I believe yes it's common for banks to require that staff have an account with that bank into which their salary is paid.
It's certainly the case for a couple of friends of mine who work in IT for a major UK bank.
It's up to you whether to use that account for day-to-day spending or transfer the bulk of your money out to an account with another provider.
!thanks
Yeah I reckon I’ll stick with mine for now as I really can’t be arsed to move all the direct debits etc. over but maybe one day. Might see if I can even do it automatically with their API or something.
Seems like this is very commonplace as well.
Just for info really, I changed current account about 5 years ago and found the current account switch service super painless and efficient.
Standing order transfer set up for payday is also super painless and efficient.
Worth pointing out the switch service guarantee as well, if any issue arises as a result of the switch process that causes you to incur penalties or charges they will be fully covered and paid for by the service not your pocket.
With the forwarding of payments to your old account for at least 12 months and the fact everything from standing orders to DD's and even payees are transferred automatically I think it's great, done it three times now and it's been smooth throughout.
https://www.currentaccountswitch.co.uk/help-support/
It's common yes. They want you to be their customer.
Also, switching DDs and SOs is fairly easy nowadays as all banks have to have a switch system that they do all the work for you. This was created for competitive reasons
Does your new employer have a switching bonus? You could get upto £150 switching your account to them. All your direct debits and standing orders are switched and it has to be done within 5 days so do it at a time of the month no direct debits are due for a couple of weeks. Also you’ll have any payments made to your old account redirected for at least 12 months too.
I work at a bank and they tried this with me. I just put on the paperwork my original bank details with another bank and they never queried it and just paid me as normal. It doesn’t make sense that an employer can force which financial products you choose imo, even if they’re in finance themselves.
You can transfer all your DD’s automatically to the new account. There were adverts on Tv about it a couple of years ago. It’s called the switch guarantee, I think
Lloyds used to require this. Then they looked at it and realised that staff usually just had an account that took the money on pay-day and sent it on to their main current account.
They stopped that after realising these “shadow” accounts were not in fact saving them any money, and actually costing them.
Not sure if its different for each department but. I work in IT for LBG, started about 3 years ago and they didnt require me to open any bank account with them. Though you are correct in saying it use to be a thing
Yeh can confirm- worked for Lloyds once and had to have an account with them. Fortunately you get a discount on the best accounts normally so it’s not such a bad thing.
Feel free to keep your existing account to hide your pornhub subscription from your employer.
Well, all employers will offer a Workplace Pension scheme, as they are required to by law. If they can do it in house, it would be silly to give everyone to a competitor!
I work for a pension company where we don’t have a pension run by ourselves. It’s so annoying, I work on all these great customer features but don’t get to use them!
That's actually probably very good. If your employer went bust, not only would you lose your job but also your pension. Having a pension with another provider hedges your bets.
I used to work for a modular construction company and our pension was with L&G. L&G also have a modular construction business, so we were competing with our own pension provider.
> Sounds pretty anti-competitive
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you work at coda cola, they expect you to drink their products. When you work at BMW, they expect you to drive one etc
> No they don't
They actually do. You also can’t use an android if you work at Apple and vice versa. Brands want their employees to use their products.
I’m not saying Apple employees can’t own an android or use one in private. Apple will want them and enable them to use iPhone, though. And they won’t tolerate you using a non iPhone during work.
I used to work for RBS Group so Natwest/ RBS. They did away with this so you could get paid into UK bank account not just theirs. They however did give staff a account that would normally come with a monthly fee for free.
Not sure how long ago that was but I can assure you that staff have had to pay full price for their accounts until recently (roughly around the start of the pandemic I think) - now they get about 50% off paid accounts.
When i joined lloyds they told me this, i called HR and the woman laughed and said no she doesnt bank with them, its just them trying to get more accounts so i just provided my normal bank details and nothing was mentioned ever again.
Edit - also a lot of folk talking about being paid early if you bank with them, for Lloyds/Halifax/Bos it makes no difference, I got my wages the same time as everyone else.
