First direct chaos

Reptile11

I've been with first direct for some years. Recently my children all over 18 applied for switching and the switching reward. All are students all have student finance, all have savings. None have jobs or regular income because they are students. They do get some extra money from mum and dad and birthdays and occasional work.
Most money comes from student finance and other savings.
1 successful 1 didn't meet the criteria but first direct would not tell him what it was. 1 on hold till he has regular income (doesn't make sense).
All meet criteria (see link previously mentioned on his forum) ,student, plus finance, plus savings (could be transfered), plus switching from other non related account and haven't held a first direct account before.
I find it incredible that a simple switch could be so hard to complete, with very unsatisfactory outcomes.
I am presently complaining to first direct but they seam to suggest that a regular income is part of the deal and there must be proof of this before hand.
WARNING THERE MUST BE OTHER SMALL PRINT before you can switch.
Rep

Westie983

FD can be quite strict with their application criteria, I would suggest your children, look for another account that is specific for students.

Some banks will not include student finance as income, as not everyone is entitled and its not regular as students can pull out of university and the funds stop.

What student finance do your children currently get, is it grants or loans? I would suggest trying a student account provider.

Santander, Lloyds, Natwest, for example have student accounts.

Do your children have any pre university accounts with a bank that they can apply for an account with, so therefore have a banking history.

What account is the finance currently going into?

Westie983

EachPenny

Reptile11 wrote: »

None have jobs or regular income because they are students. They do get some extra money from mum and dad and birthdays and occasional work.
...
they seam to suggest that a regular income is part of the deal and there must be proof of this before hand.

FD are part of HSBC. HSBC gave me more hassle than all the other banks combined when I tried to open an account - they were misinterpreting their T&Cs and turned me down due to the regular income issue. After arguing with them I got the account opened, but I decided not to bother with First Direct yet.

It appears their systems are not set up to deal with people who don't fit the standard employed/retired regular monthly income model. My assets and income were irrelevant to them because I couldn't show them monthly payslips - all for the sake of opening a regular savings account

As Westie983 says, try some of the other high street banks, they are usually far more welcoming to students - and if your children haven't got switching bonus payments now they should still be entitled to apply and benefit when their income is more regular.

isasmurf

Reptile11 wrote: »

I am presently complaining to first direct but they seam to suggest that a regular income is part of the deal and there must be proof of this before hand.

Why are you complaining? There is no guarantee or statutory right that a bank would accept you as a current account customer. They will accept people who fit their target customer profiles. Those are ones who they are likely to make money out of through mortgages, loans or credit cards. Students won't be their target market.

Reptile11 wrote: »

1 on hold till he has regular income (doesn't make sense).

As one of the criteria to avoid the £10 monthly fee is to fund the account with £1,000 a month, it makes absolute sense.

Ballard

It doesn't sound particularly chaotic to me. Your children applied for accounts but were turned down. I applied for an HSBC account last year and met all of the requirements but was turned down. I didn't think it in the slightest chaotic or even consider making a complaint.

EachPenny

isasmurf wrote: »

They will accept people who fit their target customer profiles.

Which is fair enough (within reason), but then they could explain that on their website rather than saying:

Who can apply?

You. Probably. If you're over 18, haven't been declared bankrupt or registered for an Individual Voluntary Agreement in the last six years (or be in the process of doing so), and have a phone number and email address we can contact you with, we'd love to welcome you.

Nothing in that about having a regular income, or even having a job/pension.

isasmurf wrote: »

As one of the criteria to avoid the £10 monthly fee is to fund the account with £1,000 a month, it makes absolute sense.

But another criteria is "maintaining an average monthly balance of £1,000" - again, no need for a regular monthly income and quite simple to achieve if you have some savings.

Ballard wrote: »

It doesn't sound particularly chaotic to me. Your children applied for accounts but were turned down.

I thought 'chaotic' was a bit OTT, but I took that to mean that applications from three children in similar postions resulted in three different outcomes, one of which was acceptance.

You would hope that the process and criteria being applied would produce the same result each time.

okydoky

EachPenny wrote: »

Which is fair enough (within reason), but then they could explain that on their website rather than saying:

Nothing in that about having a regular income, or even having a job/pension.



But another criteria is "maintaining an average monthly balance of £1,000" - again, no need for a regular monthly income and quite simple to achieve if you have some savings.



I thought 'chaotic' was a bit OTT, but I took that to mean that applications from three children in similar postions resulted in three different outcomes, one of which was acceptance.

You would hope that the process and criteria being applied would produce the same result each time.

Regarding the £1000 average monthly balance, my understanding is that only one of the criteria needs to be fulfilled - in other words paying in £1000pm(and then withdrawing again right away) will mean that you avoid the £10pm charge?
Or as someone else said, opening up a savings account with a small amount?

Terry98

These are the conditions

'To get the £100 switching bonus, you need to use First Direct's switching service to fully switch and close your existing account and pay in at least £1,000 within three months of your account opening.
Once you've made the payment, the £100 is credited to your account within 28 working days.
This account has a £10 monthly fee after six months, but this is waived each month you either pay in £1,000, have an average monthly balance of £1,000 or hold selected other accounts with First Direct.
You can't get the switching bonus if you've ever held an account with First Direct before.'


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/compare-best-bank-accounts?&_ga=1.241984906.948534319.1493267242#firstdirect

pmduk

No bank will ever give full details of their criteria online as it is an open invitation to fraudsters, additionally the criteria change regularly. (No slur intended on the OP)

meer53

I'm sure there are also people who do have regular incomes who are declined by First Direct. No-one is guaranteed a bank account, with any bank, if you don't meet the criteria, you don't meet the criteria. Try a different bank.

EachPenny

meer53 wrote: »

I'm sure there are also people who do have regular incomes who are declined by First Direct. No-one is guaranteed a bank account, with any bank, if you don't meet the criteria, you don't meet the criteria. Try a different bank.

I'm not entirely convinced the idea a bank can reject applications for no apparent reason (but using hidden criteria) would stand up to challenge.

For example, if a bank offered an attractive switching bonus in an advert, listed some criteria and put in the small print there was no guarantee an account of that type would be opened, then I think the ASA may take a dim view if the bank then used an entirely different hidden set of criteria to consider applications and perhaps offered alternative less attractive banking facilities instead.

The decision process has to have some degree of reasonableness and justification - for example rejecting an application because of the financial history of the applicant, or the suitability of the product might be ok. Rejecting the application because the applicant's name is 'Smith' is not.

There are hotel owners, cake makers, and most recently a large airline (though not under UK jurisdiction) who have discovered that businesses don't appear to have an absolute right to refuse to provide a service to a prospective customer. Banks may have more leeway than cakemakers, but possibly only until someone takes forward a challenge.

Accepting one, rejecting one, and 'maybeing' one in three near-identical circumstance is exactly the kind of thing that creates the conditions for challenge.