Normally I reserve a bit of hatred for banks and bankers (except when Dad worked for them ), but I was wondering, is this legal? It would certainly cause a lot of fuss if you had another preferred bank and had to either use a standing order to transfer money each month or swap banks. In the UK we’re asked to have money in our account ideally 48 hours before its debited anywhere through a direct debit or standing order, surely this is problematic?
To add further to your hatred of banks , did you see the BBC *Whistle Blower * programme on Wednesday night ? They put a reporter under-cover at Barclays and it revealed a whole catalogue of lying , fraud and bank staff being pressurised to sell products to customers. More details here
No idea on the legality, but I used to have Lloyds TSB as a client and all the employees also needed to have a Lloyds TSB account (their salary could only be paid into a LTSB account). However, they all prefered First Direct, so all had standing orders transferring the money straight over once a month. Seemed a bit pointless to me, especially as banks often run current accounts as loss leaders.
Until I read the entire story it sounded like it was a security issue. Just the same way lots of banks and financial instutions make employees take a full fortnight’s holiday once per year so that they can run a security audit on the individual. However, after reading it, it doesn’t appear to be the case, sounds like they’re being dicks.