I suspect such declined transactions are purely automated.

I don't work for Barclays but i do work for a bank. The only way i can prove that what i say is correct would be for you to come to work with me every day. Before i return a DD, standing order or cheque, i have to look at the notes on the customers account to see if we are aware of any issues which we have been notified of. I have to check the balances on all accounts to see if any funds are due in or out that day. I have to check the customers banking history, credit file information and other information which we hold on the customer. Then i attempt to call them to let them know that the payment is due to debit the account. If i can't get hold of them and there are no funds in any other account or no salary due in, THEN i would make the decision whether to return the direct debit or whatever. My decisions are based on my training and experience, for example, if the customer has a DD coming through for their mortgage or rent and there are no other issues on their account, i would probably pay the DD. If however there have been previous similar issues and the situation is not improving then i would probably return the DD.
I would also send a letter (not an automated letter) to advise the customer what we have done and include an explanation of why we have returned it. If the customer uses internet banking i will also send an email and if they have mobile banking i will send a text too asking them to contact us.
There, happy now ?

izools

I reckon we should go back to basics, back where we were a couple of decades ago. Or in line with where the Co-Op are now.

Close the account of anyone who can't maintain it properly. Don't charge them to the hilt. Three strikes and you're out. Co-Operative Cashminder style.

That way, no customer could be charged too much - Co-Operative Bank will only charge a customer £60 before closing their account and telling them not to come back. Moral charging levels and treatment suited to a customer who refuses to take action and learn how to bank properly and effectively.

callum9999

2sides2everystory wrote: »

This is the bank that likes to call overdraft facilities by another name and it unilaterally blanketed most of its current account base about 5 years ago I think introducing a "personal reserve" limit which Barclays chose.

Mine was £750. Many were much smaller. My aged parents have them - they haven't a clue what they are because they have never have an overdraft in their lives. It is the elderly and the vulnerable who blunder into using these things which are out of the same stable as payday loans. It is opportunism without morals.

I hadn't a clue either about this until I had cause to find out. And it wasn't as if I had borrowed £750 personal reserve - it turned out to be just £30 that happened two months running without me noticing. Costing £22 a hit!

In 2008 I understand it was still possible to go into a branch and complain about the arbitrary application of £22 on your account and for someone in the branch to remove it. In fact it was possible to get up to £100 of mixed charges removed in the branch at the discretion of the member of staff. I recall I had a business account with Barclays and from time to time I used to call up and ask the business banker to remove the charges. And they did.

But in 2009 apparently, Barclays decided this was all a bit too easy for customers - they found their branches were giving back thousands a month. "Why give it back if the firm doesn't want to" is of course a relatively new phenomenum in business which has gained considerable traction in an employment market which has become "Do exactly as we say or else". So, surprise surprise, in 2009 the £100 discretionary reimbursement of charges at the branch was suddenly cut to £40 and personal reserve charges were excluded. Only head office could authorise such.

As some branches were already netting tens of thousands a month in personal reserve charges alone then one of those bright sparks at Barclays (you know - the ones that sit at their desks dreaming up ideas about what might happen if they try something no-one has ever done before) dreams up with this change and secures their next promotion "for innovative services" to UK humanity.

They even set up a special section in their computer complaints system to monitor customer reaction to it (I know because I complained and saw what was on the screen as the complaint was being filed). Barclays had already worked out the reasons people would ask for personal reserve charges back so the person at the branch who was handling the complaint just had to tick a box against personal reserve complaint variant #63 or whatever.

So now Barclays are deliberately hitting the vulnerable - the majority of bank customers never have a basic bank account - it is only those who have no credit history e.g. those whose parents never set them up with a childs current account or those who arrive as immigrants or those who have previously messed up their credit record that get the basic bank account.

Don't confuse "basic bank account" with the other type of basic current account many of us have which is a current account with no fees / no insurance perks. Basic bank accounts arose out of equality law to guarantee 100% inclusion of all those who might otherwise have been denied a bank account.

So this is the sub-prime group Barclays now wants to hit and milk for all their worth. We get the picture.

It shouldn't matter whether your "aged parents" specifically knew what a personal reserve was if they weren't intending on breaking their contract and taking money that wasn't theirs (albeit with permission!).

I'm not surprised they did that. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact they did (and still do up to £40 apparently) as I've claimed back around £20 myself - but they are just doing what they have told you in advance they will do, so I have no idea why they do actually give it back at all!

Child's accounts aren't credit reported. Unless you stick with the same bank, everyone is in an equally bad position as soon as they turn 18 (or immigrate).

The major issue is people like you seem to think the banks are a public service. They most categorically are not. They are only interested in making as much money as possible off you. As such, I hardly see how you can complain that the government should step in and dictate an unauthorised overdraft charge, but not the price of milk at Tesco.

stclair

meer53 wrote: »

I don't work for Barclays but i do work for a bank. The only way i can prove that what i say is correct would be for you to come to work with me every day. Before i return a DD, standing order or cheque, i have to look at the notes on the customers account to see if we are aware of any issues which we have been notified of. I have to check the balances on all accounts to see if any funds are due in or out that day. I have to check the customers banking history, credit file information and other information which we hold on the customer. Then i attempt to call them to let them know that the payment is due to debit the account. If i can't get hold of them and there are no funds in any other account or no salary due in, THEN i would make the decision whether to return the direct debit or whatever. My decisions are based on my training and experience, for example, if the customer has a DD coming through for their mortgage or rent and there are no other issues on their account, i would probably pay the DD. If however there have been previous similar issues and the situation is not improving then i would probably return the DD.
I would also send a letter (not an automated letter) to advise the customer what we have done and include an explanation of why we have returned it. If the customer uses internet banking i will also send an email and if they have mobile banking i will send a text too asking them to contact us.
There, happy now ?

