Abysmal bank service - Barclays UK

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Could you provide evidence for that ?

 

 

http://www.bba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/webversion-BQB-3-1.pdf

[duncan]

Nick, I think your Mother might be hit with exchange charges each month if she is paying a sterling pension into a euro account.  Is there maybe an Italian Bank with a UK branch which would work ?  

[Nick_Burman]

12 minutes ago, duncan said:

Nick, I think your Mother might be hit with exchange charges each month if she is paying a sterling pension into a euro account.  Is there maybe an Italian Bank with a UK branch which would work ?  

 

My mother's pension is sooo small (after all she only contributed for three years before her and my father returned to Brazil) that the Pension Service only pays her once every 3 to 6 months... so exchange charges will probably be small in proportion to the value.

 

I don't know of a single Italian bank with an UK branch. AFAIK most such banks will only open their foreign branches to big bucks banking anyway. I've looked two of Italy's largest banks (Unicredit and Intesa San Paolo) and their London presence is strictly Corporate Banking - not useful for a "wrinkly"...

 

If UK banks are bad, Italian ones are even worse - and the banking system is rotten to the core. Everybody is waiting for the next big bank implosion... As soon as the pandemic subsides she's hell bent on quitting our bank (BNL Paribas), the probable destination being the Italian Postal Bank (Banco Poste) - the logic being that, if you are going to get poor service, at least you pay lower charges (don't know about the UK but BNL charges - or has proposed to charge - even the time you spend with the branch manager looking at potential investments) and Banco Poste has the lowest charges of all "brick and mortar" banks (after all it's where Italian pensioners get paid). Only online banks have no charges, but none of us trusts them. When the move happens she'll evaluate what to do about the "peanuts"...

 

 

Cheers NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nick_Burman]

5 hours ago, coastalview said:

 

This means UK banks have to make sure they operate within the various regulatory frameworks of each EU country in order to continue to serve any customers living there; being able to do so is very complicated, and depends on the types of products on offer, the bank’s business model and the regulator’s rules in each country. 

 

All UK High Street banks are essentially ditching their EU customers if they don't haven an UK address.

 

 

Cheers NB

[Grovenor]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As previously mentioned, such facilities can only be offered by an EU subsidiary of the UK bank, not by the UK bank itself. That is the law (or will be in the event of lack of relevant agreement - politics again).

But just saying its the law with no supporting info, ie what law, is not convincing, We don't know on what basis you make that assertion. Does this law only apply to the EU?  When was it enacted since I had no problems in the past having a UK bank account with a foreign address.

[simontaylor484]

Surely it would be prudent that these massive international banks would have plans for a no deal brexit occouring. How do they trade with nations not in the European economic area

 

It all sounds like a massive con job to screw the British public out of more of thier hard earned money.

 

All these Banks are doing is putting profit first as usual

 

 

[Dagworth]

9 minutes ago, simontaylor484 said:

How do they trade with nations not in the European economic area

Presumably by the agreements between the EU and those areas?

 

Andi

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, Grovenor said:

But just saying its the law with no supporting info, ie what law, is not convincing, We don't know on what basis you make that assertion. Does this law only apply to the EU?  When was it enacted since I had no problems in the past having a UK bank account with a foreign address.

 

You missed this post:

 

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/sep/21/britons-eu-uk-bank-accounts-closed-lloyds-barclays-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/sep/29/britons-in-eu-need-sufficient-warning-of-uk-bank-account-closure-warn-mps-brexit

 

[Andy Hayter]

8 hours ago, Nick_Burman said:

 

All UK High Street banks are essentially ditching their EU customers if they don't haven an UK address.

 

 

Cheers NB

 

Not quite true.

In order to operate within the EU and EEA after 31.12, UK banks will have to have a subsidiary operating in the individual countries and of course meeting the local laws around the services they provide.  To operate across the whole EU they would have to have 27 separate companies.

If a bank has a very few customers in for example Italy, it will not be economic for them to open an Italian subsidiary, but if they have a lot of customers in say France it may be economic for them to operate a subsidiary and in a number of cases they will already have subsidiary operations in some countries.  I know for example that HSBC operate in France - although I don't use them.  

I have heard that Lloyds for example have closed accounts in the Netherlands but have not (yet) closed accounts in France.  

Barclays have closed accounts in Italy (according to the OP and no reason to disbelieve) but have announced that they want to increase their banking presence in France.  