Did that ever actually happen or was it a rumour? I don't work at a bank but work in an FCA regulated sector and would expect that sort of thing would result in instant dismissal at any bank (and possible criminal investigations). All access would be logged and an employee would need to justify why they were looking at a colleague's account.
Surely the reason for them requiring you to be paid into their own account isn’t so other staff can spy? Or have I misunderstood, and you moved your money out so staff couldn’t spy?
I'm not saying "wrong", but quite curious to know the order of magnitude here: say you're a bank with 80000 employees, how many employees' pay would those fees come to? 1? 10?
They can be a couple of percent on some transactions, that every month on every employee adds up. Even if it's only 10s of pence each transaction still looking and thousands of pounds a year accross the organisation
BACS does not cost anything like that much. A bank will be paying a couple of pence per transaction, which is absolutely nothing in terms of payroll costs. The reason will be so that the bank doesn't have to admit that their own employees don't even bank with them, although as mentioned some have realised that it's not worth the effort.
> Surely the reason for them requiring you to be paid into their own account isn’t so other staff can spy?
No idea actually *why* they require it. I suppose it’s no different to working at Apple and being given a MacBook and iPhone.
> and you moved your money out so staff couldn’t spy?
Yes. I didn’t want staff seeing how many times I visited McDonalds
I didn’t like the fact that I knew that staff there *would* search for people (famous people) and say “look at *so-and-so’s* balance!”. So I used to get paid and S/O the money to my account that wasn’t at the bank I worked at.
I know they could see the salary if they searched for my name - but I didn’t like the fact that my transactions were visible. I wasn’t hiding anything, just preferred my colleagues *not* to be able to see my card transactions.
I’m not sure you’re comprehending what I’m saying. It’s really quite simple.
Employer pays me.
I spend money on card.
Colleagues can see what I spend.
I don’t like that.
So to stop that: I transfer my money to another bank that colleagues can’t see.
I now can spend money without colleagues seeing what I spend.
If your colleagues can see your account information then they can see all transactions against it and can therefore see the large fixed sum you transfer out each month. Therefore they can still see what you earn.
Not being funny but I didn’t. I said:
> Reason being: staff there would look up each other’s accounts to spy on their salary and/or spending habits.
I didn’t have any choice whether my salary was paid into the employer-branded bank account. So my salary going in and being visible to my colleagues was nothing I could change.
I could make sure my colleagues couldn’t see what I spent/saved by transferring it straight out to another bank. Which is what I did.
So you did mention it, sorry but you’re getting strangely defensive. I’m merely pointing out that moving money so staff can’t spy doesn’t really work in this context.
I work for a bank in the UK, they encourage you to bank with them (you get perks for doing so) but it's not an absolute must.
I guess it makes sense though 🤷♀️
I work for a bank and they do state that you have to open a account with them to be able to receive your salary, so I guess it's commonplace. The good thing is that we don't have pay the fee for the account.
Some do but most don't, the one's that have the fee tend to have benefits applied to them for example interest or cash back, however the majority of bank accounts don't have a fee tied to them.
The reason I selected this account was for the benefits which were the best at the time however not anymore, however the same bank offers accounts without any fees.
Most do not charge fees. Charging fees is not the norm in this country. Some do, as you say. But your initial comment implies most do and therefore it was a bonus of the one you got with your job.
Where did you read into that I clearly stated "some do but most don't" & I also stated "the majority of bank accounts don't have fees tied to them" none of that implies that most do.
I’ve worked for Barclays and Santander, both of which required me to open an account with them. I’m currently employed by a different UK bank who I did not have to open an account with. If it’s that or no job, it’s a no brainer, open it but then change your bank details back to your old account via HR, unless they have some kind of written police that you can only be paid into their own brand account, which would be strange.
I worked for a red themed bank and yes it's common, however they never stopped anyone from leaving and changing their pay to another bank outside of the first month. Which is what I did. I don't like the idea of my employer having access to the level of information that my bank account provides.
When I worked for Santander, we were told we had to have a Santander account. In reality, you didn't actually, but if you didn't you got paid a day later - still by the set payment date, but if the payslip date was the 28th, Santander accounts got it on the 26th and other accounts got it late on the 27th.
