switching for cash

ValiantSon

EachPenny wrote: »

I agree with you, although I maintain the position I stated at the start of the thread that the OP (and anyone else planning the same thing) shouldn't deliberately lie on an application form.

The amount of money you earn is a factual piece of information. Your intention to pay that money into an account is a decision you are free to reconsider at any time, unless you've entered into some form of contractural arrangement with the bank that you will do so.

The issue of changes in circumstances in the next two years is a red herring in this regard. Anyone opening a bank account today could reasonably foresee the possibility that they might want to pay their salary into a different bank account within the next two years and by the logic being suggested ought to declare this possibility. There are also countless other changes in circumstance which could be similarly foreseen making it virtually impossible for anyone to truthfully answer 'no' to that question if such a pedantic approach were adopted in reality.

Completing the application form stating that you intend to pay your salary in when you have no such intention is fraud.

Completing the application form stating that you intend to pay your salary in, but changing your mind ten minutes later, is not fraud. In those circumstances you might want to contact the bank and inform them you've changed your mind, but that would depend on the precise circumstances in which it happened.

It is a grey area, and people won't be helped if they are led to believe they are being rejected because they are not attractive enough as customers and therefore conclude they need to lie on applications in order to be approved.

Whatever.

If you aren't going to continue arguing (as you stated) then it's pretty daft - not to mention petty - to do so in a thinly veiled way, simply by not quoting my post. You don't agree with me about the questions on the form and that's fine. Neither of us are sitting in judgement in a court, so neither of us can say for certain, but your harping on about credit searches and your dismissal of my factually correct point that banks use the credit search as one factor, amongst others, in deciding on whether to open an account, is disingenuous and very misleading.

EachPenny

ValiantSon wrote: »

Whatever.

If you aren't going to continue arguing (as you stated) then it's pretty daft - not to mention petty - to do so in a thinly veiled way, simply by not quoting my post. You don't agree with me about the questions on the form and that's fine. Neither of us are sitting in judgement in a court, so neither of us can say for certain, but your harping on about credit searches and your dismissal of my factually correct point that banks use the credit search as one factor, amongst others, in deciding on whether to open an account, is disingenuous and very misleading.

I was responding to a new point made by another forum member. They were entitled to make one, I am entitled to respond.

If the OP will excuse the off-topic comment, I'd like to add that the really unfortunate thing about this is you appear to have a sound knowledge of the banking system, but rather than put that knowledge to use simply helping people, it feels like you prefer to use it to seek confrontation with other forum members. That's a real shame as people are inclined to appreciate kindness and generosity more than they do expertise applied without compassion. Being more 'right' than anybody else doesn't make any of us a better person.

The part of your post I've highlighted above is incorrect. That was only your assumption.

ValiantSon

EachPenny wrote: »

I was responding to a new point made by another forum member. They were entitled to make one, I am entitled to respond.

Yes, and then made a thinly veiled attack on what I had written:

EachPenny wrote: »

It is a grey area, and people won't be helped if they are led to believe they are being rejected because they are not attractive enough as customers and therefore conclude they need to lie on applications in order to be approved.

Not only is this a thinly veiled attack on my post, but it also ignores the fact that I have repeatedly said that nobody should lie on an application. If someone chooses to do so I am not responsible for that by posting factually accurate information.

EachPenny wrote: »

If the OP will excuse the off-topic comment, I'd like to add that the really unfortunate thing about this is you appear to have a sound knowledge of the banking system, but rather than put that knowledge to use simply helping people, it feels like you prefer to use it to seek confrontation with other forum members. That's a real shame as people are inclined to appreciate kindness and generosity more than they do expertise applied without compassion. Being more 'right' than anybody else doesn't make any of us a better person.

Whatever.

You are well aware that I have posted a lot of helpful information in the past (and in this thread) and you have even thanked me for it! You have got into a mindset that you don't like me, or anything I say, because we have recently disagreed about things, and now you seek to argue with me at every turn. This is rather silly, really.

I don't post to score points, or to seek confrontation, but to genuinely help and inform. If someone has posted something that is incorrect, incomplete, or misleading then (if I can) I will offer a correction or fuller information. If, however, someone displays intransigence in their view and will not accept facts that are presented to them (and I don't just refer to you here) then I will continue to challenge that. I don't seek confrontation, but if someone insists on creating it then neither will I shrink from it.

I have (rightly) been corrected several times on this forum when I have made errors or overlooked points and I have admitted so and apologised.

Where, exactly, have I applied expertise "without compassion"?

The really disappointing thing about your posts is that you don't like being challenged at all and become exceedingly defensive about it when you are.