 

It is for those of us in the EU a real muddle and for those directly impacted disconcerting and often little time has been given to make alternative arrangements.

 

AS for contacting by telephone, I can only echo what others have written and add TSB (OH's bank) to the list of banks where you will hang on the line for a very long time - and that is pre-Covid.

[4630]

In the interest of providing a little light on this subject, the following is a link to a joint letter from the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority - who in this context are effectively the regulators of all financial institutions in the UK that hold a banking licence.

 

PRA/FCA - Final preparations for the end of the transition period 

 

The paragraph on page 3 'Provision of retail banking services' is the most relevant, although to those who work in financial services (or in my case used to, 1977-2004) and have to deal with this sort of stuff, the entire contents makes interesting reading.

 

Ultimately, individual UK banks have made a commercial and risk decision based on;

• the lack of clarity on the trading environment between the UK and EU post 31st December 2020 - principally the lack of agreement on 'Passporting' and 'Equivalence' between the UK and EU 
• the total of affected customer balances in the EU, number of those customers and impact on profitability and the balance sheet
• the impact on future business potential

What's surprising to me is not the banks approach to its customers (been there, done that, worn out several tee shirts), but that those customers are surprised that the banks have taken this action.

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

10 minutes ago, 4630 said:

What's surprising to me is not the banks approach to its customers (been there, done that, worn out several tee shirts), but that those customers are surprised that the banks have taken this action.

 

Possibly a belief that somehow somewhere a deal would be pulled out of the hat despite all the rhetoric since 2016 being that 'no deal' was a good thing and the best solution to a large percentage of people who voted to leave.

 

The banks have left it as late as they could to do this, too quickly and you've lost a customer base, too late you're stuck with customers whose facilities now cost more to provide if you can even actually provide it in the absence of authority.

 

Like many businesses they are stuck between a rock and a hard place - 12 days to the end of transition and businesses still don't know which set of rules they will be working to on the 1st January.  It's not as if they haven't got enough to be dealing with, you know staying afloat in the midst of a pandemnic which is being handled almost as well as the negotiations.

[woodenhead]

However, I will just add - no-one foresaw a pandemnic in 2021, no Government around the world except perhaps the more authoritarian ones have created a robust plan to deal with it and everyone is learning as they go along.

 

I don't like that 'Project Fear' is the blueprint for all Government responses to crises now but I don't think any Government in the world was prepared for a Covid.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

 

I don't like that 'Project Fear' is the blueprint for all Government responses to crises now but I don't think any Government in the world was prepared for a Covid.

 

They weren't, but in some respects the pandemic has come in nightly handy for the current UK Government. Even if Brexit hadn't happened there would still be massive disruption to trade and restrictions on movement between countries at the moment, particularly what with all the extra stuff which tends to need to be shipped around the world in preparation for Christmas. As such quite a lot of the pain being generated by the last minute negotiations or no deal Brexit can be disguised as due to Covid......

 

[4630]

19 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

Like many businesses they are stuck between a rock and a hard place - 12 days to the end of transition and businesses still don't know which set of rules they will be working to on the 1st January.  It's not as if they haven't got enough to be dealing with, you know staying afloat in the midst of a pandemnic which is being handled almost as well as the negotiations.

 

So true.

 

There is another issue behind all this which I didn't bring up in my post, primarily because I don't want to initiate a political/b****t discussion that gets the thread locked.

 

But to perhaps give a broader hint, whilst issues around fishing seems to be an issue over which the UK appears prepared to sacrifice a deal* - as far as the EU is concerned, although not explicitly mentioned, financial services within the Single Market is a 'red line'.   The EU, as an entity, has long been unhappy with the volume and value of Euro business that is transacted through the financial markets in London.

 

 

* based on my reading of the situation at 11.40am on 19th December 2020, should a deal subsequently fall into place at the last second.

Edited December 19, 2020 by 4630

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, 4630 said:

issues around fishing seems to be an issue over which the UK appears prepared to sacrifice a deal

 

As do the EU, to save French fishermen's, sorry fisherpeople's, and M. Macron's jobs. 

 

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If you don't like this state of affairs then I suggest you take your complaints to the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jacob Res-Mogg, etc who have caused this state of affairs to arise in the first place.

 

And of course Michel Barnier, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel etc; It takes both sides to agree, to get a deal.

 

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

And of course Michel Barnier, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel etc; It takes both sides to agree, to get a deal.

