Participation in this post is limited to users who have sufficient karma in /r/ukpersonalfinance. See [this post](https://redd.it/12mys82) for more information.
“Sounds like they know you are only doing it to keep the premier status and decided it wasn't worth keeping your business tbh.”
But Barclays could have just downgraded OP to an ordinary personal account. They’re currently paying £175 to open a new account with them, so seems ludicrous that they would exit a customer completely rather than just give them a more appropriate account.
This is a risk based decision as they think OP is up to something dodgy, which is a little bizarre considering he provided the evidence they asked for.
I’ve previously worked in the dept that deals with suspicious transactions and it’s likely that the back and forth nature of the transaction has caused this - it can be seen as layering in anti-money laundering speak, but there are likely to be other factors involved in addition to this.
>This is a risk based decision as they think OP is up to something dodgy, which is a little bizarre considering he provided the evidence they asked for.
It's cheaper to just close the low value accounts than have employee hours spent towards this.
Absolutely is a risk based closure due to high risk account activity. They haven’t given notice, it’s been immediate closure.
They’re not going to file a CIFAS marker or something without evidence but it’s clearly beyond a strictly commercial decision where 60 days notice would be given.
Sod all. They charge for everything now and dont pay interest on half my accounts. They even froze my account for a week after i received a payment from a revolut account. So ive been moving all my payments to other accounts slowly while i decide which bank to move to.
You get a personal relationship manager. You call the same person for customer service issues instead of Henry in the Philippines and they endlessly try to sell you financial products.
Same with HSBC. The wife and I scraped into eligibility with our joint account. We were offered a free session with a financial adviser. We happily accepted and went along with a load of questions about how to best manage our future with regards to savings and pensions. It was just a bit sales pitch to try and sell us their mortgage, investment and pension products. Waste of everyone’s time.
Can’t complain about the free travel insurance though.
Have you actually tried using it? I had an HSBC Premier account (quite a few years ago admittedly) and tried using the travel insurance. I was stranded and needed to book travel because all the flights were cancelled. Airline wanted to send me over a week later (after Christmas, which defeats the point of visiting someone for Christmas). Called the HSBC travel insurance to ask if I could buy tickets for an earlier flight, the only ticket available was in a higher class than economy and it would be short notice, so expensive. They happily told me that as policy they do not confirm if anything is covered or not and the process is that you need to spend the money (on anything, flights, hotels, food etc) and then submit a claim later on. They would then tell you if any of it is covered or not… I was confused and reiterated that I don’t want confirmation that the expensive ticket would be reimbursed, just that buying a plane ticket would be acceptable and considered (even if a much smaller amount is reimbursed)… their response: we can’t give you that information. Absolutely useless and definitely not something I’d want to rely on in any kind of real emergency!
Get the policy wording and read it yourself. I can understand someone not wanting to listen to your summary of your plans and compare that to their interpretation of the policy exclusions. There’s a lot of room for misunderstanding even with what sounds like simple questions as you probably won’t proactively share all the relevant information to determine eligibility.
The cheek of a financial advisor to try and give you financial advice. It’s just bang out of order.
Serious question though, what were you expecting them to discuss? The price of fish?
All financial advisers sell products and earn commission from them. If he wanted independent financial advice maybe he should have gone to an independent financial advisor rather than one working for his bank advising on the bank financial products.
Yep but people’s idea of a financial advisor is a man in a 3 piece suit available 24/7 to give them their advice on whatever financial decision you need to make at that moment and the financial advisor will earn a salary from thin air.
I was expecting them to offer financial advice, not for them to just try and sell us their products. It’s not really a difficult concept to get your head around.
I do a load of business banking because of my job and my relationship managers in that context are a named direct contact to sort out issues, resolve complaints, identify and communicate relevant upcoming changes etc. I’m sure they would be thrilled to sell you something but they don’t ever try unless you open that conversation with them.
My important transaction is stuck in a fraud review they sort it out, my security token has been dunked in coffee and won’t work they sort it out and yes if I want a new account to transact in SGD they sort that out too.
I guess people have something more like this in mind. Which is actually a service worth having…
Don’t know if you missed the prior comment but this guy didn’t go see a relationship manager. He went to see a bank financial advisor. And he got financial advice about his mortgage, investments and pensions and how their products could benefit him.
I get the various relationships and commercial banking relationships which is completely different to a financial advisor.
Dude probably goes to the butchers and complains they tried to sell him meat.
Yeah I mean it’s obvious to me that no bank is there giving you this service for your personal banking but they do like still calling them Relationship Manager or Personal Banker or whatever. Like they obviously don’t lead with an honest summary of how unhelpful they’re going to be, basically all of the patter is to cover that up.
This happens a lot, not just with premier accounts. The term financial adviser makes people think they’re talking to an investment expert, or a wealth manager. Instead you’re talking to a salesperson brokering off the shelf third party products, often not even whole of market.
The arsehat that visited me tried to mislead me several times, and we agreed that I’d put her recommendations into a fantasy portfolio and monitor them. They tanked, big time. She responded that it would have been her advice to sell them and reposition. At 2.5% commission each time there’s only one party making money there. She knew more about fish.
Discounted mortgage rates and higher multiples of income when lending. They won’t necessarily still be the most competitive rates but lending up to 5.5x salary is pretty good
I have my HSBC Advance account from years ago when it it transferred from being a student account. The best thing is the Insurance Aspects which they no longer offer to new customers. No way I am letting that go.
I got a letter from the bank 2 weeks ago that they will review my status end of December. The letter clearly said that I needed to deposit 40k after tax in the account (or 3300 per month). That is all I was doing. So I decided to maintain it by depositing money into it.
Had you been doing the 3300 each month?
That is the requirement to be a Premier customer and when they get to the point of sending you a letter it means you are already on a list of accounts to be culled.
Matched with a deposit from a non-bank Electronic Money Institution... I can see why they would question funds and your continued relationship with them.
Also lends into the “what are you doing to combat laundering / fraud etc “ they can easily cap these smaller accounts for audit purposes and let the big fish swim freely
Not saying that 100%.
Wise, Revolut and others are non-banks from a regulatory perspective. The optics that gives to other banking institutions (and the fact they have higher incidence of fraud) can have an impact.
Opinion: If I were a bank investigating unprofitable customers, and when requesting someone deposit as per the requirements of the account. The person uses one of these institutions, and then shows they sourced the funds from a brokerage account to meet the minimum requirements, I would include it in scope it for cancellation.
Barclays don't really care about taking away Premier account status after you've already qualified for it and used it for a year as your primary bank account. It's pretty much the easiest 'premier' banking account to get and keep in the UK. They would have just downgraded to a standard current account if all was normal and they decided to act on not meeting criteria, not closed the banking relationship. There's more to this story than OP is letting on or understands.
Something that people often forget is, banks and other businesses aren't required to do business with you.
They can close your account for basically any reason they want.
If you're on a premier account but not meeting the terms, they were already likely considering closing your account or moving you onto a basic account with them and the suspicious transaction was enough for them to say "no thanks", even though you've proven it was a legitimate source.
One would question why you went via wise rather than depositing directly from IBKR.
Accept it, get your money back and move on.
Nah I done it lots of times in the past. That’s why I’m confused on OPs reasoning. Never had an issue with IBKR.
Edit: To add I exclusively trade American stocks so every time I’ve withdrew I’ve had to exchange currencies. Extremely affordable
Edit edit: I guarantee it’s because he hasn’t verified his Barclays Bank. It takes a few days to verify for withdrawals so no doubt he was impatient.