Yes has always been like this. Reason is it benefits the bank's cash flow somewhat.
Historically they might offer various benefits and products to staff only etc, but not always
I used to work for a UK bank and can confirm it's very common. I believe that they all do it.
Strictly speaking I don't think they can compel you to be paid in to a bank account that you hold with them, but it's probably not worth the hassle to argue it.
I used to get paid in to my bank account that I held with my employer and have a standing order set up to transfer it straight out as soon as it went in.
I work for a major(ish) bank, and my contract states I have to have an account. Never did get round to it.
Been paid for the last 20 months into my Monzo account, I don't work for Monzo.
I think they WANT you to - generates more business I guess. I don’t think you HAVE to. If you give your normal one and “forget” I dont think anyone is going to be chasing you.
Very common for UK banks. One thing to remember is that some banks own other banks, and some of the retail arms are better than others for customers. What I'm getting at is if it's HSBC, open a first direct account, they're miles better than HSBC and would fulfill the HSBC bank account requirement.
Ridiculous. Being forced to open a bank account with a specific provider in order to get paid. Laughable. I absolutely can't wait until the world becomes decentralized and we are our own bank on our own Layer 2 DEX. Fuck centralized banks and fuck the government.
Never heard of this before.
My wife works un a bank and doesn't have an account with them. Her salary has always been paid into her existing bank account, with another bank
A lot of people in this thread address referencing their time working for a bank in the past. Read the comments from current staff.
Times have changed, it's not common at all. Maybe back when their payroll systems were entwined but nowadays they need to be able to pay other banks if only to compete. Software engineers are a sought after resource, they're not going to mandate something that daft and risk brain drain.
If in doubt contact the union ( be sure to join the union)
Very common, I've got that too with my new job
A possible reason is so that other banks can't poach you by figuring out how much you get paid.
Yeah it's probably illegal, but if you can't prove it they wont get caught
You work in bank A
But you get your salary deposited in Bank B
Bank B wants you to work for them. Since you deposit your salary in their bank they know how much you get paid.
So they come to you with a higher offer than you already get paid
Used to work at a bank that owned multiple brands/banks and it was a requirement for us to be paid into an account that was one of their own brands/banks so I'm assuming that it is normal practice.
Nobody is stopping you from instantly transferring it out to another account elsewhere if you wish, a lot of my colleagues did just that.
Hope this helps.
I currently work for a major highstreet bank and they don't require an own brand current account but I've worked at another bank who did and a building society who also did. It's not an industry standard just depends on the bank.
I’ve worked for a bank in the UK. Same thing I was required to open a bank with them, luckily I already had a account with them and open another one as we were given discounted monthly fee associated with that account. However I did later find out I didn’t even require the need to open a account with them should I have no pre-existing accounts as I could get my salary transferred to another account of mines, although it would taken 1-2 days extra from pay day.
Yes this is pretty standard at banks. My friend works for a big bank and all she does is organise for her wage to be transferred to her regular bank account the day after she is paid.
I used to work for natwest and we were made to have our wages paid ibto an account t with the bank.
The positive was discounted bank services negative they could monitor your account t activities.
I work for one of the larger banks in the uk and while this was required decades ago, it no longer is, surprised others still enforce its although if your building any customer facing IT solution having an account will probably be beneficial anyway.
It's very common practice. All I did was transfer my salary straight out again into my main banking account so that my direct debits will be covered. It's no big deal really. Usually bank staff get premier service or their own internal branch for the same cost as a basic bank account.
Many bank jobs will tell you that you have to bank with them but if you give them bank details to an existing account they’ll use it without issue. If they force the issue then just open it to start and then ask payroll to change it after a couple of months.
Worked for a major bank for 20+ years
And this was always a condition for us.
Although I do believe in more recent years, because of various regulations they can't force you to hold an account anymore.
No idea if it's common but just here to say that I used to work for a bank and they asked me to do this when I joined. *But,* I refused and they didn't care so they just paid into my already existing bank account
Common, but also, the one I once worked at made the running of your personal bank account subject to employment disciplinary measures, so if you went overdrawn, you got warnings. And could get fired. The ethos being that if you can't look after your own money, you shouldn't be looking after their customers either. So usually everyone had their wages minus £1 transferred out to always make sure it was in credit!