EachPenny wrote: »

The part of your post I've highlighted above is incorrect. That was only your assumption.

You keep rejecting it and arguing that every decision comes down to a credit search. I have actually agreed that credit searches are important, but pointed out that they are not the only deciding factor and to suggest otherwise is reductive and misleading. It may be the case that the OP was rejected by First Direct because of the recent number of searches on their credit file (which I said), but it may not be, and the insistence that it was is both ill-informed and very misleading, both for the OP and for anyone else reading the thread. I even showed you what you could have said as an alternative, but rather than say, "Yes, that would be a more balanced response," you chose to bring down the barriers and argue with me.

It's all very well saying that I try and score points, but sometimes we all need to take a look in the mirror.

Once again, what i have written about the approval process for current account applications is factually correct and provides a much more balanced response than simply saying that a rejection must be because of a large number of credit searches. It is easy to give simplistic explanations, but I don't believe that they serve anybody's interests in the long run.

EachPenny

ValiantSon wrote: »

You keep rejecting it and arguing that every decision comes down to a credit search. I have actually agreed that credit searches are important, but pointed out that they are not the only deciding factor and to suggest otherwise is reductive and misleading. It may be the case that the OP was rejected by First Direct because of the recent number of searches on their credit file (which I said), but it may not be, and the insistence that it was is both ill-informed and very misleading, both for the OP and for anyone else reading the thread. I even showed you what you could have said as an alternative, but rather than say, "Yes, that would be a more balanced response," you chose to bring down the barriers and argue with me.

No, I didn't reject it and have never said"every decision comes down to a credit search".

The part of your earlier post I was referring to when I said "I disagree with you" was yourassertion "I really think that you need to be less definitive in the way that you present this". Rather than being a fact, this was only your opinion on the matter. I disagreed with that.

In my view the phrase I actually used - "It is probably more likely to be due..." (emphasis added) is sufficiently clear that I am expressing an opinion based on balance of probabilities rather than any kind of "insistence" that was the reason, or that I consider it to be a definitive answer. I did not preclude the possibility that other factors such as internal scoring might be involved.

I feel that in terms of providing the OP with helpful practical advice it is more relevant to emphasise the number of recent searches (i.e. it is time to stop making applications for a while) than it is to delve too deeply into the technicalities of internal scoring which none of us can give definitive advice on and, from a practical point of view, the OP can do nothing about (short of lying on the application which we all agree would be a bad idea).

Given the facts of the OP's situation, would any of the experienced members of this forum suggest the OP tries another application with a different bank now to see if he is more attractive to them? Or would the consensus view be waiting six months to allow some of the searches to fall off?

ValiantSon wrote: »

It's all very well saying that I try and score points..."

Again, I never said that.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Once again, what i have written about the approval process for current account applications is factually correct and provides a much more balanced response than simply saying that a rejection must be because of a large number of credit searches. It is easy to give simplistic explanations, but I don't believe that they serve anybody's interests in the long run.

Again, where did I say it "must" be because?

Your final sentence gets to the heart of the matter and is helpful because it crystallises what I was thinking in my previous post. The issue seems to be that you take some kind of offence when "simplistic explanations" are used, rather than accepting that a simple answer and a more technically accurate answer can happily co-exist.

Many forum members have a far more restricted knowledge of financial issues than we do, and for them a simple or straightforward answer is often sufficient. They might only be interested in "what do I need to do?". A long and technically exact answer may be just as impenetrable to them as the bank's own T&C's. Therefore there is a place for "simplistic explanations" on the forum, so long as they are not untrue or misleading.

In the long run, people benefit from information they can understand and digest. You might not like seeing "simplistic explanations", but please understand that some people do. What's more, forum members have the right to post them without feeling others will come along and berate them for posting something, simply because it might fail an FCA compliance test for technical accuracy.

If I say "It is probably more likely to be due..." I don't want to find myself being scolded for not including all the other possibilities within my response. Your co-operation would be appreciated

The above is offered as a constructive suggestion for how the level of arguments in this area of the forum could be reduced somewhat. In the last week or so it has become something of a minefield, which is rather unfortunate.

ValiantSon

I'm not going to continue with this. I disagree with some of your assertions, and in places you have quoted me rather selectively. Nonetheless, this isn't going to get anyone anywhere by continuing.

All I have ever tried to do is present as accurate information and explanations as possible. While some may find technicalities to be difficult, careful explanation of them should not be avoided. Professionally, I have rather a lot of experience in this, and on a regular basis deal with unpicking simplistic understanding that leads to greater error. No doubt those who explained in overly simplistic terms meant well, but the unintended consequence of this is the establishment and entrenching of a thought pattern that inhibits greater understanding and can lead to error. Pedagogy is something of which I am well versed and practised.

