Barclays business account - Submittal of companies details - closure of business account

D_Dobie

Id like to receive some perspective on this issue. it required a summary of circumstances. Initiated by my own failures admittedly.

1) I was asked by Barclays  on numerous occasions through 2022 to submit business info and complete a form. This is a mandatory FCA requirement and is quite correct. An account can be frozen or closed if not complied with.
2) I submitted info on the account website but omitted to complete the form as I did not read my messages correctly.
3) I was given an ultimatum in January to complete my business info online by the end of Jan or my account would be closed.
4) I again didn't read correctly and omitted to complete, sign and submit a form.
5) I call on 08 Feb to ask why I could not access my account. I was told my account had been closed and a cheque would be in the post - this could take 2 -3 weeks.

Firstly I should warn people that closing an is a legal course of action - irrespective of the impact to the business. So don't make my mistake and let this happen.

Secondly putting an account on hold(freezing) is also acceptable according to the FCA, as the business could be operating illegally. Ironically once my business account was closed I was operating illegally as a business MUST have a functioning business account to operate.

I formerly complained to Barclays on 08 Feb, regarding these circumstances and received a letter on 15 Feb replying that the complaint had been resolved. The degree of response from the Barclays team has varied from verging on rude to accommodating and very helpful.

I have a new business bank account as from 08 Feb. Barclays have yet to reimburse my money (business operating cash) after having closed the account 7 days ago (as from 15 Feb).

Business account holders should be aware of this and comply with the requests for update of documentation. However if banking with Barclays, I would be interested to know whether business account holders have had the same experience of service as myself.

adamp87

Everything above (bar being rude) seems pretty standard experience for banks when they are complying checks to be fair.

As you’ve stated you neglected to fill in forms correctly and left it too late so they’ve closed your account. 

They’ve said 2-3 weeks for your cheque on the 8th Feb, it’s only been a week so some patience perhaps there.

Although I sympathise there, why they can’t send those next day and give it 3 weeks is beyond me.

At least you’ve got another account set up and sorted. You could always appeal your complaint if you didn’t get the response you wanted though.

Barclays need to speed up for you, but reading your post it seems the situation you are in really is down to your own doing as harsh as that sounds.

Zanderman

In terms of perspective, which is what you say you want, I'd suggest the only problem, really, in the saga you recount, is entirely your own failure to fully read and act on the request from the bank.

The bank made reasonable requests, in line with their obligations, they gave you plenty of time and you admit you failed to respond sufficiently. 

The fact that this account closure meant you were operating the business illegally isn't Barclays problem - it's yours. You're the one obliged to have a business bank account, Barclays aren't obliged to give you one. 

And you had one with Barclays but they (quite properly) closed that when you didn't comply with their request.  That isn't something you can complain to Barclays about - there are no grounds for complaint that you didn't have a business account when you should have as it was your (in)actions that got it closed. You should be complaining to yourself not to Barclays!

The delay in sending the balance is annoying but also not grounds for complaint - not least as you're still well within the timescale they mentioned. 

Sorry this isn't being supportive but, as you point out, you did cause the problem.  There isn't really any wider perspective that I can see other than as a warning to others to always read and comply with such requests. .

From any bank - Barclays aren't the only one that will ask for this info - they all can and will as needed and the result will be the same if you don't comply.

wmb194

In the same way that it's a good idea for individuals, a broad takeaway is that if a business *must* have a bank account to avoid trading illegally it's a good idea to have at least two accounts with unrelated banks.

Zanderman

wmb194 said:

In the same way that it's a good idea for individuals, a broad takeaway is that if a business *must* have a bank account to avoid trading illegally it's a good idea to have at least two accounts with unrelated banks.

Yes, a good idea, though not quite so easy for business accounts as many do have charges so an unused spare account might just cost money..

But these days companies (and sole traders) can probably find 3 or 4 business banks that are free now as several app only outfits offer them free business options. And so two accounts could easily operate with no extra cost. Could even make money as some pay you to open them!

Partnerships, for reasons I don't understand but must be real as this seems consistent across the app-based banks, cannot open most of those free accounts, so have very limited free options.

But partnerships (and sole traders) aren't legally obliged to have business accounts - unlike companies - so the issue is slightly less important to them. Still sensible to try and do it though - I know if our current partnership account got closed it would be hugely problematic!

Middle_of_the_Road

It's a pity that all you've managed to get from posting your experience, is to have others confirm that, as you knew, your oversight was the reason for the closed account.

The fact that you did share this here, hopefully prevents others falling foul of this bureaucratic hurdle.

I also think it's a real pity, that the only method of contact from Barclays were two e-mails.

These e-mails evidently, were sufficient that they left room for any miscommunication of instructions  necessary for the correct response to be understood and acted on timely.

As things stand, with banks we probably we set our expectations too high. Gone are the days of personal service or even general service. How hard would it have been for someone to have picked up the phone, after an interval, when the first response to the e-mail was not correctly actioned.

Just some perspective......... hope you have better service from your new bank.

Zanderman

Middle_of_the_Road said:

...As things stand, with banks we probably we set our expectations too high. Gone are the days of personal service or even general service. How hard would it have been for someone to have picked up the phone, after an interval, when the first response to the e-mail was not correctly actioned....

