Natwest 'blacklist' auto-decline

simon_or

NewUser1972 said:

In or around 2004 I defaulted on a credit card with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).  In 2012 I opened a bank account with Natwest. At the same time I applied and was given a credit card and granted a 1K overdraft.  For a few years I was using the credit card and was, towards the end of month into my overdraft before it was cleared at payday.  In 2016 I took a loan of around 4K which I paid back, without missing a payment over 4 years (in fact I actually cleared it up a few months early) In around 2019 they wrote to me to tell me that they were withdrawing my credit card. I was a bit surprised and a slightly miffed but accepted it as had another one elsewhere.  I still have a overdraft although I haven't dipped in to it for a few years but since about 2020 everytime I click on the 'overdrafts' or 'credit cards', 'loans' or 'buy now/pay later' (basically any finance product) I get an instant message saying something along the lines of 'due to my recent account activity they can't approve blah blah'.  There's literally not even a nanosecond between me clicking the link and getting the denied message and they have never (for years) conducted any soft or hard check on my at any of the three credit reference agencies.  I have called them and they can't tell me anything, just 'computer says no'.  I actually have a good salary and multiple thousands positive balance pretty much all the time, I also have a Black Account with them (that they did approve!).  I can only guess I am on an auto deny list either by accident or by design (due to the RBS connection).  I appreciate the semantics about a 'blacklist' before people post to say blacklists don't exist, GDPR, it's against regulations blah blah but if I am on a list I will consider it to be a blacklist, even if I am the only one on it! Anyway, I don't need a card, loan or to increase my overdraft but it's just annoying me so I have raised a SAR to see if anything shows up.  I was just wondering if anyone else had a similar experience. I will post again if I find anything in my data although I don't imagine something like that would be included.

As per my mortgage broker, NatWest (or the RBS group to be precise) definitely does have a policy to deny NatWest mortgages to people who have defaulted with a group company in the past, even when it's much older than 6 years. This is based on their internal records, so you could call it a blacklist I suppose. On the plus side, it only impact RBS group banks so as long as I can live without having to use NatWest, it's all ok.

Apparently they are the exception, most banking groups like Lloyds, HSBC, etc. don't penalise you for defaults that have dropped off your report.

I guess you'll get a hint of this when the DSAR results come through.

MattMattMattUK

martinbainbridge1975 said:

BethRobinson69 said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

Never defaulted with them nor used my overdraft but they wont give me a credit card or car loan yet i qualify for a 5 grand overdraft at 39.9 apr - profiteering at its finest.

A default from 2004 will be dead in the water, goes off credit file after 6 years

I moved to Natwest for the £175 incentive, in hindsight I wish i had stayed with Lloyds

Profiteering? What do you expect,them not to make money?

look at the current economic situation in this country - several examples highlighted showing banks far to slow to pass on rate increases to savers, yet mortgage deals pulled instantly

not exactly treating customers fairly is it 

That shows a lack of understanding on banking. When people take out new mortgages banks borrow in batches, that new borrowing the banks take out will be at a higher rate, hence it is passed onto mortgage borrowers. Savings are not utilised in the same way, at least not instant access savings, which is why one has always been able to get higher rates on fixed savings accounts. If you look at savings rates they are not that far off base rate now, they are roughly the same amount below base rate as mortgages are above them, that is the banks gross margin and is entirely reasonable. 

martinbainbridge1975

MattMattMattUK said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

BethRobinson69 said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

Never defaulted with them nor used my overdraft but they wont give me a credit card or car loan yet i qualify for a 5 grand overdraft at 39.9 apr - profiteering at its finest.

A default from 2004 will be dead in the water, goes off credit file after 6 years

I moved to Natwest for the £175 incentive, in hindsight I wish i had stayed with Lloyds

Profiteering? What do you expect,them not to make money?

look at the current economic situation in this country - several examples highlighted showing banks far to slow to pass on rate increases to savers, yet mortgage deals pulled instantly

not exactly treating customers fairly is it 

That shows a lack of understanding on banking. When people take out new mortgages banks borrow in batches, that new borrowing the banks take out will be at a higher rate, hence it is passed onto mortgage borrowers. Savings are not utilised in the same way, at least not instant access savings, which is why one has always been able to get higher rates on fixed savings accounts. If you look at savings rates they are not that far off base rate now, they are roughly the same amount below base rate as mortgages are above them, that is the banks gross margin and is entirely reasonable. 

have a troll through media articles last week, 5 banks were listed last week as being too slow to pass on interest rates to savers - I cant quite remember the 5 but I do recall seeing they were high street names.

yes they may not be directly linked but that is not the point, my point is around treating customers fairly and principles, as soon as the base rate goes up mortgage deals are pulled and rates increased quickly, there appears to be nowhere near the urgency for savers. similar to petrol for cars that has recently been investigated. was going up in price far quicker than reduced.