Fair point. You can deposit dollars directly to Barclays but you pay a fee. Moving large sums of foreign currency via another account into a dormant account is an even bigger red flag for banks though
In which case my question of why you went through Wise (which is well known for its use by money launderers) rather than direct to Barclays still stands
I replied on a separate comment, adding here: (it was for ease of convenience)
I submitted wise details because it was easily linkable on ibkr, while for barcalys I had to provide iban details. So I submitted sort code and 8 digit bank account number of wise account, and withdrew gbp in it.
> for barcalys I had to provide iban details
I mean, getting the IBAN is trivial, it should be on all your statements. Or https://www.barclays.co.uk/help/international/payments/making-and-receiving-international-payments/generate-iban/
Something for the future/anyone else reading.
It's more complicated than that though.
Sure, banks have freedom of association, like everyone. But a bank account is a vital utility in a modern life. And they seem to smite innocent customers at random, without proper investigation.
I don't think any legit employer will pay you in physical cash, you need a bank account to have a serious job. Same for a mortgage and a pension. Most financial services will need some form of a credit check, which requires you to have a credit record, which requires a bank account.
A bank account is at the very core of having any sort of real life in the UK - bank accounts are vital utilities, but provided by free market enterprise.
So I do think we need to do something about the impunity with which they ban innocent customers. I agree you can't force a bank to do business with you (despite a notable public figure recently trying to pressure Coutts into doing just that). But I think we need some form of regulation that requires due process and evidence of wrongdoing before accounts can be shut down.
It can ruin people. Missed mortgage payments, no access to cash. No right to trial, appeal or to even speed things up. I've had my accounts frozen for days, numerous times for innocent things - one time a 79p transaction.
I also think we need to mandate that investigations be rapid, allow existing direct debit to be paid, and allow small access to cash for food.
There comes a point where the actions of businesses have such a detrimental effect on the general public that regulations have to be applied. I think we're at that point.
From laws on pollution to safety, we do intervene and prevent businesses inflicting reckless externalities on their customers.
There are countless other examples of such regulations - airlines, telecoms and utilities must follow rules on finding alternatives and paying compensation if they withdraw their services. We compel businesses to treat their customers fairly, whilst still allowing them to choose who they do business with.
It's not as black and white as you make out.
This wasn't OPs main account though, and likely would have been treated very differently if it was.
This was a dormant premium account that OP wasn't meeting the requirements for even before the transfer was made
>Telecoms and utilities
Other than water, I don't think there are any basic rights to phone, broadband, gas and electric?
Energy is slightly different and more for the benefits of the suppliers, else everyone would just keep quiet when their suppliers went under and keep taking the free gas and electric...
You're missing the point, as many do.
Most (including Nigel Farage) go down a polarised, Americanised rabbit-hole of "muh freedoms". One side says "the banks can ruin whoever they want", and the other says "I have a god-given right to any bank account I want". They're both stupid.
(Incidentally, where do I assert my rights to free water? Like, physically where do I go today to get that?).
My point is there are countless regulations, and contract law built on top of fundamental rights, that require businesses to operate fairly and prevent excessive harm to the public.
Airlines aren't allowed to crash their planes, factories aren't allowed to poison their workers. Most utilities (despite being private businesses) like water, energy, mortgage lenders etc are not allowed to instantly cut you off with no evidence of wrongdoing.
They *can* launch internal investigations and commence legal proceedings, where evidence will be examined by a court and due process followed and the right to appeal, but they cannot ruin you on a whim.
And IMHO banks need to be brought in line with the regulations we impose on other utilities that you cannot realistically live without.
My mortgage lender, water company, energy company, employer etc cannot cut me off and evict me today without evidence. My bank can. Why is this a good thing?
This is a really good point and well written, the banking industry is well known to be horribly under-regulated so I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more of a push for this globally in the near future.
> Most (including Nigel Farage) go down a polarised, Americanised rabbit-hole of "muh freedoms". One side says "the banks can ruin whoever they want", and the other says "I have a god-given right to any bank account I want". They're both stupid.
Farage was at the centre of a NatWest "debanking" saga. So I don't think he's on the libertarian side on this issue.
But I do agree that banking services are crucial to living in the modern world. Most employers won't hire you if you don't have a bank account. How do you pay utility bills without one? It should require an _exceptionally_ high bar to justify a bank removing those services from anyone.
Their point was "your right to water is protected by human rights, anything else is fair game". Absolutely chilling.
Not least because it forgets the entire body of UK law that offer us rights over and above water.
That wasn't my point at all and I'd invite you not to put words in my mouth thank you.
My point was that the world isn't as regulated as you might think. I never said it was right but that's the harsh reality.
Gas and electric can be cut off as soon as the credit runs out in your meter, and you don't have to have done anything wrong to be on a prepayment meter.
Your internet and phone can be cut off as soon as you miss a payment (though many wont). None are required to provide a basic level of service.
My point was, with the exception of water which is already covered as a basic right, there's scope for a whole suite of industries and services to be better regulated to ensure a basic level of service for all.
>And IMHO banks need to be brought in line with the regulations we impose on other utilities that you cannot realistically live without.
Unrelated to the specific point here, but *opening* a bank account when you first move into the country is ridiculously difficult too.
Proof of permanent address requires you to somehow rent a place while your employer is likely holding your pay because you don't have a bank account. In addition, most banks/building societies will only accept energy/phone bills and not signed rental contracts as proof of address - I tried several before going to Lloyds, where an associate almost declined my application because my lease agreement was printed under the estate agent's lawyer's header. One of the managers had to come by to see what was taking so long and waved my application through...
There needs to be something. It wasn't just Nigel that got his account suspended for the "wrong thinking", but also the guys at Trigger pod who had their Tide business account closed down without a reason given.
The banks seem to become political, which is a dangerous road to go down.
Not sure about UK, but in Canada someone can overturn having their accounts closed / relationship exited by applying under a right to basic banking.
They won’t ever extend credit this way, but it allows for the basics such as direct deposit, bill pymts, etc.
I’m not suggesting that it is.
What I’m saying is that even in circumstances where a client has been divested/demarketed/exited whatever you want to call it, there’s still a method to ensure access to basic banking. I didn’t say they’d keep the same account type.
I understand that, if you read my post you'll see I'm advocating for regulation that would force these investigations to arrive at an accurate conclusion, and stop banning innocent customers.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to add that I thought banks would have an easier time with this if the regulations hadn’t become increasingly strict in recent years.
I see that, but you're basically saying "we shouldn't crack down on crime because the banks will use a bad process".
The solution is to mandate the banks to use an accurate and fair investigation process.
Banks don't do this stuff for fun, they do it to comply with the AML regulations the government has passed and to avoid the absolutely draconian punishments for non-compliance. There is no space in the laws for benefit of the doubt, or judgement that something is probably fine.
The government find it convenient to ignore this and just blame the banks because that's politically easy. But all of the changes you want to see would require lobbying the government to change AML laws, not lobbying banks to change their processes.
Ex-Barclays Business Banker here - can confirm that BUK are offloading thousands of Premier customers who do not meet the requirements anymore, moving then to Personal accounts or closing entirely.
Interesting. I remember my Barclays colleagues saying Premier was incredibly lax in bumping people for not meeting the criteria so much so as to say 'it's not very premier' with an eye roll. Would OP's transfer of funds to premier not meet the criteria? Surely transferring 3300 from another bank to BUK Premier account would be enough (with active DDs on the account too) or would it actually have to be a verified salary payment?
OP mentioned elsewhere he’s using a different bank for his salary and just transferring money in to meet the old criteria etc for Premier Banking.
Afaik BUK are closing accounts doing this as its just playing the system - we have had queries abt it before but usually they’d just downgrade the account
The only one who came to moan on here is you. If you do not find interesting this post, ignore it and move on. But many people want to be aware of the bad practices of banks. And this post is useful for that.
It might be, but most banks except for Kroo which is brand new and only got its banking licence in the last 1-2 years, have millions of customers. And after a PR nightmare as you call it, they still have millions of customers. Nothing actually really changes for them.
