Barclay proof of funds and closed my accounts

RAIMUNDAS123

I opened a personal account at Barclays bank, I did house repairs, I got enough money, so I transferred a little from my Revolut account, that's why I was blocked, I have evidence that it's my money that they don't agree to pay, I don't know what and where to present that evidence, they make me half guilty

grumbler

RAIMUNDAS123 said:

I opened a personal account at Barclays bank, I did house repairs, I got enough money, so I transferred a little from my Revolut account, that's why I was blocked, I have evidence that it's my money that they don't agree to pay, I don't know what and where to present that evidence, they make me half guilty

Just half?!  I think they have to try harder and do their best. It's their job after all to make people feel guilty. 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle isn't for banks.
Seriously, the sooner you start a formal complaint  the better for you (and worse for them).
How 'little' was it? Can you prove the source of money in your Revolut account?

Rsb85

I've been using my barclays account for crypto mainly and been very transparent about this. But I recently transferred monies into my account and it has been frozen pending investigation and account closed. I've had an absolute nightmare being sent to different branches etc and still no money out. So I've gotta wait another 2 weeks for result. Do not go into the branch with ID until the verdict as its a waste of time even with the proof needed. They are don't want crypto and it's a way of stopping people using it. Keep at them though as you can't just accept it as it's over etc. 

pop_gun

I recently opened a Barclay card account and transfered £3000 into it. I wanted to take all of this out as cash. I went into my local branch and withdrew £2000. But wasn't allowed to take any more at the ATM. I found my account had been blocked. I telephoned them and after the ID questions they unblocked it. I took out £250 the next day and found  out they had blocked it again. I called them again and after a barrage of questioning (in the name of protecting me from fraud) then unblocked my account and I was able to withdraw another £250.

I sincerely believe the banking system is insolvent and the banks need depositor funds as collateral which is why it is so difficult to access our own funds. In the event of a bank failure the banks have the right to use our funds to remain solvent. This legislation already exists. 

Ergates

pop_gun said:

I sincerely believe the banking system is insolvent and the banks need depositor funds as collateral which is why it is so difficult to access our own funds.

Nonsense.   

The reason banks are putting checks in place when people withdraw money is that rules have been put in place that holds banks accountable when customers are defrauded.   People fall for obvious scams, take money from their account and give it to crooks - then the banks are forced to repay them.  This costs the banks millions of pounds a year.

This is the consequence.

Grumpy_chap

pop_gun said:

I sincerely believe the banking system is insolvent and the banks need depositor funds as collateral

That is how it has always been.
Banks don't have any money of their own - they only have depositor funds which are used to finance the various lending that the banks provide to others.  
Banks are generally insolvent through the day and only have to show solvent status at the close of banking business each day.  There are whole teams employed by the large corporations with spare cash to invest that on the overnight spot markets at whichever banking group globally most needs the money that day - the overnight spot interest rates can be very attractive.

Nasqueron

Grumpy_chap said:

pop_gun said:

I sincerely believe the banking system is insolvent and the banks need depositor funds as collateral

That is how it has always been.
Banks don't have any money of their own - they only have depositor funds which are used to finance the various lending that the banks provide to others.  
Banks are generally insolvent through the day and only have to show solvent status at the close of banking business each day.  There are whole teams employed by the large corporations with spare cash to invest that on the overnight spot markets at whichever banking group globally most needs the money that day - the overnight spot interest rates can be very attractive.

There is a degree of this but the vast majority of their lending is borrowing on the markets, not savers.

If you think about it, average mortgage taken out in Q1 2024 was £181k near enough (Finder data). Average UK saver has £11,185 in savings (Finder survey, Jan 24). If banks were lending based on savers' deposits, each one would need 16 average savers per mortgage to support this lending. In reality they use the fractional reserve system where they may have a requirement of say 10% i.e. they can loan 10x more than reserves. With those 16 average savers providing 181k of deposits, they could lend 1.8m

ARN92_

I am planning on moving to Barclays, but having second doubts after reading this thread, so do they have a habit of just closing people’s accounts at random if there is cause for concern?

Nasqueron

ARN92_ said:

I am planning on moving to Barclays, but having second doubts after reading this thread, so do they have a habit of just closing people’s accounts at random if there is cause for concern?

Any lender may freeze, and ultimately close, an account if you do things like receive large sums of money and cannot (or will not) explain the source. They are required to do this under the KYC and money laundering regulations. A normal account with normal incoming and outgoing funds is unlikely to have any issues

cjking

This isn't really helpful to the thread, but because it's interesting, I want to point out that banks do not need to have money to in order to lend, they can simply create any amount they feel like lending. If they want to lend you 10K they  can debit 10K to a loan account and credit 10K to your bank account. The loan account balance represents a debt you owe them, and the bank account balance represents a debt they owe you. The offsetting nature of these two  debts means neither you nor they have any change in net assets as a result of the transaction, but because only the bank account balance is portable, i.e. only that 10K is free to move around the banking system, that 10K is counted by economists as money. The bank did not need to get 10K of money from anywhere in order to lend it to you, they simply created it out of thin air by changing account balances in their computer.

If there were only one commercial bank in the banking system, that would be the end of the story, but because there are multiple banks, in order to keep everyone honest the regulatory system does require them to balance their books, and is that requirement that makes them compete for deposits. (I admit I don't fully understand this bit, but I think the problem is if one bank was creating lots of money, and all that money was flowing into accounts with other banks, then the first bank would owe ever-increasing amounts of money to the other banks, and the whole system would go tits-up if that bank failed.)

The fractional reserve system is something described in textbooks, but apparently in reality that is not what constrains money creation, instead it is central bank interest rates and customer demand for loans that determine how much money commercial banks create. (In the UK 97% of all money is created by commercial banks.)

Money creation in the modern economy | Bank of England