To call 'bullshit' on not being eligible for overdraft as a SAHM

[ShouldiWork]

Apparently unless I have a wage of at least £500 per month they can't process my overdraft application further. Despite there not being a month in the last 20 years when that account has turned over less that 1.5K per month - whether through employment - or through being the 'housekeeping' account. And despite me having a 4K credit card with them that I'd happily give up to reduce my overall credit line with them.

It's a pain - because I write so many cheques for DC activities etc - and they can be cashed at unpredictable times, which is hard to keep track of.

I feel like I'm being forced into becoming a +1 on DHs current account in order to be able to benefit from normal banking functions like an overdraft buffer - and for various reasons this annoys me.

Signed:

The economically invisible woman

Well, exactly.

I'm offended that decades of financial prudence, and long term steady cash flow can be trumped by an 18 year old with a glorified paper round (apparently £500 per month is considered a sufficient salary for overdraft purposes).

They know more about me than about the vast majority of their customers.

It's not about risk. Or about you not paying it back. It's that they don't want to offer the service unless it's the bank account which most of your/your household's money is going into. We get lots of "free" perks on our accounts in the UK - overdrafts, ability to use ATMs, write cheques etc. In other countries these perks are charged for. The banks make money by investing the money you have in your account (or charging interest on any money they lend you. They offer current accounts as a loss leader because they want to make money off you in other ways - either selling you other financial services, or investing your savings or by you paying them interest. What they don't want is for you to use it as a supplementary account when you/your household does your main (profitable) banking with another bank.

But the child benefit marks it as my primary account.

DH earns £££££ which he shares £££ - ££ between his account and my account. It's not an unusual arrangement - and I'm offended that my account doesn't 'count' or isn't considered a 'proper' account because of the particular division of labour in my household.

(We did have a joint HSBC account at one point, as a requirement for the mortgage - and that was a gold plated 'premier account' based on DHs salary with free back rubs and some such. So I'm 'premier' when I'm MrsWork and 'undesirable' when I'm ShouldI ).

Tarka

Its very sneaky though because it is the OPs primary account unless I'm mistaken, she should be able to have services for her own account irrespective of her dh account.

It's an account that's had 15 years of salaries/student loans paid into it - until I quit work 6 months ago - when it received equivalent income by standing order.

There is no way they could view it as a shadow or dormant account.

I agree with you. But I think that is how they would explain their reasoning. Clearly they don't see the child benefit going in as equivalent to a salary. It's not a judgement on your ability to repay. I don't think it's to do with the division of labour. It's to do with how you use your account. My dh has a personal account which he transfers a bit of money into from our "main/primary" bank account each month to pay for his hobbies etc. he wouldn't be eligible for an overdraft under those rules either would he?

It's "computer says no" and irritating but it's for commercial not discriminatory reasons IMO.

As people have said up thread, from the banks point of view you have no guarenteed income. Whilst no job is secure the bank can at least carry out checks to establish the likelihood of redundancy etc. Any credit provider has to prove they have taken steps to ensure you can repay your debt.

There are all sorts of new rules and regulatory guidance around affordable lending. It's not just about what makes them the most profit it's about what keeps them the most compliant. There have been a lot of regulatory shake ups in finance over the last few years and the banks etc are trying to shield themselves from the next Ppi or endowment scandal.

It's not misogyny it's backside covering.

Chase I've explained up thread that cheques can be awkward to keep track of - so while I've never gone in the red - I'd sleep easier with an agreed buffer.

You can game the tossers by setting up credits in and out. They only count the 'in'

Cheques are very easy to keep track of if you use a budgeting software like YNAB -it's cheap as chips (£30) and all you'd do is enter the cheque as an uncleared expense when you write it. As soon as you have written the cheque that money is committed. Then you clear it when it shows on your statement. Job done and no need for an overdraft.

I wouldn't recommend NatWest - I've just left them after over 20 years as they now charge £6 (a day, I think) for using a pre-arranged overdraft.

Well - I do keep a buffer & keep track of things. But that doesn't take away the fact that I object that SAHM status classifies me as 'effectively unemployed' - and a bad credit risk regardless of all the other facets of my credit history (consistent cash flow well above requested line & long term good financial management).

It's not about your worth as a carer etc,it's about what you're worth as a customer. Yabu.