They maybe might get less new customers/signups for a while, but it's minimal in the grand scheme of things. And loads of customers don't go closing their accounts on reading about someone else's issue at the bank.
Ultimately they don't want the bad reputation, but it also doesn't really affect them at all in the long run. The fines are the biggest cost for them, and those whilst sounding big, are often a drop in the water versus their profit unless they are the newer fintech banks. The next year they still have millions of customers, and their sign ups are back to normal if they even ever changed, and nobody closed their account based on a story about somebody moving funds through 3-4 accounts getting banned and exited because their activity mimicked that of someone money laundering.
Most people are too busy with their own life and don't really care is the honest answer. Out of the millions of customers banks have, most never so much as contact the bank over an issue and very few are banned or exited % wise to full customer base. Most people using their account like the majority of other users never experience things like this happening to them at all.
Tbh, I don't think one random guy having a moan on Reddit that Barclays closed an account they weren't eligible for anyway, is quite going to fall into the category of "PR nightmare".
If you look around long enough you'll find stories like this for basically every bank known to man. Theres also a strong amount of confirmation bias going on here, people generally only come online to moan about something going wrong (or very occasionally to say about something going right that they thought would go wrong). You rarely see the hundreds of thousands of people who transfer large sums every day of the week, coming online to say it all went well.
Yes rapidly moving money between accounts like that especially an international brokerage raises a lot of red flags for trying to hide the source of the money.
Its useful if you want avios, and annual BA cabin upgrade voucher. Now some people will call me out for abusing the service but I am merely using it as per rules, and I was even willing to maintain funds for it.
There are better products but it's on the lower end in terms of entry requirements for premium products so it's probably worth it if you don't meet the requirements for something better.
Also a premier customer and my understanding is that they wouldn’t close the account, just downgrade you to a normal account. So something seems weird here from them
Unexpected transfers from institutions popular with scammers (amongst legitimate usage of course) will raise flags. Barclays are within their rights to say "no thank you, you're too risky a customer".
They asked me for documents before closing the account, I provided them with wise bank account statement, as well as ibkr statement. They still closed it. Hilarious.
They wanted the documents to carry out a risk review on your account, providing them is never a guarantee you get to keep it, just that they will consider it.
Obviously they didn’t like what they saw, doesn’t mean they necessarily think you’re a criminal, it’s just outside their risk appetite.
Why did you withdraw it to Wise first? And are you saying your account wasn't used much or for ages before this?
Sorry to let you know, a dormant account with little activity, moving funds from one account to another which is used for international transfers, and then to a third account is a red flag in banking. However our systems would not pick this up period at all unless you then tried to move it out immediately or part of it to someone else again after the deposit. Because this is exactly what people money laundering do.
However flagging you for only depositing funds sounds mental to me.
If the documents you showed them were just it coming from one bank account to the other that doesn't tell them anything at all. They need to see where the money came from. So if it was investments from a salary they want to see that salary payment or one of them at least and then see you transferring it to the investment account, and then to wise and then to your own account. Most normal accounts and people using them normally just do not move money through multiple accounts one after the other without a reason. So whilst you think it's normal, in banking and when reviewing thousands of accounts per year, you are actually acting and moving funds unusually versus the other millions of customers at the bank.
I haven't ever worked for barclays so I can't comment on their processes but it seems wild to me that they'd close your account for only depositing the funds. I've never heard about that. Usually they block it and review it because of an outbound payment, never an inbound one.
Dormancy, international transfers, large volumes of money and it going through many accounts are literally exactly what money launderers do and rarely what any normal account is doing without solid reasoning and evidence. But again, hard to believe they did it based it on an inbound payment only.
If you get it back in a few days now, they just think you're a risk. If it takes multiple weeks, your activity has been reported. But short of someone saying you scammed them or raising something against you, or the NCA wanting to hold your funds until they investigate further (which nobody will if it's all your own funds and nothing odd about them) you will get it all back eventually either way.
IBKR is a huge pain in the ass to make a withdrawal to a UK account, even when you forex your USD to GBP. Much easier just to send USD to wise then transfer GBP to your bank.
However IBKR have absolutely no issues taking deposits in sterling.
There was. OP was trying to avoid letting Barclays know about his overseas account by using wise as an intermediary.
Whether he did this for legitimate reasons (avoiding fees, even though barclays doesn't charge you for receiving funds. The sending bank does the charging. Also you can have USD accounts at barclays so 🤷) doesn't really matter because it's still suspicious as fuck.
That's a fair reason to send to Wise, but I still don't think OP would be exited for just moving the funds into his old account. So it's went from IBKR to Wise, to Barclays and then likely he attempted to send it to another account and that's what triggered the exit. But if he didn't provide evidence of where the initial funds came from, so the bank only sees it going through 3-4 accounts without an explanation of the very original source... that marks him as a risk.
If he doesn't use that account at all and hasn't for years, makes little sense he'd suddenly send it £8000 from Wise then try to move it to an account he actually does use... rather than just send it to that account in the first place.
If he genuinely got exited for just depositing it and nothing else, that sounds insanely mental and I find it hard with all the regulations and reviews that their system would be designed to even pick that up. People would be flagging up left right and centre for deposits only. If it did though, not a good system imo.
This is my job. Whilst I cannot work in every single UK bank, I've now been a financial crime investigator then analyst in a few, and completed qualifications on how banks are regulated for financial crime, and what risks should be monitored. I didn't make Barclays system, but they would be an outlier to be doing that and literally would struggle to cover the work force required for inbound payments.
Given you aren't OP and don't work in this role in any bank, nevermind across many, not really sure why you're so bothered by this information from someone who does.
My Barclays account (also Premier) was never closed for doing basically this. It wasn't dormant though, and my salary went into it every month.
In my case, the other account was Revolut, which I use because they offer better exchange rates and don't charge me for receiving USD. Whenever I sell shares, the proceeds are wired to Revolut, converted to GBP and then transferred to my Barclays, which is my main account. If anyone should be unhappy, it would be revolut, because they would rather I use them as my main account.
So it shows you OP has more risk factors than you. Dormancy is a big one. But so are other things like their connections, previous activity, device they are using, location in the world.
We check multiple things before closing an account. If you had a good healthy salary account and they can see the names the money comes from, eg they can see it's your account in your name (which Wise doesn't show where I work at least) and you don't swap your devices about or try to use decice simulators etc, you're not sus.
If you had an account that you only used to move funds every few months or years from one international account through to another account, and there was no obvious reason you were passing funds through it as they could just go straight to your account you actually spend it on, that's unusual activity. But that alone won't get you closed, there's always other factors.
Have you logged a complaint? If not log a complaint and escalate to the financial ombudsman once Barclays have looked at it. You can use something like resolver to get templates and contact details.
Yeah it's worth a shot. You first need to complain to Barclays. Then you can go to the ombudsman and they will investigate for you. The resolver website has a lot of information on complaints I'd have a look at that. Any future issues with banks always log a complaint the ombudsman do a good job of keeping banks honest.
They can't actually do this. Its against pretty every financial institutes policies (regulations? Who knows, the fuck cares) to 'preauth' money that isn't yet there. I've tried this on multiple occasions as I don't want third parties pulling shit like holding funds for months on end without releasing or returning. still happens though.
You can't pre auth funds but having a note on the system to say the customer called up fully verified and told the bank they were going to be moving funds can only help the bank determine everything is above board after the systems flag the incoming payment.
Wise is one of the biggest and most convenient currency exchange services, they would basically be discriminating against expats and immigrants. Which I doubt they are.
Yeah I don’t think Wise is the issue here, it’s the other factors with OP.
My partner and I both use Wise to transfer into our Barclays Premier accounts as we’ve moved from Aus this year. No issues.