 

 

True to a degree, though as the UK was the one who decided to walk out in the organisation first place (as opposed to being expelled or the organisation disbanding) and the statistics prove that we ones who have most to lose economically in the short term (even if it all works out well in the medium to long term), the responsibility to come up with a suitable deal rest more heavily (though not exclusively) on the UK side.

 

As someone said of RMweb once, "Andy's gaff so Andy's rules". That principle is just as valid when we are talking about access to the EU single market which we have chosen to walk out of or indeed Fishing rights in British waters.

 

About the only thing I think everyone can agree on is that all this uncertainty is very damaging. Given the unwillingness to relax the perfectly logical red lines each side regards as sacrosanct, the decision should have been taken several months ago by both sides stop talking and just accept no deal Brexit. As economically painful as that will be - at least business on both sides would have time to prepare.

[Miserable]

We are now a 'third country', so UK banks no longer have 'passporting' access to the EU financial markets. This not down to Barclays or any bank, this is brexit - and was entirely predictable as those paying attention knew.

[Miserable]

2 hours ago, 4630 said:

a"s far as the EU is concerned, although not explicitly mentioned, financial services within the Single Market is a 'red line'.   The EU, as an entity, has long been unhappy with the volume and value of Euro business that is transacted through the financial markets in London."

 

No, it isn't a 'red line' - it's a fundamental rule of the EU club - if you are not in it you don't get the advantages. Try leaving RAC then calling them out to a breakdown.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Miserable

[beast66606]

Quote

Try leaving RAC then calling them out to a breakdown.

 

They will happily attend* - you will pay for the service but they won't cut of their noses to spite their faces.

 

* source - the RAC

[didcot]

I would add that HSBC are the most inept, incompetent and totally useless Bank I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. 

 

[Compound2632]

45 minutes ago, didcot said:

I would add that HSBC are the most inept, incompetent and totally useless Bank I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. 

 

You need to try a greater range of banks...

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

About the only thing I think everyone can agree on is that all this uncertainty is very damaging. Given the unwillingness to relax the perfectly logical red lines each side regards as sacrosanct, the decision should have been taken several months ago by both sides stop talking and just accept no deal Brexit. As economically painful as that will be - at least business on both sides would have time to prepare.

In some respects the simplest, cheapest and least crippling thing would have been that when we voted out we went straight out.  I voted remain but I can see how damaging all the 'negotiations' have been ever since 2016 - first to agree legal terms for a transition and now to try and make some sort of agreement for a deal.

 

Both sides must desperately want a deal, both must know it is their best interests to have a deal but neither side want to be seen to be backing down continuing the stalemate that has existed, just like the vote being 50/50.

 

This whole debacle is being caused by politicians on all sides, in all countries and is doing nothing to sell the virtues of the EU or the UK Government - China, Russia and America must be laughing at the mess being made in Europe which they can all reap benefit from.

 

I don't like it but it seems a No Deal exit in 2016 might actually have been a better outcome, by now we would be negotiating with the EU as a potential partner and not arguing over a divorce deal still.  How much money might we have saved on all sides fighting, arguing and simply talking but getting nowhere.  This is like one of those horror divorce cases you read about where both parties cannot see the collatoral damage they are causing all around them and continue to batter one another without making any progress.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

In some respects the simplest, cheapest and least crippling thing would have been that when we voted out we went straight out. 

 

Which would have meant tearing up the Good Friday agreement straight away. The fundamental problem with Brexit has always been its incompatibility with the UK's obligations under existing treaties. Apologies for stating the political facts.

[woodenhead]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which would have meant tearing up the Good Friday agreement straight away. The fundamental problem with Brexit has always been its incompatibility with the UK's obligations under existing treaties. Apologies for stating the political facts.

Possibly or it would have been a very specific negotiation to resolve a material issue that everyone would agree was serious and didn't impact anyone's red lines.  All eyes would have been focussed on one aspect, fishing rights and the London financial zone, employee rights wouldn't have been in that discussion.

 

Like I said, I wanted to remain, but it shouldn't have taken 4 years to resolve the Good Friday agreement issues - and if that was the crux of our problems in negotiations with the EU we would have a deal right now and we don't because they are too far apart on other issues yet have managed to amicably resolve Northern Ireland.  It was being used as a pawn somewhere I suspect as neither side really wanted to be blamed for ending the agreement - once it was necessary to find agreement, lo they found it.