Barclays Removing overdraft

Hoenir

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:
over the last few years, interest rates have been low so honestly where you kept cash was irrelevant. Now, with good rates to be achieved, managing money is important. As most of these accounts do not pay out in the month you move money, then cash management is more important. This means having the headroom of an overdraft may well be useful, obviously balancing the cost v loss of interest.

I don't really understand the bolded logic - why does the scheduling of interest payment affect capital movement?

Robintones said:

at the moment I am keeping all my funds in fixed bonds or high-interest accounts where moving cash incurs a penalty, so the short-term cost of an overdraft may be cheaper than the loss of interest

I appreciate that you see an overdraft as the answer to flaws in your planning, but surely retaining some funds in easy access accounts makes more sense, if you anticipate potentially needing access?  There's not a massive difference between best easy access rates and fixes....

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

The provision of overdraft facilities costs the banks money. Banks are commercial organisations that aren't run
at the whims of individual customers.  There'll be a broader policy decision mostly likely made at board level. To reduce exposure by X amount across the entire customer base. The low hanging fruit will be picked off first. That's identifying unused facilities such as yours. Where it might simply be a question of cutting the agreed facility rather than removing altogether. Overdrafts can quickly and easily be reinstated. . Providing the qualification criteria is met. In the terms and conditions that you agreed to. You'll also find that overdrafts are repayable on demand. This has never changed. 

GeoffTF

Robintones said:

Matt, How can the same bank deem an overdraft unaffordable but a short-term unsecured loan ten times bigger affordable? 

Barclays will have their own reasons and we can only speculate. I expect that they have targets both for "selling" loans and cutting unused overdrafts. They are in control of the loans they issue, but not in the size of the overdrafts that people run up. If they slash or remove unused overdrafts, most people will shrug their shoulders. Those who complain will often be found to have shaky finances.

You may be able to find another bank that will offer you an overdraft or a credit card. Alternatively, if the worst comes to the worst, I expect that there are still sub-prime lenders out there. It would be much better to have some emergency cash in an easy access account though.

Robintones

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Robintones

Hoenir said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:
over the last few years, interest rates have been low so honestly where you kept cash was irrelevant. Now, with good rates to be achieved, managing money is important. As most of these accounts do not pay out in the month you move money, then cash management is more important. This means having the headroom of an overdraft may well be useful, obviously balancing the cost v loss of interest.

I don't really understand the bolded logic - why does the scheduling of interest payment affect capital movement?

Robintones said:

at the moment I am keeping all my funds in fixed bonds or high-interest accounts where moving cash incurs a penalty, so the short-term cost of an overdraft may be cheaper than the loss of interest

I appreciate that you see an overdraft as the answer to flaws in your planning, but surely retaining some funds in easy access accounts makes more sense, if you anticipate potentially needing access?  There's not a massive difference between best easy access rates and fixes....

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

The provision of overdraft facilities costs the banks money. Banks are commercial organisations that aren't run
at the whims of individual customers.  There'll be a broader policy decision mostly likely made at board level. To reduce exposure by X amount across the entire customer base. The low hanging fruit will be picked off first. That's identifying unused facilities such as yours. Where it might simply be a question of cutting the agreed facility rather than removing altogether. Overdrafts can quickly and easily be reinstated. . Providing the qualification criteria is met. In the terms and conditions that you agreed to. You'll also find that overdrafts are repayable on demand. This has never changed. 

You are right. They don't care about customers and calling a department "Deepening customer relations" is an absolute joke. I will alas be moving to someone who values my business.

eskbanker

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Are you under the impression that they're basing their decision on your age (as opposed to income, etc), and if so, based on what?

Robintones

GeoffTF said:

Robintones said:

Matt, How can the same bank deem an overdraft unaffordable but a short-term unsecured loan ten times bigger affordable? 

Barclays will have their own reasons and we can only speculate. I expect that they have targets both for "selling" loans and cutting unused overdrafts. They are in control of the loans they issue, but not in the size of the overdrafts that people run up. If they slash or remove unused overdrafts, most people will shrug their shoulders. Those who complain will often be found to have shaky finances.

You may be able to find another bank that will offer you an overdraft or a credit card. Alternatively, if the worst comes to the worst, I expect that there are still sub-prime lenders out there. It would be much better to have some emergency cash in an easy access account though.

I think we all agree that Barclays don't care about their customers. I am in a fortunate position in that I have no financial worries, something that Barclays should have known if they were not so patently dysfunctional.

Robintones

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Are you under the impression that they're basing their decision on your age (as opposed to income, etc), and if so, based on what?

They had a script which they could not deviate from. It was based around income solely. Once you retire, you can change your income by managing how much you drawdown, which is a choice dependent upon activity and mostly tax considerations. So I would say that not understanding this stage of life is a factor. Obviously, people can retire at any age, but pension drawdown is only available after 55.

eskbanker

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Are you under the impression that they're basing their decision on your age (as opposed to income, etc), and if so, based on what?

They had a script which they could not deviate from. It was based around income solely. Once you retire, you can change your income by managing how much you drawdown, which is a choice dependent upon activity and mostly tax considerations. So I would say that not understanding this stage of life is a factor. Obviously, people can retire at any age, but pension drawdown is only available after 55.

But people of any age can be in a situation where their income is less reliable and predictable, such as self-employed, limited company contractors, or unemployed for that matter, so policies based on income are perfectly legitimate rather than potentially unlawful if they were ageist as such....

Robintones

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Are you under the impression that they're basing their decision on your age (as opposed to income, etc), and if so, based on what?

They had a script which they could not deviate from. It was based around income solely. Once you retire, you can change your income by managing how much you drawdown, which is a choice dependent upon activity and mostly tax considerations. So I would say that not understanding this stage of life is a factor. Obviously, people can retire at any age, but pension drawdown is only available after 55.

But people of any age can be in a situation where their income is less reliable and predictable, such as self-employed, limited company contractors, or unemployed for that matter, so policies based on income are perfectly legitimate rather than potentially unlawful if they were ageist as such....

I would put this down to incompetence. So I will be ageist now; are the bankers of today up to the job?

eskbanker

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

eskbanker said:

Robintones said:

and currently, I have overdrafts which I can use. Why should I have them taken away for the convenience of Barclays?

Because it's entirely their decision about whether to lend you money or not, and overdraft terms always make it clear that these are a privilege rather than a right and can be withdrawn at any time - this can happen even if they're in use, but if, by your own admission, you've had one for nearly fifty years and never used it then it's less surprising that they take the view that it's unlikely to be needed.

I do take the point that it seems inconsistent that they offer a substantial loan instead though....

When you say you have overdrafts (plural), can't you use your non-Barclays one(s) if push came to shove?

You are right. I will move from them, just wondered if they were doing this to other older customers.

Are you under the impression that they're basing their decision on your age (as opposed to income, etc), and if so, based on what?

They had a script which they could not deviate from. It was based around income solely. Once you retire, you can change your income by managing how much you drawdown, which is a choice dependent upon activity and mostly tax considerations. So I would say that not understanding this stage of life is a factor. Obviously, people can retire at any age, but pension drawdown is only available after 55.

But people of any age can be in a situation where their income is less reliable and predictable, such as self-employed, limited company contractors, or unemployed for that matter, so policies based on income are perfectly legitimate rather than potentially unlawful if they were ageist as such....

I would put this down to incompetence. So I will be ageist now; are the bankers of today up to the job?

Not sure exactly what that relates to, in terms of whether you're commenting on the bank's policy decision to remove some unused overdraft facilities, or your view that they don't adequately accommodate those with variable incomes, or your feelings about scripted conversations?