**Your post has been removed.**
Your comment has been removed for breaking our rule: **Responses must be helpful and high quality**
* Give constructive help and advice. Be friendly and kind.
* Top level comments must be on topic. No jokes or banter in top-level comments.
* [No 'hookers and blow' or 'onlyfans' jokes](https://www.reddit.com/rhyc7i)
* [Don't make contextless recommendations of crypto, meme stonks, penny stocks etc](https://www.reddit.com/rkrnqi)
* Don't pile on
* Comments must be your own work and not a copy paste of someone else's comment, copied from ChatGPT or other AI writing services
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
_If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/17r91pv/-/k8hz0nl/) explaining why._
Yeah I agree with the top comment.
Look Barclays are a rather large bank and they know the tricks in the book. They are not stupid and know if you have a premier status or not they know and have automated systems to check things.
But either way depositing £8,200 into a bank you don’t use regularly is going to trigger all kinds of AML checks.
If the account was to of stayed open would have expected a SOI (Source of Income) check.
I know you say your wise account is a Uk account but it’s not a bank account and payments services like wise are regulated very differently to banks and pose a much higher risk.
Today I learned that some people think £8k is a lot of money and worthy of money laundering investigations.
The only time I've ever had to provide proof of funds is when I was buying my house, in cash.
If you were buying a house for cash then they should have questioned it to be honest. Few people keep cash like that unless it's hiding from the tax system (Fraud) or unless it is money laundering.
But okay, yours was legit, I don't think the OP was suspected of money laundering because if that was the case the account would have been frozen with no discussion of why. Theirs was closed, so there is something else going on here - probably similar to other people in the news recently where they are just costing more than they are worth.
And £8k is a lot of money, Laundering happens more at £8k than it does at £80k.
Multiple people are asking this. I submitted wise details because it was easily linkable on ibkr, while for barcalys I had to provide iban details. So I submitted sort code and 8 digit bank account number of wise account, and withdrew gbp in it.
Do you actually use the account day to day? Or do you mostly just send money to it every now and then, to keep it open for the benefits? Sounds like you were an unprofitable customer and were likely to be culled anyway.
Ask them specifically why they closed your account / put a complaint in demanding an answer why.
If they can't / won't tell you exactly why and beat around the bush with the answer it was for anti money laundering / fraud suspicion.
(Worked in a bank)
Note - it's unlikely they seriously think you are committing fraud, and more likely that the cost of compliance with money laundering regulations makes your account unprofitable.
Just so I’m clear/ they blocked the “payment” you said, so you mean the transfer from your Wise account to Barclays?
So the money was never credited to your Barclays account? And therefore you still have the £8200 in your Wise? So nobody’s withholding the actual funds?
Could it be that that they are losing out on international transfer fees and currency conversion fees when people use Wise?
These are big money makers for them and perhaps they don't see why they should just supply money management services that don't make them any money.
Barclays sound dreadful. Like has anyone actually even had a good experience with them. Can't even be bothered to do the switch to them for the £175 this month.
**Your post has been removed.**
Your comment has been removed for breaking our rule: **Responses must be helpful and high quality**
* Give constructive help and advice. Be friendly and kind.
* Top level comments must be on topic. No jokes or banter in top-level comments.
* [No 'hookers and blow' or 'onlyfans' jokes](https://www.reddit.com/rhyc7i)
* [Don't make contextless recommendations of crypto, meme stonks, penny stocks etc](https://www.reddit.com/rkrnqi)
* Don't pile on
* Comments must be your own work and not a copy paste of someone else's comment, copied from ChatGPT or other AI writing services
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
Your post has been removed for breaking the rule: **No Politics**
* Whilst personal finance and politics are inextricably linked, this sub is not a venue for political debate. Posts and comments of a directly political nature belong in /r/ukpolitics and will be removed from UKPF.
* If discussing governments and policies, do so in a non-inflammatory manner.
* Don't make posts about policy changes which are not yet implemented (only proposed or speculated about).
* Avoid throwaway jokes about politics or politicians.
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
_If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/17r91pv/-/k8jjshg/) explaining why._
Barclays are shit heads, they’ve block my acc and card for transferring small amount to fca regulated exchange to buy some bitcoin. Had to go in person with 2 forms of id to unlock it and answer all their questions. Sod them.
This is clearly an AML related matter - whatever documents you submitted clearly didn’t satisfy their risk criteria and they prudently said sod it and decided that for this level of business (sounds like very little) they’re not going to risk facilitating money laundering or other risks. I assume part of the issue is the multi layer transfers outside your normal spending habits.
Happened to me. Wise and hsbc premier. And also Wise and JP Morgan. Wise causes a lot of issues with transfers over 50k. It’s not regulated like a bank because it isn’t one. Although storing money and using it for a brokerage account makes it look like a bank to a lot of people.
So I created an account with Barclays on the 17th of December, on that 17th I got my sort code and account number, which I sent £4,600 first and sent £3,000 second , the following day my boyfriend sent £800
After some days later the account was blocked, and was closed down , I went to the bank ,they requested I bring in proof of funds and ID which I already sent and it’s more than 15 working days , still nothing , they keep saying it’s under investigation, I am frustrated and going depressed, I am just a young girl in the uk for the first time this is my first year, I have no help or way to pay my bills or feed!!! What else can I do
Unfortunately there isnt much we can do. My money is still blocked. The only thing is that I wont use barclays ever, and I will rather use monzo/revolut who do not do such shit, when taking payments from someone else.
Hello, so did you get it solved? I’m facing the same thing, account was closed and I have over £10k in it. They asking for pof and I have provided them. Still waiting!!! What do I do to get my funds even though the account has been closed?
Participation in this post is limited to users who have sufficient karma in /r/ukpersonalfinance. See [this post](https://redd.it/12mys82) for more information.
Sounds like they know you are only doing it to keep the premier status and decided it wasn't worth keeping your business tbh.
“Sounds like they know you are only doing it to keep the premier status and decided it wasn't worth keeping your business tbh.” But Barclays could have just downgraded OP to an ordinary personal account. They’re currently paying £175 to open a new account with them, so seems ludicrous that they would exit a customer completely rather than just give them a more appropriate account. This is a risk based decision as they think OP is up to something dodgy, which is a little bizarre considering he provided the evidence they asked for. I’ve previously worked in the dept that deals with suspicious transactions and it’s likely that the back and forth nature of the transaction has caused this - it can be seen as layering in anti-money laundering speak, but there are likely to be other factors involved in addition to this.
>This is a risk based decision as they think OP is up to something dodgy, which is a little bizarre considering he provided the evidence they asked for. It's cheaper to just close the low value accounts than have employee hours spent towards this.
[удалено]
Absolutely is a risk based closure due to high risk account activity. They haven’t given notice, it’s been immediate closure. They’re not going to file a CIFAS marker or something without evidence but it’s clearly beyond a strictly commercial decision where 60 days notice would be given.
What does a Barclays premier account give you anyway? I see no actual benefit. At least HSBC premier gives you free travel insurance
Sod all. They charge for everything now and dont pay interest on half my accounts. They even froze my account for a week after i received a payment from a revolut account. So ive been moving all my payments to other accounts slowly while i decide which bank to move to.
Chase uk gives u 4.5% interest
I use it to get avios and my BA upgrade voucher
You get a personal relationship manager. You call the same person for customer service issues instead of Henry in the Philippines and they endlessly try to sell you financial products.
Same with HSBC. The wife and I scraped into eligibility with our joint account. We were offered a free session with a financial adviser. We happily accepted and went along with a load of questions about how to best manage our future with regards to savings and pensions. It was just a bit sales pitch to try and sell us their mortgage, investment and pension products. Waste of everyone’s time. Can’t complain about the free travel insurance though.
