Barclays Account "Under Review"

cheops2006

There are lots of judgemental people on this forum who have never make mistakes in life and can do no wrong, best thing to do is just to ignore them rather than stroking there huge ego's. Remember "Never argue with idiots"

I'm sure you are upset/frustrated after winning your case, as people have said the fact that its a large amount will have triggered a manual check to be done by some bod, the fact that its come from barclaycard->barclays makes no difference, unfortunately its the weekend, hang in there i'm sure everything will be ok.

meer53

When the cheque was paid in, it would have just shown as a credit, no-one would have seen where it came from. Once the "review" has been done, your account should be back to normal. Although it's frustrating, you are probably one of a number of people whose accounts are being "reviewed" so it may take a few days.

You may have had exactly the same problem at Natwest.

delishjo

meer53 wrote: »

When the cheque was paid in, it would have just shown as a credit, no-one would have seen where it came from. Once the "review" has been done, your account should be back to normal. Although it's frustrating, you are probably one of a number of people whose accounts are being "reviewed" so it may take a few days.

You may have had exactly the same problem at Natwest.

...what I don't understand is why the cheque is shown as a credit after paying in and then as a reverse transaction. Is this this something that the computer system would do automatically? Would that then flag up the need for a human to physically look at the cheque, decide it's kosher and then re-input it? If I can just understand the process then I wouldn't feel so helpless but no one at Barclays wants to tell me.

meer53

delishjo wrote: »

...what I don't understand is why the cheque is shown as a credit after paying in and then as a reverse transaction. Is this this something that the computer system would do automatically? Would that then flag up the need for a human to physically look at the cheque, decide it's kosher and then re-input it? If I can just understand the process then I wouldn't feel so helpless but no one at Barclays wants to tell me.

It's possible they withdrew the amount again in case you tried to withdraw it before they could freeze the account.

If Barclays are looking at this from an anti money laundering regulation point of view, they aren't allowed to discuss it with you at all.

As i mentioned before if you'd paid the cheque into your Natwest account, the same thing could have happened.

delishjo

meer53 wrote: »

It's possible they withdrew the amount again in case you tried to withdraw it before they could freeze the account.

If Barclays are looking at this from an anti money laundering regulation point of view, they aren't allowed to discuss it with you at all.

As i mentioned before if you'd paid the cheque into your Natwest account, the same thing could have happened.

Thank you so much Meer53 for your helpful and non-judgmental help. One last question. Do you have any idea how long these things take to sort out. I paid the cheque in on Tuesday. Thanks again.

meer53

delishjo wrote: »

Thank you so much Meer53 for your helpful and non-judgmental help. One last question. Do you have any idea how long these things take to sort out. I paid the cheque in on Tuesday. Thanks again.

It's a bit "how long is a piece of string" really.

If i were you, i'd be calling them every day, make a nuisance of yourself. Don't tell them you don't need the money though

Thrugelmir

grumbler wrote: »

It's a very stupid and extremely inefficient system in place then that gets triggered by a big cheque from Barclaycard deposited to Barclays and then takes days to investigate this highly suspicious deposit.

The fact that was deposited into an inactive account triggered alarm bells. The banks gets fined heavily if they don't follow protocol. Money will be released soon enough.

delishjo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The fact that was deposited into an inactive account triggered alarm bells. The banks gets fined heavily if they don't follow protocol. Money will be released soon enough.

It isn't inactive. Its a secondary account so not as active as a normal account with all D/D's, S/O's etc but still active.

Thrugelmir

delishjo wrote: »

It isn't inactive. Its a secondary account so not as active as a normal account with all D/D's, S/O's etc but still active.

The transaction will be abnormal. In relation to normal activity.

HSBC got hit with a $1.9 billion fine in 2013. So banks take matters seriously. If they didn't it would defeat the whole object of the regulations. It's the world we now live in. The price that's paid for freedom of movement of capital across borders etc.

grumbler

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The fact that was deposited into an inactive account triggered alarm bells. The banks gets fined heavily if they don't follow protocol. Money will be released soon enough.

I start feeling very stupid when people tell me that there is some deep meaning/sense behind all this that is beyond my understanding.

If the cheque is genuine it doesn't make any difference to what account it is deposited as long as the name of the account holder matches the name on the cheque.

If the cheque is suspicious, it shouldn't take more than a working day to check this with the issuer. It's not a rocket science.

If the bank can't do this job fast enough then they have to hire more people.

If the 'protocol' doesn't set strict time limits (see "It's a bit "how long is a piece of string" really." above), then it's a stupid protocol that needs changes. And nothing stops bank from working more humanly and efficiently without breaching the 'protocol'.
...
...