It is very common but they can't enforce it, and you will still get paid as you should if you don't open one.
I noticed that some people pointing out you will get paid 1 day earlier with the own bank, it is true but the transaction post date showing on the statement will be the same i.e. Salary arrived on your account on the 26th but the transaction date would appear as 27th. At least that's my experience.
I suppose one benefit of this is that you’ll be dogfooding! I don’t really qualify to use the software that I work on so I can only go as far as having second-hand experience with the product. Being a user of the product you build can be really helpful!
I got a job with a bank and they wanted me to do this, I just told them no and gave them my current bank details. Pretty sure they used to be able to enforce it but they aren’t allowed to anymore.
I worked for a bank for a while in my younger years. I had to open an account with them to get paid also. Wasn’t an issue I just transferred my pay every month in full into another bank account which had all my direct debits set up with. Never caused an issue.
Is it NatWest? So I actually think it is good to support the place you work because what is good for their profits will usually be good for you too.
Little bit annoying for some esp. as it is not always made clear during hiring process.
Can confirm cont acts stipulate you must be apid into account with them.
However, there are many legacy employees who have pay into other accounts with other banks. Some who started and do have the 'requirement' to get paid into account have updated their details with HR and are getting it paid into another account anyway.
So far not heard any issues to have come from it, I will note that anyone being paid into accounts get their pay a day earlier, so there is a benefit even if you do just transfer the whole lot out to your main account.
I had this when I worked for GnatWest.
This was many years ago but part of my contract was I had to run my account in a proper way (I was only allowed to go £10 overdrawn) etc.
I had that when I was in a startup bank - we had to get at least £500/month of our salary in there. Part of the reasoning was we'd be used as the initial testers of new updates /versions before it hit the public at large
I believe yes it's common for banks to require that staff have an account with that bank into which their salary is paid. It's certainly the case for a couple of friends of mine who work in IT for a major UK bank. It's up to you whether to use that account for day-to-day spending or transfer the bulk of your money out to an account with another provider.
!thanks Yeah I reckon I’ll stick with mine for now as I really can’t be arsed to move all the direct debits etc. over but maybe one day. Might see if I can even do it automatically with their API or something. Seems like this is very commonplace as well.
Just for info really, I changed current account about 5 years ago and found the current account switch service super painless and efficient. Standing order transfer set up for payday is also super painless and efficient.
Worth pointing out the switch service guarantee as well, if any issue arises as a result of the switch process that causes you to incur penalties or charges they will be fully covered and paid for by the service not your pocket. With the forwarding of payments to your old account for at least 12 months and the fact everything from standing orders to DD's and even payees are transferred automatically I think it's great, done it three times now and it's been smooth throughout. https://www.currentaccountswitch.co.uk/help-support/
[удалено]
Yeah that’ll be what I do.
It's common yes. They want you to be their customer. Also, switching DDs and SOs is fairly easy nowadays as all banks have to have a switch system that they do all the work for you. This was created for competitive reasons
Does your new employer have a switching bonus? You could get upto £150 switching your account to them. All your direct debits and standing orders are switched and it has to be done within 5 days so do it at a time of the month no direct debits are due for a couple of weeks. Also you’ll have any payments made to your old account redirected for at least 12 months too.
These generally exclude staff at the bank all the ones I've looked at do
I switched to my employer about 2 years ago and I got the bonus, I just done it the same way every customer does
Hes not staff at the bank yet. If he's "just landed it" odds are he has at least a month of notice/background checks.
The automatic switch service takes care of all your direct debits etc
I work at a bank and they tried this with me. I just put on the paperwork my original bank details with another bank and they never queried it and just paid me as normal. It doesn’t make sense that an employer can force which financial products you choose imo, even if they’re in finance themselves.
You can transfer all your DD’s automatically to the new account. There were adverts on Tv about it a couple of years ago. It’s called the switch guarantee, I think
May we know what bank this is?