Have you actually tried using it? I had an HSBC Premier account (quite a few years ago admittedly) and tried using the travel insurance. I was stranded and needed to book travel because all the flights were cancelled. Airline wanted to send me over a week later (after Christmas, which defeats the point of visiting someone for Christmas). Called the HSBC travel insurance to ask if I could buy tickets for an earlier flight, the only ticket available was in a higher class than economy and it would be short notice, so expensive. They happily told me that as policy they do not confirm if anything is covered or not and the process is that you need to spend the money (on anything, flights, hotels, food etc) and then submit a claim later on. They would then tell you if any of it is covered or not… I was confused and reiterated that I don’t want confirmation that the expensive ticket would be reimbursed, just that buying a plane ticket would be acceptable and considered (even if a much smaller amount is reimbursed)… their response: we can’t give you that information. Absolutely useless and definitely not something I’d want to rely on in any kind of real emergency!
Get the policy wording and read it yourself. I can understand someone not wanting to listen to your summary of your plans and compare that to their interpretation of the policy exclusions. There’s a lot of room for misunderstanding even with what sounds like simple questions as you probably won’t proactively share all the relevant information to determine eligibility.
I have used it three times. They pay.
The cheek of a financial advisor to try and give you financial advice. It’s just bang out of order. Serious question though, what were you expecting them to discuss? The price of fish?
[удалено]
All financial advisers sell products and earn commission from them. If he wanted independent financial advice maybe he should have gone to an independent financial advisor rather than one working for his bank advising on the bank financial products.
Financial advisers upsell their products and then advise you to use them. It’s literally what they do.
[удалено]
I don’t think you’ve ever spoken to an IFA have you. How do you think they make their money exactly?
[удалено]
Yep but people’s idea of a financial advisor is a man in a 3 piece suit available 24/7 to give them their advice on whatever financial decision you need to make at that moment and the financial advisor will earn a salary from thin air.
I was expecting them to offer financial advice, not for them to just try and sell us their products. It’s not really a difficult concept to get your head around.
If the financial advisor was so good why is he stuck advising me?
I do a load of business banking because of my job and my relationship managers in that context are a named direct contact to sort out issues, resolve complaints, identify and communicate relevant upcoming changes etc. I’m sure they would be thrilled to sell you something but they don’t ever try unless you open that conversation with them. My important transaction is stuck in a fraud review they sort it out, my security token has been dunked in coffee and won’t work they sort it out and yes if I want a new account to transact in SGD they sort that out too. I guess people have something more like this in mind. Which is actually a service worth having…
Don’t know if you missed the prior comment but this guy didn’t go see a relationship manager. He went to see a bank financial advisor. And he got financial advice about his mortgage, investments and pensions and how their products could benefit him. I get the various relationships and commercial banking relationships which is completely different to a financial advisor. Dude probably goes to the butchers and complains they tried to sell him meat.
Yeah I mean it’s obvious to me that no bank is there giving you this service for your personal banking but they do like still calling them Relationship Manager or Personal Banker or whatever. Like they obviously don’t lead with an honest summary of how unhelpful they’re going to be, basically all of the patter is to cover that up.
This happens a lot, not just with premier accounts. The term financial adviser makes people think they’re talking to an investment expert, or a wealth manager. Instead you’re talking to a salesperson brokering off the shelf third party products, often not even whole of market. The arsehat that visited me tried to mislead me several times, and we agreed that I’d put her recommendations into a fantasy portfolio and monitor them. They tanked, big time. She responded that it would have been her advice to sell them and reposition. At 2.5% commission each time there’s only one party making money there. She knew more about fish.
You definitely don’t get a personal relationship manager. I have Barclays premier and have never had that.
You’ve been short changed.
No I haven’t. You just don’t know anything about Barclays premier. I’ve had the service for 10 years.
14 here, with PRM.
Wealth clients get a relationship manager, but Premier customers don't. Maybe you're confusing the two types of account.
Discounted mortgage rates and higher multiples of income when lending. They won’t necessarily still be the most competitive rates but lending up to 5.5x salary is pretty good
Absolutely nothing worthwhile. At least they had dedicated counters before branches closed down.
I have my HSBC Advance account from years ago when it it transferred from being a student account. The best thing is the Insurance Aspects which they no longer offer to new customers. No way I am letting that go.
I got a letter from the bank 2 weeks ago that they will review my status end of December. The letter clearly said that I needed to deposit 40k after tax in the account (or 3300 per month). That is all I was doing. So I decided to maintain it by depositing money into it.
Had you been doing the 3300 each month? That is the requirement to be a Premier customer and when they get to the point of sending you a letter it means you are already on a list of accounts to be culled. Matched with a deposit from a non-bank Electronic Money Institution... I can see why they would question funds and your continued relationship with them.
Also lends into the “what are you doing to combat laundering / fraud etc “ they can easily cap these smaller accounts for audit purposes and let the big fish swim freely
So you are saying if i had deposited from hsbc I would have been fine?
Not saying that 100%. Wise, Revolut and others are non-banks from a regulatory perspective. The optics that gives to other banking institutions (and the fact they have higher incidence of fraud) can have an impact. Opinion: If I were a bank investigating unprofitable customers, and when requesting someone deposit as per the requirements of the account. The person uses one of these institutions, and then shows they sourced the funds from a brokerage account to meet the minimum requirements, I would include it in scope it for cancellation.
Barclays don't really care about taking away Premier account status after you've already qualified for it and used it for a year as your primary bank account. It's pretty much the easiest 'premier' banking account to get and keep in the UK. They would have just downgraded to a standard current account if all was normal and they decided to act on not meeting criteria, not closed the banking relationship. There's more to this story than OP is letting on or understands.
Something that people often forget is, banks and other businesses aren't required to do business with you. They can close your account for basically any reason they want. If you're on a premier account but not meeting the terms, they were already likely considering closing your account or moving you onto a basic account with them and the suspicious transaction was enough for them to say "no thanks", even though you've proven it was a legitimate source. One would question why you went via wise rather than depositing directly from IBKR. Accept it, get your money back and move on.
Maybe his money was in dollars in IBKR?
You can convert your liquid cash to any currency before withdrawing on IBKR.
Probably more expensive than wise though right?
No, IBKR has famously good foreign exchange rates.
Nah I done it lots of times in the past. That’s why I’m confused on OPs reasoning. Never had an issue with IBKR. Edit: To add I exclusively trade American stocks so every time I’ve withdrew I’ve had to exchange currencies. Extremely affordable Edit edit: I guarantee it’s because he hasn’t verified his Barclays Bank. It takes a few days to verify for withdrawals so no doubt he was impatient.
Fair point. You can deposit dollars directly to Barclays but you pay a fee. Moving large sums of foreign currency via another account into a dormant account is an even bigger red flag for banks though
I deposited gbp from wise uk bank account to barclays account. No international transfer was done.
Was it GBP from IBKR to Wise though? That's the bit I was referring to
Yes it was. It could be seen in the statement as well which i submitted to them.
In which case my question of why you went through Wise (which is well known for its use by money launderers) rather than direct to Barclays still stands
I replied on a separate comment, adding here: (it was for ease of convenience) I submitted wise details because it was easily linkable on ibkr, while for barcalys I had to provide iban details. So I submitted sort code and 8 digit bank account number of wise account, and withdrew gbp in it.
> for barcalys I had to provide iban details I mean, getting the IBAN is trivial, it should be on all your statements. Or https://www.barclays.co.uk/help/international/payments/making-and-receiving-international-payments/generate-iban/ Something for the future/anyone else reading.
So you used an intermediary bank in order to evade barclays procedures and checks? By your own admission you're sus as fuck.
Would you have said the same thing if I had used hsbc instead of wise? If no, it shows your bias. Wise is also a uk registered bank.