In some instances a simple answer is both possible and desirable, but not in all. In the OP's instance I took them to be an intelligent and articulate person, so addressed them as such. While I agreed from the start - and said so - that they should wait at least six months before trying again, I also believe it pertinent to have explained that the credit search may not be the deciding factor, and they should be aware of that in any future application.

I don't accept that I have berated you. I have disagreed with you and argued a point, but that really is not the same thing. Occasionally I may be dismissive of a comment, but that is normally because it is categorical in tone (when the answer is far from being the case) and glib in nature. I do not consider your posts to be glib, although there are instances where I believe you could have been more nuanced. However, I do not wish to continue this argument, so I am merely setting out my stall.

There have been a number of arguments recently. Of that I will agree. Generally they have been caused by the intransigence of certain forum members in the light of evidence and in one instance due to the distasteful comments of one individual (sadly supported by another who saw it as a good opportunity to bash anyone who held liberal views). I do not count you in either category.

Contrary to what you appear to believe, my reason for posting here is not to have arguments. I actually post to try and help others, and I believe a search of my posts would show this to be true. We may disagree about the nature and content of an explanation, but I have valued your contributions, and often given thanks for them. I would have hoped that you could equally value my contributions, rather than paint me in a negative light, which is what I feel has happened of late.

Emily_Joy

EachPenny wrote: »

Completing the application form stating that you intend to pay your salary in when you have no such intention is fraud.

I am not quite certain what is the problem here. I complete an application form stating I intend to pay salary in. Once account is open and online banking is set I find it very hard to use/find that the banking app was updated a couple of days ago and is not compatible with my phone. So I decide to pay my salary in elsewhere.

Is this a fraud?

EachPenny

Emily_Joy wrote: »

I am not quite certain what is the problem here. I complete an application form stating I intend to pay salary in. Once account is open and online banking is set I find it very hard to use/find that the banking app was updated a couple of days ago and is not compatible with my phone. So I decide to pay my salary in elsewhere.

Is this a fraud?

Hi Emily.

No, what you describe wouldn't be fraud. If you sincerely intended to do something at the point you made the application but later changed your mind then that isn't fraud.

But it might be a breach of contract if the terms and conditions of the account required you to pay your salary in - and banks normally include conditions saying that if you don't meet a condition they are entitled to close or downgrade an account.

If you know as you complete the application that you have no intention ever to pay your salary in, but said you would on the form, then that is potentially fraud. If the bank's decision whether or not to give you an account is based on that information then you have deceived them. If you've gained a financial benefit from getting an account you wouldn't otherwise have got (e.g. a switching bonus or preferential interest rate) then the bank have suffered a financial loss as part of that deception.

One of the difficulties with fraud though is proving intent rather than an error or change of mind. However, going on Facebook, Twitter or MSE and declaring that you intend to lie on your application before you make it would help make a case against you if those bits of information were uncovered

Probably the most important point is that when you fill in financial applications the details you give are recorded and often shared between banks. One kind of check they do is to compare the answers you've given in different applications. This is really why it is a very bad idea to lie on applications - because if you give different information each time it looks suspicious. Hence the advice never to lie on an application.

tempus_fugit

stehouk wrote: »

Both m&s and first direct ask where the funds be paid from, when it will be paid, how much per mth, how much i will pay in over the year etc, i'm self employed so may be it has something to do with that, i am not going to lie about my annual wage or anything like that i just want to keep my new account for a while and fund it from there.

I always just say it will be funded from another account and there has never been a problem.

Emily_Joy

EachPenny wrote: »

But it might be a breach of contract if the terms and conditions of the account required you to pay your salary in.

Probably the most important point is that when you fill in financial applications the details you give are recorded and often shared between banks.

Thank you. Will make a point to double-check the T&C for the accounts I have and to make sure that all have the same data.

EachPenny

Emily_Joy wrote: »

Thank you. Will make a point to double-check the T&C for the accounts I have and to make sure that all have the same data.

Don't worry, it is unlikely you'll have to do anything. There are very few accounts (such as the HSBC Premier) where you have to pay your salary (if you have one) into the account. If it is something you have to do then you will probably know about it already.

Also, it is not critical to have the same information on all accounts you already have. This is about consistency of new applications. For example, if you truthfully answered that your monthly income was £1000 on four applications, then applied for HSBC Advance and said your income was £1750, that is the kind of thing which would trip you up.

You certainly don't need to contact banks you are already a customer with and change any errors - if they ask you to update your details that would be the best time to sort things out.