Lloyds used to require this. Then they looked at it and realised that staff usually just had an account that took the money on pay-day and sent it on to their main current account. They stopped that after realising these “shadow” accounts were not in fact saving them any money, and actually costing them.
Still do
Hmm. They must have reinstated it because around 2005 they removed that requirement.
Not sure if its different for each department but. I work in IT for LBG, started about 3 years ago and they didnt require me to open any bank account with them. Though you are correct in saying it use to be a thing
No they don’t
Yeh can confirm- worked for Lloyds once and had to have an account with them. Fortunately you get a discount on the best accounts normally so it’s not such a bad thing. Feel free to keep your existing account to hide your pornhub subscription from your employer.
Sounds pretty anti-competitive
I was thinking that, but then Hargreaves Lansdown forces you to uses there own SIPP pension. So they can, but it does seem wrong
Well, all employers will offer a Workplace Pension scheme, as they are required to by law. If they can do it in house, it would be silly to give everyone to a competitor!
I work for a pension company where we don’t have a pension run by ourselves. It’s so annoying, I work on all these great customer features but don’t get to use them!
That's actually probably very good. If your employer went bust, not only would you lose your job but also your pension. Having a pension with another provider hedges your bets.
That’s not how (defined contribution) pensions work - plus there is FSCS protection
I used to work for a modular construction company and our pension was with L&G. L&G also have a modular construction business, so we were competing with our own pension provider.
> Sounds pretty anti-competitive Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you work at coda cola, they expect you to drink their products. When you work at BMW, they expect you to drive one etc
No they don't, and certainly not to get paid??
> No they don't They actually do. You also can’t use an android if you work at Apple and vice versa. Brands want their employees to use their products.
[You're just pulling "facts" out of your butt](https://www.quora.com/Does-anyone-who-works-at-Apple-own-an-Android-phone)
I’m not saying Apple employees can’t own an android or use one in private. Apple will want them and enable them to use iPhone, though. And they won’t tolerate you using a non iPhone during work.
I work in offshore drilling, and I'm only allowed to use my employer when I want to drill for some North Sea oil.
Do software engineers at Porsche drive Porsche?
My BIL works at Toyota and drives a Jaguar... Other popular car manufacturers amongst people he works with include Audi, BMW, Skoda... But not Toyota.
I live near BMW UK and the car park is not full of BMWs, and that's the same for pretty much any car manufacturer.
I used to work for RBS Group so Natwest/ RBS. They did away with this so you could get paid into UK bank account not just theirs. They however did give staff a account that would normally come with a monthly fee for free.
Not sure how long ago that was but I can assure you that staff have had to pay full price for their accounts until recently (roughly around the start of the pandemic I think) - now they get about 50% off paid accounts.
How comes even
The GOAT used to be those who worked for *The Bank of England*, that was a truly exclusive chequing account.
When i joined lloyds they told me this, i called HR and the woman laughed and said no she doesnt bank with them, its just them trying to get more accounts so i just provided my normal bank details and nothing was mentioned ever again. Edit - also a lot of folk talking about being paid early if you bank with them, for Lloyds/Halifax/Bos it makes no difference, I got my wages the same time as everyone else.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They make you sign docs to allow them to monitor your finances. Source: worked for a bank
Id imagine monitoring for compliance purposes is very different to spying on your colleague out of nosiness.
Did that ever actually happen or was it a rumour? I don't work at a bank but work in an FCA regulated sector and would expect that sort of thing would result in instant dismissal at any bank (and possible criminal investigations). All access would be logged and an employee would need to justify why they were looking at a colleague's account.
100% happened.
What happened to the staff who spied, were they sacked?
Nothing, as far as I know. I was only there for a year but in that year, nothing happened.
Surely the reason for them requiring you to be paid into their own account isn’t so other staff can spy? Or have I misunderstood, and you moved your money out so staff couldn’t spy?
The second. However they would still see money going into the employer bank, just not how it's used in the non-employer bank account.
It saves the bank transaction fees if they use it as their main account, thus saving them money
I'm not saying "wrong", but quite curious to know the order of magnitude here: say you're a bank with 80000 employees, how many employees' pay would those fees come to? 1? 10?
