Barclaycard closing my account due to "Business decision"

grumpy_codger

Alex9384 said:

grumpy_codger said:

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” Stop looking for some sense where there is no any.

It's a random process driven by computers often programmed by not very clever people. And some other people have to close some accounts to justify their existence. Most likely, the "business decision" was made because you are unprofitable customer and has nothing to do with risks. 

I have two barclaycards. One with cashback I've been using for purchases until Chase offered 1%. The second one was either redundant or used for loss-making (for Barclaycard) BTs. And they keep increasing its credit limit - hence "not very clever people" above.

The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated.

The really most frustrating thing is that they often add some marker to CIFAS (at al.) without even telling you. And THIS certainly needs some regulation. Not that I'm saying that this is relevant in your case.

etienneg said:

Alex9384 said:

The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated. The same way as your credit history disappears after 6 years.  As long as customers don't commit fraud, etc., I don't see any reason why they should be banned for life.

I disagree. Banks are businesses and I see no reason why businesses should not be left to decide for themselves whether or not to provide their services to any particular individual (protected characteristics excepted).

Well, not a CC, but a current account is a utility nowadays that you cannot live without.

 Otherwise, as the OP said, why doesn't the bank just stop offering them BTs and MTs?

Different departments, different targets, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

etienneg

grumpy_codger said:

Alex9384 said:

grumpy_codger said:

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” Stop looking for some sense where there is no any.

It's a random process driven by computers often programmed by not very clever people. And some other people have to close some accounts to justify their existence. Most likely, the "business decision" was made because you are unprofitable customer and has nothing to do with risks. 

I have two barclaycards. One with cashback I've been using for purchases until Chase offered 1%. The second one was either redundant or used for loss-making (for Barclaycard) BTs. And they keep increasing its credit limit - hence "not very clever people" above.

The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated.

The really most frustrating thing is that they often add some marker to CIFAS (at al.) without even telling you. And THIS certainly needs some regulation. Not that I'm saying that this is relevant in your case.

etienneg said:

Alex9384 said:

The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated. The same way as your credit history disappears after 6 years.  As long as customers don't commit fraud, etc., I don't see any reason why they should be banned for life.

I disagree. Banks are businesses and I see no reason why businesses should not be left to decide for themselves whether or not to provide their services to any particular individual (protected characteristics excepted).

Well, not a CC, but a current account is a utility nowadays that you cannot live without.

So, there's a requirement regarding a basic account from one organisation - not necessarily the one that has closed the previous one, and certainly not an account with all the facilities previously provided.

 Otherwise, as the OP said, why doesn't the bank just stop offering them BTs and MTs?

Different departments, different targets, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Hence, best to just move on elsewhere.

^^^ Replies in bold.

grumpy_codger

etienneg said:

So, there's a requirement regarding a basic account from one organisation - not necessarily the one that has closed the previous one, and certainly not an account with all the facilities previously provided.

If it's a general requirement for all providers, then why not for "the one that has closed the previous one"?

I'm no expert, but there were stories here that some people are unable to get any account even for getting their wages paid into.

born_again

Alex9384 said:

grumpy_codger said:

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” Stop looking for some sense where there is no any.

It's a random process driven by computers often programmed by not very clever people. And some other people have to close some accounts to justify their existence. Most likely, the "business decision" was made because you are unprofitable customer and has nothing to do with risks. 

I have two barclaycards. One with cashback I've been using for purchases until Chase offered 1%. The second one was either redundant or used for loss-making (for Barclaycard) BTs. And they keep increasing its credit limit - hence "not very clever people" above.

Yes, quite possibly.
The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated. The same way as your credit history disappears after 6 years.  As long as customers don't commit fraud, etc., I don't see any reason why they should be banned for life.

Same as any other business can.

No business has to have anyone as a customer. So long as they are not breeching the protected characteristics equality act 2010

Alex9384

born_again said:

Same as any other business can.