I think that's the main takeaway really - that communications have changed (and not just with banks). Which is, sadly, all the more reason to read those emails - banks don't write letters so much these days, indeed many give you the option for email only communication. So emails should be read. Especially numerous ones as the OP suggests they had (not sure why M-o-t-R says only 2).

The same goes for phone calls - in this case even if the bank had rung as suggested here would it have made a difference? Personally I often don't pick up if an unknown number rings - and if I do and the caller says they're from the bank I don't take their word for it, tell them so and ask them if it's important or just a marketing call. Which they won't tell me until I go through security...     

So a phone call (there may have been one, or more, OP may not even know if all the only record was a missed call from an unknown number) might well have gone the same way as the emails - not followed up. Which brings things back full circle - we should (but we don't always) take full notice of comms from banks.

To be frank they don't always help themselves though - one banking group - I thinks it's Lloyds - sends emails entitled something like 'an important notice from your bank' or words to that effect - and all it is is the monthly statement. After a few of those you start to ignore them. It's a form of crying wolf, giving an everyday communication an unwarranted urgency, so when something happens that really IS important it can get overlooked.

D_Dobie

An interesting distribution of perspective, and I appreciate the candid rollout of said opinion. I hope I didn't appear to be seeking sympathy, this was a statement of facts and I am aware that my poor administration  muppetry was the root cause of any "acri-money". 

That said, I am always in favour of appropriate responses to problems, and closing of accounts I consider to be a more draconian option as an alternative to freezing an account. But I am not a banker and hence my post.

I had considered creating a second account and its interesting that this was highlighted - very logical in my opinion.

My complaint was actually directed at the poor communication of the bank in fact, a point which was eventually acknowledged in your responses (appreciated).

I have subsequently called the bank on 3 more occasions. In my last call, thanks to a very tenacious and supportive Lisa, we were able to establish that with a couple of hoops jumped and pressing of departments an online transaction has been initiated (but not yet complete).

My lesson here is to be more diligent in the reading of my bank messages, not to rely on a single person for advice and to persist until you happen on the right person with the appropriate attitude.

Thank you

DullGreyGuy

Would love to know what law that says a business must have its own bank account... for one you cannot open the bank account until the company is registered and given time to get appointments etc it would mean every newly registered business is instantly illegal.

In reality an incorporated business is a legal entity in its own right, for practical reasons it should have its own accounts but it's not a strict legal requirement. It would certainly struggle to get payments from some if it were to be paid to a director and its likely to be treated as a loan to the director too... again all legal but makes operations very difficult. 

KYC checks are much broader than just the FCA and many UK banks have been stung with fines here and overseas because of prior lax approaches hence why many decided to refresh their validations.

We had the opposite problem with HSBC... we gave them everything they needed and they then started asking additional Qs about my wife's change of name when we married. Initially a touch annoying as what they needed was on Companies House and public record but gave it and they apologised for their error. 5 more times they repeated the rest for the information, 4 times more we spent hours on the phone to provide what they already had. 

5th time we went the complaint route, they rejected it so went to the FOS and was awarded our lost billable hours for repeatedly asking for what we'd provided and they could have self served in the first place. 

Middle_of_the_Road

Zanderman said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

...As things stand, with banks we probably we set our expectations too high. Gone are the days of personal service or even general service. How hard would it have been for someone to have picked up the phone, after an interval, when the first response to the e-mail was not correctly actioned....

I think that's the main takeaway really - that communications have changed (and not just with banks). Which is, sadly, all the more reason to read those emails - banks don't write letters so much these days, indeed many give you the option for email only communication. So emails should be read. Especially numerous ones as the OP suggests they had (not sure why M-o-t-R says only 2).

The same goes for phone calls - in this case even if the bank had rung as suggested here would it have made a difference? Personally I often don't pick up if an unknown number rings - and if I do and the caller says they're from the bank I don't take their word for it, tell them so and ask them if it's important or just a marketing call. Which they won't tell me until I go through security...     

So a phone call (there may have been one, or more, OP may not even know if all the only record was a missed call from an unknown number) might well have gone the same way as the emails - not followed up. Which brings things back full circle - we should (but we don't always) take full notice of comms from banks.

To be frank they don't always help themselves though - one banking group - I thinks it's Lloyds - sends emails entitled something like 'an important notice from your bank' or words to that effect - and all it is is the monthly statement. After a few of those you start to ignore them. It's a form of crying wolf, giving an everyday communication an unwarranted urgency, so when something happens that really IS important it can get overlooked.

Sadly, I agree with all your comments in this rebuttal. In times when we cannot trust who we are speaking to it can be expected that we treat any call with suspicion, leaving us at risk of disregarding a salient one. 

Band7

Put it this way: if you run a business that requires compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, will you throw your obligations to the wind if a business relation of yours prevents you from complying? Or will you terminate your relationship with the obstructive party after having given them reasonable time and warnings?

Barclays have acted entirely reasonably and the only one you can complain about is yourself. Any inconvenience you find yourself in now has been created by yourself.