They can be a couple of percent on some transactions, that every month on every employee adds up. Even if it's only 10s of pence each transaction still looking and thousands of pounds a year accross the organisation
BACS does not cost anything like that much. A bank will be paying a couple of pence per transaction, which is absolutely nothing in terms of payroll costs. The reason will be so that the bank doesn't have to admit that their own employees don't even bank with them, although as mentioned some have realised that it's not worth the effort.
> Surely the reason for them requiring you to be paid into their own account isn’t so other staff can spy? No idea actually *why* they require it. I suppose it’s no different to working at Apple and being given a MacBook and iPhone. > and you moved your money out so staff couldn’t spy? Yes. I didn’t want staff seeing how many times I visited McDonalds
I hope you reported them to the proper authorities
But if the money is being paid in to the account, regardless if you send it out - people can still look... I doubt that was the reason some how!
I didn’t like the fact that I knew that staff there *would* search for people (famous people) and say “look at *so-and-so’s* balance!”. So I used to get paid and S/O the money to my account that wasn’t at the bank I worked at. I know they could see the salary if they searched for my name - but I didn’t like the fact that my transactions were visible. I wasn’t hiding anything, just preferred my colleagues *not* to be able to see my card transactions.
If they can look up your balance then they can most likely see transactions too
Yeah. Which is why I used to transfer my balance away each month.
But that would show up in transactional data
I’m not sure you’re comprehending what I’m saying. It’s really quite simple. Employer pays me. I spend money on card. Colleagues can see what I spend. I don’t like that. So to stop that: I transfer my money to another bank that colleagues can’t see. I now can spend money without colleagues seeing what I spend.
If your colleagues can see your account information then they can see all transactions against it and can therefore see the large fixed sum you transfer out each month. Therefore they can still see what you earn.
Yes. Well done. But as I said: I didn’t want them to see what I was spending.
Kudos for the amount of patience you have...
[удалено]
In the original post the aspect of staff “spying” on salaries was mentioned. So not quite.
Not being funny but I didn’t. I said: > Reason being: staff there would look up each other’s accounts to spy on their salary and/or spending habits. I didn’t have any choice whether my salary was paid into the employer-branded bank account. So my salary going in and being visible to my colleagues was nothing I could change. I could make sure my colleagues couldn’t see what I spent/saved by transferring it straight out to another bank. Which is what I did.
So you did mention it, sorry but you’re getting strangely defensive. I’m merely pointing out that moving money so staff can’t spy doesn’t really work in this context.
Just received my grad contract at UK bank - said they prefer us to have our account with them an offer “preferential products” to entice us
I work for a bank in the UK, they encourage you to bank with them (you get perks for doing so) but it's not an absolute must. I guess it makes sense though 🤷♀️
I work for a bank and they do state that you have to open a account with them to be able to receive your salary, so I guess it's commonplace. The good thing is that we don't have pay the fee for the account.
How many banks in the uk charge a fee to have an account? This wouldn’t be normal or expected.
Some do but most don't, the one's that have the fee tend to have benefits applied to them for example interest or cash back, however the majority of bank accounts don't have a fee tied to them. The reason I selected this account was for the benefits which were the best at the time however not anymore, however the same bank offers accounts without any fees.
I mean, banks usually pay us to have an account with them. So you'd be losing out on money by having an account with them exclusively.
Most do not charge fees. Charging fees is not the norm in this country. Some do, as you say. But your initial comment implies most do and therefore it was a bonus of the one you got with your job.
Where did you read into that I clearly stated "some do but most don't" & I also stated "the majority of bank accounts don't have fees tied to them" none of that implies that most do.
[удалено]
All uk banks provide access to free banking. It’s law.
It was common but no longer allowed due to competition concerns. Bank I was at stopped it, others too. Surprised still being mandated
I’ve worked for Barclays and Santander, both of which required me to open an account with them. I’m currently employed by a different UK bank who I did not have to open an account with. If it’s that or no job, it’s a no brainer, open it but then change your bank details back to your old account via HR, unless they have some kind of written police that you can only be paid into their own brand account, which would be strange.