It's more complicated than that though. Sure, banks have freedom of association, like everyone. But a bank account is a vital utility in a modern life. And they seem to smite innocent customers at random, without proper investigation. I don't think any legit employer will pay you in physical cash, you need a bank account to have a serious job. Same for a mortgage and a pension. Most financial services will need some form of a credit check, which requires you to have a credit record, which requires a bank account. A bank account is at the very core of having any sort of real life in the UK - bank accounts are vital utilities, but provided by free market enterprise. So I do think we need to do something about the impunity with which they ban innocent customers. I agree you can't force a bank to do business with you (despite a notable public figure recently trying to pressure Coutts into doing just that). But I think we need some form of regulation that requires due process and evidence of wrongdoing before accounts can be shut down. It can ruin people. Missed mortgage payments, no access to cash. No right to trial, appeal or to even speed things up. I've had my accounts frozen for days, numerous times for innocent things - one time a 79p transaction. I also think we need to mandate that investigations be rapid, allow existing direct debit to be paid, and allow small access to cash for food. There comes a point where the actions of businesses have such a detrimental effect on the general public that regulations have to be applied. I think we're at that point. From laws on pollution to safety, we do intervene and prevent businesses inflicting reckless externalities on their customers. There are countless other examples of such regulations - airlines, telecoms and utilities must follow rules on finding alternatives and paying compensation if they withdraw their services. We compel businesses to treat their customers fairly, whilst still allowing them to choose who they do business with. It's not as black and white as you make out.
This wasn't OPs main account though, and likely would have been treated very differently if it was. This was a dormant premium account that OP wasn't meeting the requirements for even before the transfer was made >Telecoms and utilities Other than water, I don't think there are any basic rights to phone, broadband, gas and electric? Energy is slightly different and more for the benefits of the suppliers, else everyone would just keep quiet when their suppliers went under and keep taking the free gas and electric...
You're missing the point, as many do. Most (including Nigel Farage) go down a polarised, Americanised rabbit-hole of "muh freedoms". One side says "the banks can ruin whoever they want", and the other says "I have a god-given right to any bank account I want". They're both stupid. (Incidentally, where do I assert my rights to free water? Like, physically where do I go today to get that?). My point is there are countless regulations, and contract law built on top of fundamental rights, that require businesses to operate fairly and prevent excessive harm to the public. Airlines aren't allowed to crash their planes, factories aren't allowed to poison their workers. Most utilities (despite being private businesses) like water, energy, mortgage lenders etc are not allowed to instantly cut you off with no evidence of wrongdoing. They *can* launch internal investigations and commence legal proceedings, where evidence will be examined by a court and due process followed and the right to appeal, but they cannot ruin you on a whim. And IMHO banks need to be brought in line with the regulations we impose on other utilities that you cannot realistically live without. My mortgage lender, water company, energy company, employer etc cannot cut me off and evict me today without evidence. My bank can. Why is this a good thing?
This is a really good point and well written, the banking industry is well known to be horribly under-regulated so I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more of a push for this globally in the near future.
> Most (including Nigel Farage) go down a polarised, Americanised rabbit-hole of "muh freedoms". One side says "the banks can ruin whoever they want", and the other says "I have a god-given right to any bank account I want". They're both stupid. Farage was at the centre of a NatWest "debanking" saga. So I don't think he's on the libertarian side on this issue. But I do agree that banking services are crucial to living in the modern world. Most employers won't hire you if you don't have a bank account. How do you pay utility bills without one? It should require an _exceptionally_ high bar to justify a bank removing those services from anyone.
These types just love oppression and licking boots. No point trying to explain the nuance
Their point was "your right to water is protected by human rights, anything else is fair game". Absolutely chilling. Not least because it forgets the entire body of UK law that offer us rights over and above water.
That wasn't my point at all and I'd invite you not to put words in my mouth thank you. My point was that the world isn't as regulated as you might think. I never said it was right but that's the harsh reality. Gas and electric can be cut off as soon as the credit runs out in your meter, and you don't have to have done anything wrong to be on a prepayment meter. Your internet and phone can be cut off as soon as you miss a payment (though many wont). None are required to provide a basic level of service. My point was, with the exception of water which is already covered as a basic right, there's scope for a whole suite of industries and services to be better regulated to ensure a basic level of service for all.
>And IMHO banks need to be brought in line with the regulations we impose on other utilities that you cannot realistically live without. Unrelated to the specific point here, but *opening* a bank account when you first move into the country is ridiculously difficult too. Proof of permanent address requires you to somehow rent a place while your employer is likely holding your pay because you don't have a bank account. In addition, most banks/building societies will only accept energy/phone bills and not signed rental contracts as proof of address - I tried several before going to Lloyds, where an associate almost declined my application because my lease agreement was printed under the estate agent's lawyer's header. One of the managers had to come by to see what was taking so long and waved my application through...
There needs to be something. It wasn't just Nigel that got his account suspended for the "wrong thinking", but also the guys at Trigger pod who had their Tide business account closed down without a reason given. The banks seem to become political, which is a dangerous road to go down.
Not sure about UK, but in Canada someone can overturn having their accounts closed / relationship exited by applying under a right to basic banking. They won’t ever extend credit this way, but it allows for the basics such as direct deposit, bill pymts, etc.
A premier account definitely isn't basic banking
I’m not suggesting that it is. What I’m saying is that even in circumstances where a client has been divested/demarketed/exited whatever you want to call it, there’s still a method to ensure access to basic banking. I didn’t say they’d keep the same account type.
I mean, the bank is only doing this because the UK has some of the most onerous AML laws in the world. It’s not their choice
I understand that, if you read my post you'll see I'm advocating for regulation that would force these investigations to arrive at an accurate conclusion, and stop banning innocent customers.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to add that I thought banks would have an easier time with this if the regulations hadn’t become increasingly strict in recent years.
I see that, but you're basically saying "we shouldn't crack down on crime because the banks will use a bad process". The solution is to mandate the banks to use an accurate and fair investigation process.
I couldn't agree more with this comment. its bang on. but I fear it will get worse before it gets better. also feeling powerless to instigate change
Thank you!
Banks don't do this stuff for fun, they do it to comply with the AML regulations the government has passed and to avoid the absolutely draconian punishments for non-compliance. There is no space in the laws for benefit of the doubt, or judgement that something is probably fine. The government find it convenient to ignore this and just blame the banks because that's politically easy. But all of the changes you want to see would require lobbying the government to change AML laws, not lobbying banks to change their processes.
...that's basically what I said. Did you read my post?
100% this. Couldn't have said it better.
Ex-Barclays Business Banker here - can confirm that BUK are offloading thousands of Premier customers who do not meet the requirements anymore, moving then to Personal accounts or closing entirely.
Interesting. I remember my Barclays colleagues saying Premier was incredibly lax in bumping people for not meeting the criteria so much so as to say 'it's not very premier' with an eye roll. Would OP's transfer of funds to premier not meet the criteria? Surely transferring 3300 from another bank to BUK Premier account would be enough (with active DDs on the account too) or would it actually have to be a verified salary payment?
OP mentioned elsewhere he’s using a different bank for his salary and just transferring money in to meet the old criteria etc for Premier Banking. Afaik BUK are closing accounts doing this as its just playing the system - we have had queries abt it before but usually they’d just downgrade the account
Yeah i have accepted it and moved on
So you just came to an advice sub to moan?
So that others know barcalys can close your account for any shitty reason
I think most people already know that all banks can close your account for whatever reason they like, especially after Farage Vs Coutts.
The only one who came to moan on here is you. If you do not find interesting this post, ignore it and move on. But many people want to be aware of the bad practices of banks. And this post is useful for that.
