Bank employee Bank Accounts

Hi Folks

A friends of mine works for one the of main big banks. And they demand they pay the money into one of their accounts.

I think this sounds strange. Coupled with the fact that if an employee falls into difficulty with the account, their line manager will pull them up about it, and it can lead to disciplinary proceedings against the employee, even though they may be an a1 employee their bank account is in trouble.

Is this legal?

Is there anyway around this? Can they refuse and ask for it to be paid into another account?

Reply to
Phil Deane
Loading thread data ...

If it's in the T&Cs of employment at the time they offer you a job, I would guess so. If you don't like it, you turn the job down, I guess.

I remember being envious of bank clerks' 5% mortgages back when rates were

15%. I had a mortgage of 72,000 at the time so that perk was worth about 11,000 of pre-tax salary. Have the banks improved their cheap mortgage deals for employees to reflect the fact that everyone has a 5% mortgage these days?
Reply to
The Blue Max

If the employee refuses, they will be seen to not be backing the corporate goal and to be showing disloyalty to the company that everyone else must adore.

Maybe after working there for a few years you might be able to get away with telling a co-worker that you have been unfaithful and paid other banks for services. A new employee, however, could expect a permanent separation if it became known that ongoing relationships existed with other banks.

___

formatting link

Reply to
DP

Most personal banking is "free", so by using *other* banks you are showing that you care about the bottom line of your employer by using the "free" services of *other* banks thus not incurring your employer in extra costs.

Reply to
Adrian Boliston

But that's like saying you don't trust your employer!

formatting link

Reply to
DP

I have worked in two banks and both of them required me to open one of their accounts and get my money paid into it. The bank perks are not as good as they once were.

>
Reply to
financefan

The 0.1% interest on credit balances is where they make the money.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

Surely there must be a breach of the data protection Act somewhere along the line? Your line manager in a call centre for example should not be told your are overdrawn, and you should not be paraded in front of managers who do not work in the branch network, becasue your bills went unpaid.

I can understand the adage that if you cannot look after your own finanaces you cannot look after others, But how many people practise what they preach? I have seen many a bank manager consolidating their debt time after time, they may make the payments but they are not doing as they tell others to do

Reply to
Phil Deane

Clydesdale Bank employees get a 40% discount with a minimum limit of a 4% mortgage.

Reply to
PMC

Now that it's so easy to switch money about online I can't see that many people leaving much cash just sat in their current account.

Most banks actually encourage this by offering a high interest account to their current account customers with "instant" transfers between the two.

Reply to
Adrian Boliston

So they get 40% off the SVR, presumably, subject to a net 4% floor? That would mean the perk has no value at SVRs below 6.67%, correct?

Reply to
The Blue Max

I would have thought the answer is yes.

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 says in section 2 (1), which deals with the legally acceptable modes of wage payment - section2(1)

2.(1) Wages may be paid by and only by one or more of the following modes:

. . .

( f ) a credit transfer or another mode of payment whereby an amount is credited to an account specified by the employee concerned,

That seems pretty clear to me. The employee has the right to specify the account, and its unlikely that the terms and conditions of an individuals contract could take this away.

Rgds

Richard Buttrey Grappenhall, Cheshire, UK __________________________

Reply to
Richard Buttrey

Normal I think. Bank employees have potential opportunities to embezzle money or help other people to do it, so the bank wants a chance to see unusual flows of cash, or to spot someone getting deeply into debt which might tempt them to try to steal.

Reply to
Stephen Burke

Yes, correct.

Reply to
PMC

In message , Phil Deane writes

Banks have always done this.

Yes.

Dont work in a bank,

No.

The reason is that monitoring staff bank accounts makes it easier to stop fraud. A member of staff who is in financial difficulty may be tempted to nick some dosh. The first signs of financial difficulty usually show themselves in the conduct o the bank account.

>
Reply to
john boyle

In message , Phil Deane writes

Your right, and it doesnt happen that way. The supervision of your account was handled by the full branch manager of the branch at which or account was held. These days, almost everybody who works in a bank is a 'manager' of something or other, so I would expect the supervision is carried out by somebody of reasonable rank who is unlikely to be your line manager.

Quite right too!

Reply to
john boyle

It has happened. A girl working in a call centre has been given warnings by her line manager and also the next up manager, who also work in a call centre, not in the branch, which is what prompted me to mention it.

Reply to
Phil Deane

They tell people if they want they can keep their own account open and transfer their salary directly to the other account.

If someone was to be fraudulent with the other account, hows having with one with the employer going to help? As long as they do not use the one with the employer, the employer is going to be none the wiser

Reply to
Phil Deane

In message , Phil Deane writes

Thats just a line of communication, the line management wont be doing the monitoring, their just passing back the message. I reckon thats wrong, if its just a passing problem the it might be better for the monitoring manager to be talking direct UNLESS there is procedural problem or a potential disciplinary issue.

Reply to
john boyle

In message , Phil Deane writes

Cant answer that Im afraid, cos having another account was banned in my day!

Im not sure how they could be fraudulent with the other account if they could not control it by virtue of not working within the same organisation that operated the account. However I take your point that the bank could not see the operation of that other account and therefore not see evidence of financial difficulty.

Reply to
john boyle

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.