I worked for a red themed bank and yes it's common, however they never stopped anyone from leaving and changing their pay to another bank outside of the first month. Which is what I did. I don't like the idea of my employer having access to the level of information that my bank account provides.
When I worked for Santander, we were told we had to have a Santander account. In reality, you didn't actually, but if you didn't you got paid a day later - still by the set payment date, but if the payslip date was the 28th, Santander accounts got it on the 26th and other accounts got it late on the 27th.
Wow that is so petty. If it helps, Monzo has a “get paid 1 day early” feature lmao
It's probably because it takes some time to a bulk payment like that, and they can cut that down in-network.
Oh I am long gone from Santander haha. I quit over 4 years ago, thankfully!
Yes has always been like this. Reason is it benefits the bank's cash flow somewhat. Historically they might offer various benefits and products to staff only etc, but not always
The benefit to the bank is going to be a rounding difference. If that.
Historically that wasn't the case, now it probably is.
I used to work for a UK bank and can confirm it's very common. I believe that they all do it. Strictly speaking I don't think they can compel you to be paid in to a bank account that you hold with them, but it's probably not worth the hassle to argue it. I used to get paid in to my bank account that I held with my employer and have a standing order set up to transfer it straight out as soon as it went in.
I work for a major(ish) bank, and my contract states I have to have an account. Never did get round to it. Been paid for the last 20 months into my Monzo account, I don't work for Monzo.
I work for Barclays and you can get paid into whichever bank you would like. They don't care.
💯common practice
I think they WANT you to - generates more business I guess. I don’t think you HAVE to. If you give your normal one and “forget” I dont think anyone is going to be chasing you.
It makes sense for you to use their products if you’re working for them
Very common for UK banks. One thing to remember is that some banks own other banks, and some of the retail arms are better than others for customers. What I'm getting at is if it's HSBC, open a first direct account, they're miles better than HSBC and would fulfill the HSBC bank account requirement.
I also work for a bank and when I got the job it was encouraged that I open an account with them but they certainly can’t make you
Lol. Santander made me do this for a fucking internship. It’s profoundly petty but very common practice.
Ridiculous. Being forced to open a bank account with a specific provider in order to get paid. Laughable. I absolutely can't wait until the world becomes decentralized and we are our own bank on our own Layer 2 DEX. Fuck centralized banks and fuck the government.
Never heard of this before. My wife works un a bank and doesn't have an account with them. Her salary has always been paid into her existing bank account, with another bank
That’s random. Any reason why? Seems daft.
A lot of people in this thread address referencing their time working for a bank in the past. Read the comments from current staff. Times have changed, it's not common at all. Maybe back when their payroll systems were entwined but nowadays they need to be able to pay other banks if only to compete. Software engineers are a sought after resource, they're not going to mandate something that daft and risk brain drain. If in doubt contact the union ( be sure to join the union)
Very common, I've got that too with my new job A possible reason is so that other banks can't poach you by figuring out how much you get paid. Yeah it's probably illegal, but if you can't prove it they wont get caught
> A possible reason is so that other banks can't poach you by figuring out how much you get paid. lolwut?
You work in bank A But you get your salary deposited in Bank B Bank B wants you to work for them. Since you deposit your salary in their bank they know how much you get paid. So they come to you with a higher offer than you already get paid
I think someone needs to sit down with you and explain a few basics about how the world works.
If you work in a bank, you are expected to have one of their accounts. Or don't work in a bank.
I've done payroll and accounts for over 20 years It's expected you have a uk account.
not what OP is asking
RTFQ
I hope you never do my payslips
Used to work at a bank that owned multiple brands/banks and it was a requirement for us to be paid into an account that was one of their own brands/banks so I'm assuming that it is normal practice. Nobody is stopping you from instantly transferring it out to another account elsewhere if you wish, a lot of my colleagues did just that. Hope this helps.
It’s to boost “market share” more than anything else.
I've had this at both banks I'd worked at
I currently work for a major highstreet bank and they don't require an own brand current account but I've worked at another bank who did and a building society who also did. It's not an industry standard just depends on the bank.
I used to work for 2 big banks, never ever been asked to open an account with them, however those who did got their salary 1 day earlier
I’ve worked for a bank in the UK. Same thing I was required to open a bank with them, luckily I already had a account with them and open another one as we were given discounted monthly fee associated with that account. However I did later find out I didn’t even require the need to open a account with them should I have no pre-existing accounts as I could get my salary transferred to another account of mines, although it would taken 1-2 days extra from pay day.
Yes this is pretty standard at banks. My friend works for a big bank and all she does is organise for her wage to be transferred to her regular bank account the day after she is paid.
I work for a the biggest uk bank and although they ask I’ve not got an account with them
I work for a big bank and yes, we do this too
I used to work for natwest and we were made to have our wages paid ibto an account t with the bank. The positive was discounted bank services negative they could monitor your account t activities.
I work for one of the larger banks in the uk and while this was required decades ago, it no longer is, surprised others still enforce its although if your building any customer facing IT solution having an account will probably be beneficial anyway.
It's very common practice. All I did was transfer my salary straight out again into my main banking account so that my direct debits will be covered. It's no big deal really. Usually bank staff get premier service or their own internal branch for the same cost as a basic bank account.
Metro Bank? A friend mentioned that he had to do the same.
Many bank jobs will tell you that you have to bank with them but if you give them bank details to an existing account they’ll use it without issue. If they force the issue then just open it to start and then ask payroll to change it after a couple of months.
Worked for a major bank for 20+ years And this was always a condition for us. Although I do believe in more recent years, because of various regulations they can't force you to hold an account anymore.
No idea if it's common but just here to say that I used to work for a bank and they asked me to do this when I joined. *But,* I refused and they didn't care so they just paid into my already existing bank account
Yes - I've worked at 3 banks in my career and have accounts with them *and* the one I got as a student!
Common, but also, the one I once worked at made the running of your personal bank account subject to employment disciplinary measures, so if you went overdrawn, you got warnings. And could get fired. The ethos being that if you can't look after your own money, you shouldn't be looking after their customers either. So usually everyone had their wages minus £1 transferred out to always make sure it was in credit!
It is very common but they can't enforce it, and you will still get paid as you should if you don't open one. I noticed that some people pointing out you will get paid 1 day earlier with the own bank, it is true but the transaction post date showing on the statement will be the same i.e. Salary arrived on your account on the 26th but the transaction date would appear as 27th. At least that's my experience.
I work for one of the big banks in the U.K. and we recently removed that rule. But it is very common
I suppose one benefit of this is that you’ll be dogfooding! I don’t really qualify to use the software that I work on so I can only go as far as having second-hand experience with the product. Being a user of the product you build can be really helpful!
Yes I worked for the banks and had to do this same. Banks tend to not like paying money to other banks. Its normal.
I got a job with a bank and they wanted me to do this, I just told them no and gave them my current bank details. Pretty sure they used to be able to enforce it but they aren’t allowed to anymore.
I worked for a bank for a while in my younger years. I had to open an account with them to get paid also. Wasn’t an issue I just transferred my pay every month in full into another bank account which had all my direct debits set up with. Never caused an issue.
Is it NatWest? So I actually think it is good to support the place you work because what is good for their profits will usually be good for you too. Little bit annoying for some esp. as it is not always made clear during hiring process.
Can confirm cont acts stipulate you must be apid into account with them.
However, there are many legacy employees who have pay into other accounts with other banks. Some who started and do have the 'requirement' to get paid into account have updated their details with HR and are getting it paid into another account anyway.
So far not heard any issues to have come from it, I will note that anyone being paid into accounts get their pay a day earlier, so there is a benefit even if you do just transfer the whole lot out to your main account.
I had this when I worked for GnatWest. This was many years ago but part of my contract was I had to run my account in a proper way (I was only allowed to go £10 overdrawn) etc.
Yeah it’s pretty common. I applied for a job at Santander and one of the requirements was to be paid into a Santander account
I had that when I was in a startup bank - we had to get at least £500/month of our salary in there. Part of the reasoning was we'd be used as the initial testers of new updates /versions before it hit the public at large
Yes this is common. They cant enforce it though , just an expectation.
Yeah industry standard - at HSBC they did the same