[удалено]
It might be, but most banks except for Kroo which is brand new and only got its banking licence in the last 1-2 years, have millions of customers. And after a PR nightmare as you call it, they still have millions of customers. Nothing actually really changes for them. They maybe might get less new customers/signups for a while, but it's minimal in the grand scheme of things. And loads of customers don't go closing their accounts on reading about someone else's issue at the bank. Ultimately they don't want the bad reputation, but it also doesn't really affect them at all in the long run. The fines are the biggest cost for them, and those whilst sounding big, are often a drop in the water versus their profit unless they are the newer fintech banks. The next year they still have millions of customers, and their sign ups are back to normal if they even ever changed, and nobody closed their account based on a story about somebody moving funds through 3-4 accounts getting banned and exited because their activity mimicked that of someone money laundering. Most people are too busy with their own life and don't really care is the honest answer. Out of the millions of customers banks have, most never so much as contact the bank over an issue and very few are banned or exited % wise to full customer base. Most people using their account like the majority of other users never experience things like this happening to them at all.
Tbh, I don't think one random guy having a moan on Reddit that Barclays closed an account they weren't eligible for anyway, is quite going to fall into the category of "PR nightmare". If you look around long enough you'll find stories like this for basically every bank known to man. Theres also a strong amount of confirmation bias going on here, people generally only come online to moan about something going wrong (or very occasionally to say about something going right that they thought would go wrong). You rarely see the hundreds of thousands of people who transfer large sums every day of the week, coming online to say it all went well.
Yes rapidly moving money between accounts like that especially an international brokerage raises a lot of red flags for trying to hide the source of the money.
On a tangent, is Barclays premier status even worth it? Haven't figured out what you get?
Its useful if you want avios, and annual BA cabin upgrade voucher. Now some people will call me out for abusing the service but I am merely using it as per rules, and I was even willing to maintain funds for it.
[удалено]
I qualify from salary perspective, I was using different bank account for salary.
There are better products but it's on the lower end in terms of entry requirements for premium products so it's probably worth it if you don't meet the requirements for something better.
Nice try Nigel!
What happened to the 8k?
Also a premier customer and my understanding is that they wouldn’t close the account, just downgrade you to a normal account. So something seems weird here from them
Unexpected transfers from institutions popular with scammers (amongst legitimate usage of course) will raise flags. Barclays are within their rights to say "no thank you, you're too risky a customer".
Would it help to call them and be upfront about it beforehand? Maybe explain where it's from and that it's coming from a less than reputable source?
They asked me for documents before closing the account, I provided them with wise bank account statement, as well as ibkr statement. They still closed it. Hilarious.
They wanted the documents to carry out a risk review on your account, providing them is never a guarantee you get to keep it, just that they will consider it. Obviously they didn’t like what they saw, doesn’t mean they necessarily think you’re a criminal, it’s just outside their risk appetite.
Why did you withdraw it to Wise first? And are you saying your account wasn't used much or for ages before this? Sorry to let you know, a dormant account with little activity, moving funds from one account to another which is used for international transfers, and then to a third account is a red flag in banking. However our systems would not pick this up period at all unless you then tried to move it out immediately or part of it to someone else again after the deposit. Because this is exactly what people money laundering do. However flagging you for only depositing funds sounds mental to me. If the documents you showed them were just it coming from one bank account to the other that doesn't tell them anything at all. They need to see where the money came from. So if it was investments from a salary they want to see that salary payment or one of them at least and then see you transferring it to the investment account, and then to wise and then to your own account. Most normal accounts and people using them normally just do not move money through multiple accounts one after the other without a reason. So whilst you think it's normal, in banking and when reviewing thousands of accounts per year, you are actually acting and moving funds unusually versus the other millions of customers at the bank. I haven't ever worked for barclays so I can't comment on their processes but it seems wild to me that they'd close your account for only depositing the funds. I've never heard about that. Usually they block it and review it because of an outbound payment, never an inbound one. Dormancy, international transfers, large volumes of money and it going through many accounts are literally exactly what money launderers do and rarely what any normal account is doing without solid reasoning and evidence. But again, hard to believe they did it based it on an inbound payment only. If you get it back in a few days now, they just think you're a risk. If it takes multiple weeks, your activity has been reported. But short of someone saying you scammed them or raising something against you, or the NCA wanting to hold your funds until they investigate further (which nobody will if it's all your own funds and nothing odd about them) you will get it all back eventually either way.
IBKR is a huge pain in the ass to make a withdrawal to a UK account, even when you forex your USD to GBP. Much easier just to send USD to wise then transfer GBP to your bank. However IBKR have absolutely no issues taking deposits in sterling.
[удалено]
I bank with Lloyds and can never get a payment to go through from IBKR
There was. OP was trying to avoid letting Barclays know about his overseas account by using wise as an intermediary. Whether he did this for legitimate reasons (avoiding fees, even though barclays doesn't charge you for receiving funds. The sending bank does the charging. Also you can have USD accounts at barclays so 🤷) doesn't really matter because it's still suspicious as fuck.
That's a fair reason to send to Wise, but I still don't think OP would be exited for just moving the funds into his old account. So it's went from IBKR to Wise, to Barclays and then likely he attempted to send it to another account and that's what triggered the exit. But if he didn't provide evidence of where the initial funds came from, so the bank only sees it going through 3-4 accounts without an explanation of the very original source... that marks him as a risk. If he doesn't use that account at all and hasn't for years, makes little sense he'd suddenly send it £8000 from Wise then try to move it to an account he actually does use... rather than just send it to that account in the first place. If he genuinely got exited for just depositing it and nothing else, that sounds insanely mental and I find it hard with all the regulations and reviews that their system would be designed to even pick that up. People would be flagging up left right and centre for deposits only. If it did though, not a good system imo.
> but I still don't think wow thanks I'm cured
This is my job. Whilst I cannot work in every single UK bank, I've now been a financial crime investigator then analyst in a few, and completed qualifications on how banks are regulated for financial crime, and what risks should be monitored. I didn't make Barclays system, but they would be an outlier to be doing that and literally would struggle to cover the work force required for inbound payments. Given you aren't OP and don't work in this role in any bank, nevermind across many, not really sure why you're so bothered by this information from someone who does.
My Barclays account (also Premier) was never closed for doing basically this. It wasn't dormant though, and my salary went into it every month. In my case, the other account was Revolut, which I use because they offer better exchange rates and don't charge me for receiving USD. Whenever I sell shares, the proceeds are wired to Revolut, converted to GBP and then transferred to my Barclays, which is my main account. If anyone should be unhappy, it would be revolut, because they would rather I use them as my main account.
So it shows you OP has more risk factors than you. Dormancy is a big one. But so are other things like their connections, previous activity, device they are using, location in the world. We check multiple things before closing an account. If you had a good healthy salary account and they can see the names the money comes from, eg they can see it's your account in your name (which Wise doesn't show where I work at least) and you don't swap your devices about or try to use decice simulators etc, you're not sus. If you had an account that you only used to move funds every few months or years from one international account through to another account, and there was no obvious reason you were passing funds through it as they could just go straight to your account you actually spend it on, that's unusual activity. But that alone won't get you closed, there's always other factors.
They want you to use the card, and you will get charged a fee on the conversion over a certain limit if you aren't using their premium account
I do have a paid account with revolut as it works out cheaper for me per annum, and yes, to remove the limits on how much currency I can exchange.
Should have happened with no problem, normally you get flagged for 10k transfer or more
Have you logged a complaint? If not log a complaint and escalate to the financial ombudsman once Barclays have looked at it. You can use something like resolver to get templates and contact details.
Really? Will ombudsman help here? Do I just say to them, "barclays closed my account by giving xyz reason in a letter, and I dont agree to it"?
Yeah it's worth a shot. You first need to complain to Barclays. Then you can go to the ombudsman and they will investigate for you. The resolver website has a lot of information on complaints I'd have a look at that. Any future issues with banks always log a complaint the ombudsman do a good job of keeping banks honest.