savings rates on and round base rates are capped in numerous scenarios so not exactly a good comparison, couple of examples being Nationwide have an account paying around 5% is maximum you can deposit if I recall correctly is  £1500, the Natwest regular saver at 6.19% is limited as to how much you can put in - £150 per month. how is that fair on someone if they were fortunate to have say £25000 to put in an account but have a cautious attitude to risk when it comes to investments.

as for lack of understanding, plenty of understanding thank you I just no longer practice and do not miss the continued studying for regulated financial planning exams.

my own view is that the markets are a massive minefield these days due to previous scandals over the years, it would not shock if there was to be further mis-selling scandals in the future especially after the bankers bonus cap was lifted.

that's my 10p worth - over and out

[Deleted User]

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

DullGreyGuy

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Blacklist is more explicit... it's a list of banned customers/employees etc shared between companies @newuser1972 which is anti-competitive in nature and therefore illegal. A company is perfectly fine keep their own list of former customers/employees they want nothing to do with in the future.

[Deleted User] said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

They'll go beyond just external credit referencing and will have lists of people they dont want as customers... the person in the Credit Cards section that is under investigation for being abusive to staff may well be finding themselves on such a list.

A blacklist is typically however considered to be one shared by a group and goes beyond simply saying that ABC abuses call centre agents but an agreement that anyone on the list is blocked by everyone subscribing. 

There are some things fairly close to a blacklist, or a non-compete agreements, in certain very old circles which certainly wouldnt be allowed these days if it hadn't been going 200 years

NewUser1972

[Deleted User] said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

Quite the opposite. My point is that financial institutions will make their own mind up, its their business and their prerogative but if they decide that their policy is that they dont want to offer products to people who have broken their commitments in the past and there are multiple customers who meet that profile then its a list. Its really simple.  If you read back through the posts you will see that in my op I pointed out that the bank specifically dont do a check with the cra's when I try to apply but instantly decline so I must have a marker against me. I can't imagine I'm the only one so all those with such a marker are on a list. 

NewUser1972

DullGreyGuy said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Blacklist is more explicit... it's a list of banned customers/employees etc shared between companies @newuser1972 which is anti-competitive in nature and therefore illegal. A company is perfectly fine keep their own list of former customers/employees they want nothing to do with in the future.

[Deleted User] said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

They'll go beyond just external credit referencing and will have lists of people they dont want as customers... the person in the Credit Cards section that is under investigation for being abusive to staff may well be finding themselves on such a list.

A blacklist is typically however considered to be one shared by a group and goes beyond simply saying that ABC abuses call centre agents but an agreement that anyone on the list is blocked by everyone subscribing. 

There are some things fairly close to a blacklist, or a non-compete agreements, in certain very old circles which certainly wouldnt be allowed these days if it hadn't been going 200 years

A 'blacklist' needn't be shared. As I said its a colloquialism in this context. If you look it up in the dictionary it's simply a list of 'undesirables'. It doesn't need to be shared. It's just a list 

[Deleted User]

DullGreyGuy said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Blacklist is more explicit... it's a list of banned customers/employees etc shared between companies @newuser1972 which is anti-competitive in nature and therefore illegal. A company is perfectly fine keep their own list of former customers/employees they want nothing to do with in the future.

[Deleted User] said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

They'll go beyond just external credit referencing and will have lists of people they dont want as customers... the person in the Credit Cards section that is under investigation for being abusive to staff may well be finding themselves on such a list.

A blacklist is typically however considered to be one shared by a group and goes beyond simply saying that ABC abuses call centre agents but an agreement that anyone on the list is blocked by everyone subscribing. 

There are some things fairly close to a blacklist, or a non-compete agreements, in certain very old circles which certainly wouldnt be allowed these days if it hadn't been going 200 years

That's simply not true.

[Deleted User]

NewUser1972 said:

[Deleted User] said:

NewUser1972 said:

Iansellers said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Blacklists in general are lists that companies share with their competitors, its the anti-competitive nature of blacklists that makes them illegal even if someone managed to get around the GDPR issues.

A company or group are perfectly entitled to have a list of customers they dont want to deal with as long as it isnt on the basis of protected characteristics (sexual orientation, race, religion etc).

I had a somewhat similar experience, had a joint account and loan with g/friend at the time. When we split removed her from the current account but was too much faff to deal with the loan which I was paying in full. A year or two later was told they were closing both, they wouldnt fully say way but said it was to do with the co-debtor on the loan. Wasnt all bad as they allowed a reduced payment to clear off the loan as full and final settlement.