HBOS cancelled my overdraft just before my employer's expenses system had a hiatus and with Christmas coming up. The then talked over me and lied to me when I had the temerity to ask for it back please.

They obviously had me "profiled" as a customer of 12 years' standing who couldn't be arsed to move elsewhere no matter how shabbily they treated me.

Dumped.

As others have said, YABU, not because you are SAHM or anything, but because you are expecting to receive a service that you do not meet the requirements for.

They only offer an overdraft to those with a wage, a minimum wage/salary of £500 per month. No monies you put into that account are classed as wage/salary therefore you do not qualify for an overdraft.

You can rail against it, look for another bank etc. But it isn't discrimination or misogyny, it is just business. More regulated business, again, now the sub prime crash has occurred.

You seem to say you have ample money coming in, well build up a buffer, leave the account in credit... then you won't need an overdraft!

Personally id try and keep a float of sorts for this kind of tjing or only use that accoubt to pay for the kids clhbs and activities and become +1 on dh account. For some reason unknown to anyone, I was able to run up a 2k overdraft - my only income was child benefit and tax credit I was being pounded every month on interest, so much so that I had to take a loan out just to pay the overdraft back after the bank became worried - don't know how I even managed to get the loan tbh as I could barely afford the monthly repayments as I wasn't working. I tried complaining to the bank but I was told that they had no reason to suspect I was in financial hardship I was -2k ffs

You ARE unemployed. You are not in employment. You have no employer.

You're obviously not idle but in purely factual terms you are without paid work. You are now discovering one of the costs of being a sahm. Your choice has made you dependant on your husband and whilst you may be perfectly happy with that, there's no reason that an international bank should be. They lend according to ability to pay. You're ability to pay depends on your husband. That makes you a bad risk. So no overdraft.

If that makes you uncomfortable I would advise you to go back to paid work asap. Long term you will be more financially secure than you ever are as a sahm.

it isn't discrimination or misogyny, it is just business

Discrimination and misogyny is embedded in the structures of our society, and the assumptions, legal and economic, that this business is based on, ARE misogynistic.

By all means, argue that the bank is being rational and the problem is that domestic labour is unpaid, and largely undertaken by women, that capitalist financial structures will always prevent equality.

And no, regulation is not some sort of magic barrier to discrimination

Ah well rootypig, we'll have to agree to differ.

I agree that we live in an inequitable society. But I do not agree that everything should be 'fair'. That attitude is, in part, what led us to the Sub Prime calamity in the first place.

OP has asked to receive a service for which she does not qualify. It may not be fair, but, as you say, capitalism never is, to many cohorts, not just women.

And I didn't mean to infer that regulation is a magic barrier to discrimination, I just meant that the mad years of lending all sorts of ridiculous sums to people with no ability to repay has gone, been regulated against.

The current strictures are nowhere near as onerous as they were when I started banking, when, as a woman, it was hard to get my own current account, an overdraft, a loan or a credit card... and I am not even all that old!

Those days were obviously too restrictive, and were indeed misogynistic, but the last decade or 2 had swung the other way, money became far too easy to borrow. This is just another swing of the pendulum... railing against it and wailing "Woe is me" is of no use. Just find a bank/product that you do qualify for... a number of solutions have been suggested!

The bank don't see you as a risk because you are a SAHM, they see you as a risk because you are 'unemployed' (in their eyes). I guess you see DH's payment as 'income' - the bank don't. They aren't doing this to be a pain, they are doing it because their research tells them that an overdraft isn't such a good idea for unemployed people. When a BACS agreement is set up, the bank know for sure that X amount will go in every month on X date, so they see that as safe. IT is annoying if you feel you need an overdraft, but it might be better to just keep an eye on the account daily, and pay for activities by cash so you don't worry about cheques coming out unexpectedly?

Also I think you are being too sentimental about your account - customers can't afford to be sentimental nowadays, better to move around to the company with the best/most suitable deal!

Finally, please stop saying you are better than someone pulling pints or with a glorified paper round please give people credit for working, and don't judge.

I had an issue with a bank a while back about going on a joint account with DH. It was denied and I had words with the operative.

I also threatened to come onto MN and say I have been penalised for being a SAHM.

I got a very apologetic call back, very grovelling and very very arse licking and now...I am on account as joint not plus one.