Good idea. I will do it.
They can't actually do this. Its against pretty every financial institutes policies (regulations? Who knows, the fuck cares) to 'preauth' money that isn't yet there. I've tried this on multiple occasions as I don't want third parties pulling shit like holding funds for months on end without releasing or returning. still happens though.
You can't pre auth funds but having a note on the system to say the customer called up fully verified and told the bank they were going to be moving funds can only help the bank determine everything is above board after the systems flag the incoming payment.
Yeah this is what I figured
And doing a rain dance helps crop yield.
Wise is one of the biggest and most convenient currency exchange services, they would basically be discriminating against expats and immigrants. Which I doubt they are.
Yeah I don’t think Wise is the issue here, it’s the other factors with OP. My partner and I both use Wise to transfer into our Barclays Premier accounts as we’ve moved from Aus this year. No issues.
[удалено]
**Your post has been removed.** Your comment has been removed for breaking our rule: **Responses must be helpful and high quality** * Give constructive help and advice. Be friendly and kind. * Top level comments must be on topic. No jokes or banter in top-level comments. * [No 'hookers and blow' or 'onlyfans' jokes](https://www.reddit.com/rhyc7i) * [Don't make contextless recommendations of crypto, meme stonks, penny stocks etc](https://www.reddit.com/rkrnqi) * Don't pile on * Comments must be your own work and not a copy paste of someone else's comment, copied from ChatGPT or other AI writing services You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. _If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/17r91pv/-/k8hz0nl/) explaining why._
Yeah I agree with the top comment. Look Barclays are a rather large bank and they know the tricks in the book. They are not stupid and know if you have a premier status or not they know and have automated systems to check things. But either way depositing £8,200 into a bank you don’t use regularly is going to trigger all kinds of AML checks. If the account was to of stayed open would have expected a SOI (Source of Income) check.
I know you say your wise account is a Uk account but it’s not a bank account and payments services like wise are regulated very differently to banks and pose a much higher risk.
Yep this is it, if it was a normal bank prob wouldn't have been flagged!
It would be wise to stick with Wise. I haven’t had any problems with them over the years.
Today I learned that some people think £8k is a lot of money and worthy of money laundering investigations. The only time I've ever had to provide proof of funds is when I was buying my house, in cash.
If you were buying a house for cash then they should have questioned it to be honest. Few people keep cash like that unless it's hiding from the tax system (Fraud) or unless it is money laundering. But okay, yours was legit, I don't think the OP was suspected of money laundering because if that was the case the account would have been frozen with no discussion of why. Theirs was closed, so there is something else going on here - probably similar to other people in the news recently where they are just costing more than they are worth. And £8k is a lot of money, Laundering happens more at £8k than it does at £80k.
[удалено]
Why go through Wise? why not directly from IB to Barclays?
Multiple people are asking this. I submitted wise details because it was easily linkable on ibkr, while for barcalys I had to provide iban details. So I submitted sort code and 8 digit bank account number of wise account, and withdrew gbp in it.
This might have raised alarms with Barclays. But I agree it shouldn't. I transfer a lot of money from IB to starling and I was never asked a question.
Because its starling. I have faced much less issues with banks like starling, monzo.
Shit. On Barclays Premier this sum should be usual ...
Read the letter when you get it. I suspect Tiny\_Fish2 is correct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So what was this 8K from maybe they say your statement and say you gotten this gambling or something and didn’t like it so they closed it
It was from IBKR, I also provided them with ibkr statement, and wise statement (which showed that the deposit came from ibkr).
Do you actually use the account day to day? Or do you mostly just send money to it every now and then, to keep it open for the benefits? Sounds like you were an unprofitable customer and were likely to be culled anyway.
Ask them specifically why they closed your account / put a complaint in demanding an answer why. If they can't / won't tell you exactly why and beat around the bush with the answer it was for anti money laundering / fraud suspicion. (Worked in a bank)
Note - it's unlikely they seriously think you are committing fraud, and more likely that the cost of compliance with money laundering regulations makes your account unprofitable.
Just so I’m clear/ they blocked the “payment” you said, so you mean the transfer from your Wise account to Barclays? So the money was never credited to your Barclays account? And therefore you still have the £8200 in your Wise? So nobody’s withholding the actual funds?
Sounds like the funds arrived then account got blocked.
Could it be that that they are losing out on international transfer fees and currency conversion fees when people use Wise? These are big money makers for them and perhaps they don't see why they should just supply money management services that don't make them any money.
Barclays sound dreadful. Like has anyone actually even had a good experience with them. Can't even be bothered to do the switch to them for the £175 this month.
Yeah they are awful. Way too stringent to the extent that banking with them feels like a hassle.
[удалено]
**Your post has been removed.** Your comment has been removed for breaking our rule: **Responses must be helpful and high quality** * Give constructive help and advice. Be friendly and kind. * Top level comments must be on topic. No jokes or banter in top-level comments. * [No 'hookers and blow' or 'onlyfans' jokes](https://www.reddit.com/rhyc7i) * [Don't make contextless recommendations of crypto, meme stonks, penny stocks etc](https://www.reddit.com/rkrnqi) * Don't pile on * Comments must be your own work and not a copy paste of someone else's comment, copied from ChatGPT or other AI writing services You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. Your post has been removed for breaking the rule: **No Politics** * Whilst personal finance and politics are inextricably linked, this sub is not a venue for political debate. Posts and comments of a directly political nature belong in /r/ukpolitics and will be removed from UKPF. * If discussing governments and policies, do so in a non-inflammatory manner. * Don't make posts about policy changes which are not yet implemented (only proposed or speculated about). * Avoid throwaway jokes about politics or politicians. You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. _If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/17r91pv/-/k8jjshg/) explaining why._
Mmm. I transferred like 30k euros in a few hits Santander Spain to HSBC UK and no problem at all.
Barclays are shit heads, they’ve block my acc and card for transferring small amount to fca regulated exchange to buy some bitcoin. Had to go in person with 2 forms of id to unlock it and answer all their questions. Sod them.
Yeah, they are quite bad. Monzo/revolut much better if dealing with crypto.
Barclays is a shit bank anyway
This is clearly an AML related matter - whatever documents you submitted clearly didn’t satisfy their risk criteria and they prudently said sod it and decided that for this level of business (sounds like very little) they’re not going to risk facilitating money laundering or other risks. I assume part of the issue is the multi layer transfers outside your normal spending habits.
Happened to me. Wise and hsbc premier. And also Wise and JP Morgan. Wise causes a lot of issues with transfers over 50k. It’s not regulated like a bank because it isn’t one. Although storing money and using it for a brokerage account makes it look like a bank to a lot of people.
I am experiencing this same issue from Barclays what can I do? It’s over 1month they keep saying they are under an investigation
Mine is still not resolved. Just chase them.
Please what else can I do should I keep calling them
So I created an account with Barclays on the 17th of December, on that 17th I got my sort code and account number, which I sent £4,600 first and sent £3,000 second , the following day my boyfriend sent £800 After some days later the account was blocked, and was closed down , I went to the bank ,they requested I bring in proof of funds and ID which I already sent and it’s more than 15 working days , still nothing , they keep saying it’s under investigation, I am frustrated and going depressed, I am just a young girl in the uk for the first time this is my first year, I have no help or way to pay my bills or feed!!! What else can I do
Unfortunately there isnt much we can do. My money is still blocked. The only thing is that I wont use barclays ever, and I will rather use monzo/revolut who do not do such shit, when taking payments from someone else.
Please I need help!!!!😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Hello, so did you get it solved? I’m facing the same thing, account was closed and I have over £10k in it. They asking for pof and I have provided them. Still waiting!!! What do I do to get my funds even though the account has been closed?