Which bank is this? I want to be a customer

pqrdef

meer53 wrote: »

The only way i can prove that what i say is correct would be for you to come to work with me every day.

You only see the ones that the computer flags up for manual attention. You don't see the ones that the computer simply rejects out of hand.

In the case of a basic account, I have an understanding that the payment will not be made and I'm going to be p1ssed off and complain if you make it. So there's really no need for you to look at it at all.

Looking through my DDs, some of them are for voluntary payments e.g. charity donations. If there's no money, well sorry folks, no donation this month, but I don't owe anybody anything.

Others are for payments in advance, e.g subscription renewals. If there's no money, the renewal doesn't happen, but I don't owe anybody anything.

Others just move money into savings or investment accounts. If there's no money, maybe I don't get to buy 50 quids worth of Lloyds shares this month. But I don't want to borrow the money.

A DD on a basic account is not a request for an overdraft. It's just an instruction to the computer to pay the money if it's there, otherwise not. And if it's not there, that's my choice. It doesn't represent criminal mismanagement on my part.

rinabean

How can it be theft to go into an unauthorised overdraft? They give it to you willingly. It's not like you robbed the bank. There shouldn't be fees for unauthorised overdrafts because they should simply not allow you to spend money you don't have. All types of reward cards and gift cards do this so I don't see why debit cards should act differently (well, of course I do - so the banks can make money off the undereducated and the desperate).

lanza

2sides2everystory wrote: »

So now Barclays are deliberately hitting the vulnerable - the majority of bank customers never have a basic bank account - it is only those who have no credit history e.g. those whose parents never set them up with a childs current account or those who arrive as immigrants or those who have previously messed up their credit record that get the basic bank account.

Don't confuse "basic bank account" with the other type of basic current account many of us have which is a current account with no fees / no insurance perks. Basic bank accounts arose out of equality law to guarantee 100% inclusion of all those who might otherwise have been denied a bank account.

So this is the sub-prime group Barclays now wants to hit and milk for all their worth. We get the picture.

Its good to see somebody else here talking sense. No doubt you will be getting drowned out by nonsensical rebuttals.

BTW do a search on the post of most of the people who try to justify the situation. You will find they rarely make any helpful posts at all. Their entire history tends to consist of logging on daily to get a little kick out of saying "its your fault" to those in dire streets and requiring assistance. they rarely probe the person they are kicking with the correct questions to even determine if they actually made a fault...

And then you got a whole load of similiar people thanking them for this. There is definetly something not right on here. Quite a few admit to working in the banks, and many appear to have inside knowledge that either an employee or somebody who knows an employee would possess.

This forum is crawling with creeps like this. Why are they actually here is what i am trying to figure. They dont help, and tend to read more than they post. Some of the more well known consumer forums (that one that took these issues to the supreme court in UK) actually warn me not to discuss too much online now.

the one thing people require when they went to screw over others is insight into their target. What better place than here ?

2sides2everystory

callum9999 wrote: »

It shouldn't matter whether your "aged parents" specifically knew what a personal reserve was if they weren't intending on breaking their contract and taking money that wasn't theirs (albeit with permission!).

I'm not surprised they did that. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact they did (and still do up to £40 apparently) as I've claimed back around £20 myself - but they are just doing what they have told you in advance they will do, so I have no idea why they do actually give it back at all!

They don't. They stopped giving back personal reserve charges in 2009.

Child's accounts aren't credit reported.

You mean the data doesn't get shared outside the bank.

Unless you stick with the same bank, ...

Yes that is what people in the UK generally tend to do through thick and thin.

everyone is in an equally bad position as soon as they turn 18 (or immigrate).

Disagree - see above.

The major issue is people like you seem to think the banks are a public service.

And people like me are what exactly? Unbrainwashed perhaps? Experienced in the financial services business over decades? Fluent in financial services compliance issues? Fair-minded? Respectful of senior citizens ? Not out to sell grandmothers? Regular campaigners for the public-good?

Whilst people like you are ... ???

stclair wrote:

Which bank is this? I want to be a customer

It's First Direct and I must admit I was very pleasantly surprised when meer53 told us what he is tasked to do when a DD fails. Good on First Direct.

Lokolo

lanza wrote: »

BTW do a search on the post of most of the people who try to justify the situation. You will find they rarely make any helpful posts at all. Their entire history tends to consist of logging on daily to get a little kick out of saying "its your fault" to those in dire streets and requiring assistance. they rarely probe the person they are kicking with the correct questions to even determine if they actually made a fault...

Unlike you who has joined this month and is yet to make any useful contribution to this forum.

Good Job :T (and for the likes of meep who doesn't get my sarcasm yet, I am being sarcastic)

(the same goes for you too 2s2es, all you do it rant and debate!)