Circa 3 years later opened a Black current account with them started using it, applied for the credit card and was declined. Queried why, was told the same thing, questioned why I had been able to open a current account with them and they said I shouldnt have been able to and so would be closing it.

Fast forward another 5 years and they approved a substantial mortgage which has now been running 5 years. 


Why are you so desperate to be their customer if they dont want you? 

No such thing as a "blacklist"

The term 'blacklist' is a colloquialism. If you honestly think that businesses, particularly financial institutions don't have records of people who they don't want to deal with which, if printed out would constitute 'a list' then you're very naive

Finance houses use credit reference agencies to obtain information, this along with their own credit criteria is used to assess someone's suitability for lending. Judging by your comment, you would think there are dark arts at work.

Quite the opposite. My point is that financial institutions will make their own mind up, its their business and their prerogative but if they decide that their policy is that they dont want to offer products to people who have broken their commitments in the past and there are multiple customers who meet that profile then its a list. Its really simple.  If you read back through the posts you will see that in my op I pointed out that the bank specifically dont do a check with the cra's when I try to apply but instantly decline so I must have a marker against me. I can't imagine I'm the only one so all those with such a marker are on a list. 

I think it's best to stick to the facts.

MattMattMattUK

martinbainbridge1975 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

BethRobinson69 said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

Never defaulted with them nor used my overdraft but they wont give me a credit card or car loan yet i qualify for a 5 grand overdraft at 39.9 apr - profiteering at its finest.

A default from 2004 will be dead in the water, goes off credit file after 6 years

I moved to Natwest for the £175 incentive, in hindsight I wish i had stayed with Lloyds

Profiteering? What do you expect,them not to make money?

look at the current economic situation in this country - several examples highlighted showing banks far to slow to pass on rate increases to savers, yet mortgage deals pulled instantly

not exactly treating customers fairly is it 

That shows a lack of understanding on banking. When people take out new mortgages banks borrow in batches, that new borrowing the banks take out will be at a higher rate, hence it is passed onto mortgage borrowers. Savings are not utilised in the same way, at least not instant access savings, which is why one has always been able to get higher rates on fixed savings accounts. If you look at savings rates they are not that far off base rate now, they are roughly the same amount below base rate as mortgages are above them, that is the banks gross margin and is entirely reasonable. 

have a troll through media articles last week, 5 banks were listed last week as being too slow to pass on interest rates to savers - I cant quite remember the 5 but I do recall seeing they were high street names.

Just because someone has decided to trawl through newspapers, picking up on the faux outrage of elements of the press, or the political grandstanding of parts of the government, does not make that information factually correct. 

martinbainbridge1975 said:

yes they may not be directly linked but that is not the point, my point is around treating customers fairly and principles, as soon as the base rate goes up mortgage deals are pulled and rates increased quickly, there appears to be nowhere near the urgency for savers. similar to petrol for cars that has recently been investigated. was going up in price far quicker than reduced.

The entire point is that they are not directly linked, once one understands that basic premise the talk of "fairness" or "principles" evaporates. Of course when base rate rises the mortgage deals have to be pulled quickly, would you be happy to operate at a loss? 

martinbainbridge1975 said:

savings rates on and round base rates are capped in numerous scenarios so not exactly a good comparison, couple of examples being Nationwide have an account paying around 5% is maximum you can deposit if I recall correctly is  £1500, the Natwest regular saver at 6.19% is limited as to how much you can put in - £150 per month. how is that fair on someone if they were fortunate to have say £25000 to put in an account but have a cautious attitude to risk when it comes to investments.

They are not though, that rate is over base rate, it is a promotional rate, designed to lure people in. BoE base rate is currently 5%, 4.75% savings accounts are pretty easy to come by at the moment, 4.5% on ISAs etc. As for "fair", they could, on a two year fix, even just based on the MSE guide they could get 4.25% instant access, 5% on notice accounts and 5.9-6.1% on one and two year fixes on accounts with £85-100k+, or indeed in some cases no deposit limits.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

as for lack of understanding, plenty of understanding thank you I just no longer practice and do not miss the continued studying for regulated financial planning exams.

my own view is that the markets are a massive minefield these days due to previous scandals over the years, it would not shock if there was to be further mis-selling scandals in the future especially after the bankers bonus cap was lifted.

that's my 10p worth - over and out

If you claim understanding, they why did you start off proclaiming that savings interest rates and mortgage rates were linked? There seems to be very little being sold at the moment to be "mis-sold", at least at the retail banking level. There might be issues in investment banking, but investing outside of basic investment/bond accounts is a game for those who know what they are doing and are also aware of the risks. The banking bonus cap was a political gesture not an attempt at regulation, the same with the energy windfall tax, gesture politics at it's worst, no substance and no actual benefit.