No business has to have anyone as a customer. So long as they are not breeching the protected characteristics equality act 2010

Yes, but with banks it's a little bit different, because your accounts are reported on your credit history and other banks can see it. This Barclaycard was my oldest CC with a decent credit limit. I spent years building it and they just axe it for no good reason.

It's also the only CC that offers cash withdrawals interest free if you withdraw abroad. Not that I used it regularly (only once, then paid in full after statement) but it was still nice to have that extra option.

Edit:

I understand they may not want you as a customer right now, but why do they ban you forever? Can't you change your spending habits? Can't you get out of debt? Can't you get a better paying job? Can't you decide you'd like to use different product(s) from that bank? If there's no fraud or some similar issue, I would still like to know why banks ban people for life. It just seems to me like they are massively over-reacting to something insignificant.

Alex9384

There was a thread somewhere on this forum where someone who previously worked at a bank explained how banks use software that tracks payments and creates a complex web of transactions. For example, your friend receives payment from a dodgy account. His account is now suspicious. You later receive payment from this friend and voila, now your account is suspicious too, because you're linked to the whole chain in that vast web. This person also said that they used to close customers' accounts just for the peace of mind, even if those customers themselves never directly received any dodgy payment.

Chrysalis

HillStreetBlues said:

zagfles said:

Have you only ever used the card for BT/MTs, not for spending? They generally don't make money on BT/MT fees as the rates are usually well below prevailing interest rates, so they'll make a loss. That might be the reason. 

If they have found out the they aren't making money offering BT why not simply stop making the offers? (It's a rhetorical question)

I would assume the answer is that for "some" customers it is profitable.

The idea is for BT to draw customer in, they hope the customer doesnt clear the BT debt by end of offer, then moving forward they making normal interest on it, also is the possibility the customer might use it for purchases as well which would make interest.

MattMattMattUK

That letter looks very similar to the ones others have posted when Barclays have closed their accounts due to a CIFAS marker being applied by another banking institution. I would recommend you complete a DSAR with CIFAS and also check all your credit files.

Altior

born_again said:

Alex9384 said:

grumpy_codger said:

“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” Stop looking for some sense where there is no any.

It's a random process driven by computers often programmed by not very clever people. And some other people have to close some accounts to justify their existence. Most likely, the "business decision" was made because you are unprofitable customer and has nothing to do with risks. 

I have two barclaycards. One with cashback I've been using for purchases until Chase offered 1%. The second one was either redundant or used for loss-making (for Barclaycard) BTs. And they keep increasing its credit limit - hence "not very clever people" above.

Yes, quite possibly.
The most frustrating thing is that when banks close your accounts, they blacklist you for life. Perhaps it should be somehow regulated. The same way as your credit history disappears after 6 years.  As long as customers don't commit fraud, etc., I don't see any reason why they should be banned for life.

Same as any other business can.

No business has to have anyone as a customer. So long as they are not breeching the protected characteristics equality act 2010

To be fair, if the lender refuses to state the reasoning for shutting the accounts down, the customer can't be in a position to know if the act has been breached.

I've been a huge stoozer for years, and had accounts closed down due to inactivity. Which is fine, it actually means I can start a new account later down the line. But they informed me why, and that I could still use the account before the date it was closed down to maintain it. There appears to be more to this than the account simply not being profitable.

HillStreetBlues

Altior said:

To be fair, if the lender refuses to state the reasoning for shutting the accounts down, the customer can't be in a position to know if the act has been breached.

I've been a huge stoozer for years, and had accounts closed down due to inactivity. Which is fine, it actually means I can start a new account later down the line. But they informed me why, and that I could still use the account before the date it was closed down to maintain it. There appears to be more to this than the account simply not being profitable.

I hardly use my BC as have better reward cards, but seen people had their limit slashed so took the offer of a BT. Would be ironic if using BT  ends in card closure.