We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NaffWest balance transfers payment allocation
biggerpickle
Posts: 127 Forumite
in Credit cards
I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
July 2024 £12,150 June 2025 B/Card £6,500, N/West £1,900, Klarna £682, Sports Trip £547, Halifax £536, Very £222 & HMRC £142 Total £10,529
0
Comments
-
If they can't explain and you are sure about the T&C, complain and quote the T&C.
ETA: I cannot find the T&C for their CCs, but checked their current BT card and it says that "Balances transfers must be made within 3 months of account opening." Are you sure that both your balances are at 0%?0 -
Are you sure it states that? That what happens on a Payment Plan, but this wouldn't be that.biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
Let's Be Careful Out There0 -
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank youSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.0 -
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
The regs, last time I read them anyway, stated that they had to pay off the highest statemented interest. There was no regs around them having to look at future interest rates or unstatemented balances per CONC 6.7.4R and the Ombudsman has ruled on previous complaints that they dont need to consider which balance will attract interest first per https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3900644.pdfNasqueron said:
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.0 -
I think the CONC needs to look at its rules. It's plainly obvious that a 0% rate of interest which expires before another 0% one, is the one that attracts higher interest.DullGreyGuy said:
The regs, last time I read them anyway, stated that they had to pay off the highest statemented interest. There was no regs around them having to look at future interest rates or unstatemented balances per CONC 6.7.4R and the Ombudsman has ruled on previous complaints that they dont need to consider which balance will attract interest first per https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3900644.pdfNasqueron said:
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.
I consider myself to be a male feminist. Is that allowed?0 -
surreysaver said:
I think the CONC needs to look at its rules. It's plainly obvious that a 0% rate of interest which expires before another 0% one, is the one that attracts higher interest.DullGreyGuy said:
The regs, last time I read them anyway, stated that they had to pay off the highest statemented interest. There was no regs around them having to look at future interest rates or unstatemented balances per CONC 6.7.4R and the Ombudsman has ruled on previous complaints that they dont need to consider which balance will attract interest first per https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3900644.pdfNasqueron said:
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.Not obvious to me. It will be - when 0% expires.Yes, the rules can be changed to be more fair. But in this case they have to consider bigger variety of situations, e.g. like 0% switching to 30% in 31 days vs 0% switching to 10% in 30 days. What is more 'fair'?
1 -
Plus you dont want to have situations where, like Nationwide, Cash Advance and Purchases currently have the same interest rate, the bank then decides to vary the interest rates and suddenly are seen as retrospectively breaching the rules for having not been crediting payments to a pot that in the future will have higher interest.grumpy_codger said:surreysaver said:
I think the CONC needs to look at its rules. It's plainly obvious that a 0% rate of interest which expires before another 0% one, is the one that attracts higher interest.DullGreyGuy said:
The regs, last time I read them anyway, stated that they had to pay off the highest statemented interest. There was no regs around them having to look at future interest rates or unstatemented balances per CONC 6.7.4R and the Ombudsman has ruled on previous complaints that they dont need to consider which balance will attract interest first per https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3900644.pdfNasqueron said:
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.Not obvious to me. It will be - when 0% expires.Yes, the rules can be changed to be more fair. But in this case they have to consider bigger variaty of situations, e.g. like 0% switching to 30% in 31 days vs 0% switching to 10% in 30 days. What is more 'fair'?
The rules have to have a simplicity that people can understand and not have debates over hence the regs require payments to be credited to the pots based on the current interest rate and lenders stipulate what happens when the pots currently have equal interest... the most common is to pay off the oldest balance.0 -
Which is the basis for the complaint, the man on the Clapham omnibus would rightly assume that the priority would be the deal that runs out first as that is about to pay interest. Indeed, come August OP might start paying interest unless they change and allocate the payments to the balance that has expired.DullGreyGuy said:
Plus you dont want to have situations where, like Nationwide, Cash Advance and Purchases currently have the same interest rate, the bank then decides to vary the interest rates and suddenly are seen as retrospectively breaching the rules for having not been crediting payments to a pot that in the future will have higher interest.grumpy_codger said:surreysaver said:
I think the CONC needs to look at its rules. It's plainly obvious that a 0% rate of interest which expires before another 0% one, is the one that attracts higher interest.DullGreyGuy said:
The regs, last time I read them anyway, stated that they had to pay off the highest statemented interest. There was no regs around them having to look at future interest rates or unstatemented balances per CONC 6.7.4R and the Ombudsman has ruled on previous complaints that they dont need to consider which balance will attract interest first per https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3900644.pdfNasqueron said:
They have been paying off a debt that ends in August 2026, meaning the balance that is on 0% to August 2025 will start accruing interest in 2 1/2 months or so unless OP takes action to clear that one off. NW could redo the balances but when I had this with M&S they couldn't do that so I had to up my payments to clear the longer date first, then the shorter one. Banks are supposed to allocate payments to the debt that bears interest first / most expensive debt. Compensation is for the sake of it, M&S bunged me £25 as an apology, maybe OP will get more - depends what it costs them to clear the balance early and how much they lose from not having the 0% to August next year.DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP has read the T&Cs correctly they why would NW need to do anything other than move the credits onto the right balance?Nasqueron said:
If the new balance is going down and the old balance that ends in August is not going down, I would raise a formal complaint with them about it with the expectation that they keep the August 25 one on 0% for longer and maybe some compensation for this, in the mean time, can you get another BT card to move some of it off so you can clear it down?biggerpickle said:I am in comms so far unsuccessful with NW and wondering if anyone else has had a similar issue.
I opened a new card with a 0% balance transfer ~10 months ago that's reverting to 22.44% in August and then added another BT in Feb at 0% reverting to the same rate in Aug 26. Their ts and cs say payments are first applied to the debt with the highest interest and if all at the same rate then to the oldest debt first. However they're applying payments since Feb to the newer BT and can't tell me why. Any ideas? thank you
What would the compensation be for? Assuming they do the above then the OP has sustained no losses.Not obvious to me. It will be - when 0% expires.Yes, the rules can be changed to be more fair. But in this case they have to consider bigger variaty of situations, e.g. like 0% switching to 30% in 31 days vs 0% switching to 10% in 30 days. What is more 'fair'?
The rules have to have a simplicity that people can understand and not have debates over hence the regs require payments to be credited to the pots based on the current interest rate and lenders stipulate what happens when the pots currently have equal interest... the most common is to pay off the oldest balance.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards