HSBC and Bangkok Bank, A Warning To All.

[EL159]

I found out yesterday by a roundabout method having transferred a relatively small amount online by ebanking ( normal HSBC charge £4) and suddenly being hit with charges of over £40 ( on a £400 transfer!) that as of a couple of weeks ago, Bangkok Bank "no longer has a banking relationship" with HSBC,  so now, if you transfer money from HSBC to Bangkok Bank it goes through "an intermediary bank", in this case Nat West, who then charge £35 for their "service". Thus, my fees for transferring £400 came to £4 plus £35 plus Bangkok Bank receivers fee of 200 baht.....a total of £44 for transferring £400 !!

 

Normally, I dont transfer small amounts, normally transfer only 4 times a year, so now will return to that.....suppose £40 out of several thousand doesnt seem so bad! Anyway, "a word to the wise" as the saying goes. The thing that annoyed me most was that I spoke to "fairly senior" people in both banks yesterday about this mysterious £35 charge, and neither bank could tell me what it was. I finally found out from a friend here who had the same experience a couple of weeks ago whos detective skills are obviously better than mine.

[NanLaew]

Good to let us know that HSBC UK is no longer a corresponding bank with BB. This may help others to avoid being similarly stuffed. The extra fees incurred on top of the Carney-inspired drop in the £ exchange rate last Thursday would have been a triple whammy. I know I lost almost 500 baht on a similar-sized transfer just before the weekend and that was between BB and Natwest who still have a 'relationship.' Like yourself, I don't normally do small transfers but something came up. Next time I will need to pay attention and check if the BoE chief is on the cusp of making another statement as historically, when he opens his mouth, the markets go up and the pound does the opposite.

[samsensam]

 

doesn't HSBC have an obligation to inform you of the charge/s prior to completing the transaction?

[NanLaew]

13 minutes ago, samsensam said:

 

doesn't HSBC have an obligation to inform you of the charge/s prior to completing the transaction?

Good point. I have opted for my UK banks to still use snail mail for all correspondence but they do have cloud-based versions of such correspondence available once logged in for online banking. I try and make a point of reading the online ones since I only get my UK mail forwarded maybe 3 or 4 times a year. If a bank has made such a change as HSBC has where a customer is hit with unpublished extra charges but they have omitted to tell customers, maybe grounds for complaint but a satisfactory resolution (like a refund) may not be immediately forthcoming.

 

Good luck!

[canopus1969]

Unfortunately Bangkok Bank has got into bed with the Chinese and so now a once good bank is now rubbish - great shame

[simoh1490]

I don't understand why that should be the case since HSBC retains a banking license in Thailand for its commercial bank which historically (since the retail division was sold) has acted as a funds receiving point in Thailand - in fifteen years of using HSBC for transfers to and from Thailand I've never known them to use Natwest or any other intermediary bank for transfers here.

 

Plus, if transferring funds from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank in Thailand, the easier and most cost-effective way to make that transfer is via the UK CHAPS system from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank London, citing your Bangkok Bank Thailand account number.

 

To add, now that your point has registered with me: how can NatWest be a correspondent bank for HSBC, they also are a UK bank plus they don't have a presence in Thailand! If I had to guess at the nature of the problem you encountered with your transaction I'm going to guess you may have transferred THB and not Pounds, is that possible because that would account for the cost difference?

Edited November 4, 2017 by simoh1490

[EL159]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

I don't understand why that should be the case since HSBC retains a banking license in Thailand for its commercial bank which historically (since the retail division was sold) has acted as a funds receiving point in Thailand - in fifteen years of using HSBC for transfers to and from Thailand I've never known them to use Natwest or any other intermediary bank for transfers here.

 

Plus, if transferring funds from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank in Thailand, the easier and most cost-effective way to make that transfer is via the UK CHAPS system from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank London, citing your Bangkok Bank Thailand account number.

 

To add, now that your point has registered with me: how can NatWest be a correspondent bank for HSBC, they also are a UK bank plus they don't have a presence in Thailand! If I had to guess at the nature of the problem you encountered with your transaction I'm going to guess you may have transferred THB and not Pounds, is that possible because that would account for the cost difference?

No. It seems Nat West is the correspondent bank for Bangkok Bank, not HSBC, and no, I didnt and never would, make my transfer in Baht, I made it in UK pounds as I always do. I have requested refund of the £35 due to their failure to notify me, but I m not holding my breath!

[Pib]

Don't blame Bangkok Bank....it's your Sending bank HSBC which needed to use a correspondent/intermediary bank to get the money to Bangkok Bank....expect HSBC has to use a correspondent bank to get money to any Thai bank.   

 

Quote

I found out yesterday by a roundabout method having transferred a relatively small amount online by ebanking ( normal HSBC charge £4) and suddenly being hit with charges of over £40 ( on a £400 transfer!) that as of a couple of weeks ago, Bangkok Bank "no longer has a banking relationship" with HSBC,  so now, if you transfer money from HSBC to Bangkok Bank it goes through "an intermediary bank", in this case Nat West, who then charge £35 for their "service". 

 

Just like the HSBC fee webpage states below, "...and any foreign bank we (we is HSBC) may have to use to send...."    And when asking HSBC about the charge, expect them to play dumb about the correspondent bank fee and blame it on the "receiving bank" like Bangkok Bank.....but nope that middleman charge was by the correspondent/intermediary bank that HSBC uses.

 

[simoh1490]

40 minutes ago, EL159 said:

No. It seems Nat West is the correspondent bank for Bangkok Bank, not HSBC, and no, I didnt and never would, make my transfer in Baht, I made it in UK pounds as I always do. I have requested refund of the £35 due to their failure to notify me, but I m not holding my breath!

There's something not quite right with that picture. Banks only use correspondent banks when they themselves don't have an international presence which of course Bangkok Bank does. Banks sometimes use an intermediary bank when there's a foreign exchange element involved in the transaction but since the end currency of your transaction was THB there would be no need to use an intermediary. 

 

The other part of the picture is that banks typically only use correspondent banks for outward remittances unless of course the receiving bank doesn't  have an international presence. That HSBC, a UK bank, would send the payment to another UK bank Natwest makes no sense at all, the following from the HSBC site: "For all International Payments, the beneficiary's bank, and any foreign bank we may use to send the payment, may also take a charge. You'll only have to pay these charges if you choose 'sender to pay all charges' when you request your payment".

https://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/international-money-transfer/details

[simoh1490]

10 minutes ago, Pib said:

Don't blame Bangkok Bank....it's your Sending bank HSBC which needed to use a correspondent/intermediary bank to get the money to Bangkok Bank....expect HSBC has to use a correspondent bank to get money to any Thai bank.   

 

 

Just like the HSBC fee webpage states below, "...and any foreign bank we (we is HSBC) may have to use to send...."    And when asking HSBC about the charge, expect them to play dumb about the correspondent bank fee and blame it on the "receiving bank" like Bangkok Bank.....but nope that middleman charge was by the correspondent/intermediary bank that HSBC uses.

 

HSBC UK  uses a correspondent bank for all overseas transactions, really!

Edited November 4, 2017 by simoh1490

[simoh1490]

OP I think you probably need to keep pushing both banks for an answer because I transfer from HSBC UK to CIMB and UOB Thailand about twice a year and there's no correspondent banks involved hence I think somebody in one of your banks is very confused or worse.

[partington]

I don't understand this need for a correspondent bank either to be honest, but I have an account with Santander International in Jersey (fully part of UK banking system with UK sort code and able to transfer to any bank within UK system), and whenever I transfer money (GBP) to Thailand they use Royal Bank of Scotland as correspondent bank.

 

Santander are also a bank with International presence so it's a bit odd.

Edited November 4, 2017 by partington

[Caps]

I have banked with HSBC for years and have had the same thing happen to me.   I was sending money to a branch of the SCB in BKK using my online HSBC banking and I too was charged more than the 4 GBP it says.  I  rang internaitonal payments and was told that the money had been sent via HSBS Thailand Commercial Bank.  I was not happy and pressed the issue.  Eventully I found out that because I had sent the transfer in THB and not GBP this was the reason it went through HSBC Thailand and if I sent in GBP I would just get charged the 4 quid.  Thats what I did the next time I used HSBC international tranfer service and I was only charged 4 quid. 

I dont the use the service anymore due to my wages going direct to my Bangkok Bank account

[simoh1490]

17 minutes ago, partington said:

I don't understand this need for a correspondent bank either to be honest, but I have an account with Santander International in Jersey (fully part of UK banking system with UK sort code and able to transfer to any bank within UK system), and whenever I transfer money (GBP) to Thailand they use Royal Bank of Scotland as correspondent bank.

 

Santander are also a bank with International presence so it's a bit odd.

I think what you describe is very similar to the old Nationwide International scenario. NWI on the IOM is a part of Nationwide UK but it is a separate limited company and for international transfers, they use HSBC UK. I strongly suspect Santandar Jersey is a separate limited company and they don't use their parent company for international transfers for the same reason nationwide doesn't.......whatever that might be! 

[partington]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

I think what you describe is very similar to the old Nationwide International scenario. NWI on the IOM is a part of Nationwide UK but it is a separate limited company and for international transfers, they use HSBC UK. I strongly suspect Santandar Jersey is a separate limited company and they don't use their parent company for international transfers for the same reason nationwide doesn't.......whatever that might be! 

 

I think this may be more to do with Nationwide being a building society not a bank, and what's more having no international banking presence at all.

 

IN 2014  Nationwide International actually ceased to be a separate subsidiary limited company and transferred its business entirely to its parent company Nationwide UK, even though it was still situated in the IOM - I remember getting the letters that said this.

 

However they still needed to use a correspondent bank -HSBC- for transfers to Thailand, and I suspect Nationwide UK still does, though I no longer have any accounts with Nationwide.

 

However Santander International IS part of Santander UK, and is  simply the trading name of the Santander UK plc Jersey branch. I know this for a fact because, as a result of the new ring-fencing regulations for UK banks Santander are going to have to separate the International business from Santander UK, and there is talk that it will now be run as a subsdiary of Banco Santander  in Spain, run from Banco Santander's London office.

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by partington

[brexiteer]

On 04/11/2017 at 12:10 PM, simoh1490 said:

I don't understand why that should be the case since HSBC retains a banking license in Thailand for its commercial bank which historically (since the retail division was sold) has acted as a funds receiving point in Thailand - in fifteen years of using HSBC for transfers to and from Thailand I've never known them to use Natwest or any other intermediary bank for transfers here.

 

Plus, if transferring funds from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank in Thailand, the easier and most cost-effective way to make that transfer is via the UK CHAPS system from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank London, citing your Bangkok Bank Thailand account number.

 

To add, now that your point has registered with me: how can NatWest be a correspondent bank for HSBC, they also are a UK bank plus they don't have a presence in Thailand! If I had to guess at the nature of the problem you encountered with your transaction I'm going to guess you may have transferred THB and not Pounds, is that possible because that would account for the cost difference?

 

They are. 

 

They don't need a presence in Thailand....it is the UK end of the relationship... HSBC and BKB no longer have one.

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, brexiteer said:

 

They are. 

 

They don't need a presence in Thailand....it is the UK end of the relationship... HSBC and BKB no longer have one.

HSBC doesn't need a UK relationship with Bangkok Bank in order to transfer funds to them, why should they. Once again, these are not roaming agreements where relationships are established on a one to one basis, they all access SWIFT so the routing is clear.

[partington]

2 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

HSBC doesn't need a UK relationship with Bangkok Bank in order to transfer funds to them, why should they. Once again, these are not roaming agreements where relationships are established on a one to one basis, they all access SWIFT so the routing is clear.

Yes exactly- banks in the SWIFT system don't need a relationship, they simply pass messages to each other using the SWIFT system, including currency transfer messages. 

 

However there is still the mystery of banks who are full participants in the SWIFT system needing to use correspondent banks to transfer GBP. Why on earth would Santander or HSBC need to route GBP through another bank in the UK to send it abroad?

 

Vey puzzling: hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will be able to explain it eventually.

[simoh1490]

I'm pretty sure this is a forex related issue but let's wait and see, if as you say, somebody knowledgeable can answer more precisely, Fletchsmile or naam would of use here.

[manchega]

On 11/4/2017 at 11:55 AM, canopus1969 said:

Unfortunately Bangkok Bank has got into bed with the Chinese and so now a once good bank is now rubbish - great shame

YOu do know what HSBC stands for don't you?  pretty sure its Chinese owned even if it were'nt originally.

for my part HSBC is increasing charges in uk, really annoyed with them actually.  I think they are trying to go all us on me.

 

[simoh1490]

6 minutes ago, manchega said:

YOu do know what HSBC stands for don't you?  pretty sure its Chinese owned even if it were'nt originally.

for my part HSBC is increasing charges in uk, really annoyed with them actually.  I think they are trying to go all us on me.

 

As of writing, HSBC is a British bank headquartered in London although a desire has been expressed to return to a head quarters in HK.

[Jip99]

7 minutes ago, manchega said:

YOu do know what HSBC stands for don't you?  pretty sure its Chinese owned even if it were'nt originally.

for my part HSBC is increasing charges in uk, really annoyed with them actually.  I think they are trying to go all us on me.

 

 

 

This is is nothing to do with HSBC charges - they have not changed. It is the relationship between HSBC and Bangkok Bank that has changed, thus causing a correspondent Bank/agent (Nat West) charge to be incurred.

[Jip99]

On 05/11/2017 at 1:43 PM, simoh1490 said:

HSBC doesn't need a UK relationship with Bangkok Bank in order to transfer funds to them, why should they. Once again, these are not roaming agreements where relationships are established on a one to one basis, they all access SWIFT so the routing is clear.

 

 

Your little bit of knowledge is dangerous in that you are blinding yourself to what has actually happened.

 

Simoh I recommend that to get the evidence that you desperately require just try making a transfer from HSBC to BKB and see what happens.

[simoh1490]

4 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Your little bit of knowledge is dangerous in that you are blinding yourself to what has actually happened.

 

Simoh I recommend that to get the evidence that you desperately require just try making a transfer from HSBC to BKB and see what happens.

I and others in this thread, and in the other thread, have the same difficulty understanding the why's and wherefore's of all of this, as we have all stated. Personally, I don't have anything to do with Bangkok Bank, all my transfers from HSBC UK go directly to either UOB or CIMB without use of an intermediary or correspondent bank - why BB should be the anomaly is very unclear. But as an ex Director of HSBC, surely you must maintain contacts or an ability to understand this better than most, yet you've not posted anything other than your unsupported opinion and that seems odd. Another poster in the other thread did at least do some investigation which has revealed that HSBC is no longer on the BB list of correspondent banks which is certainly indicative that there is no longer a relationship, the question is why since both banks are major banks.

[Pib]

Bangkok Bank correspondent banks listed at their website.   And I guess HSBC uses NatWest which is one of the listed correspondent banks below.

 

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/BusinessBanking/BusinessSolution/TransferingFunds/ReceivingFunds/Pages/default.aspx

[simoh1490]

Well done PiB but as you are aware another poster in another thread already posted the same!!!

 

Ok, we're not going anywhere new here, over and out!

[Jip99]

2 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I and others in this thread, and in the other thread, have the same difficulty understanding the why's and wherefore's of all of this, as we have all stated. Personally, I don't have anything to do with Bangkok Bank, all my transfers from HSBC UK go directly to either UOB or CIMB without use of an intermediary or correspondent bank - why BB should be the anomaly is very unclear. But as an ex Director of HSBC, surely you must maintain contacts or an ability to understand this better than most, yet you've not posted anything other than your unsupported opinion and that seems odd. Another poster in the other thread did at least do some investigation which has revealed that HSBC is no longer on the BB list of correspondent banks which is certainly indicative that there is no longer a relationship, the question is why since both banks are major banks.

 

 

I have have stated the facts of my transactions that incurred the Nat West charge.

 

It happened..... do you doubt it?

 

 

The extent of your interest is difficult to understand as you do not bank with BKB and are therefore unaffected.

[Oztruckie]

Does anyone have any info on kasikorn bank regarding Int.transfers from OZ.Just recently transferred small amount from OZ to kasikorn bank,I've noticed they helped themselves to 1200 thb pocket money or whatever you want to call it.Do they use a 3rd party bank to effect the the transaction.

[lopburi3]

36 minutes ago, Oztruckie said:

Does anyone have any info on kasikorn bank regarding Int.transfers from OZ.Just recently transferred small amount from OZ to kasikorn bank,I've noticed they helped themselves to 1200 thb pocket money or whatever you want to call it.Do they use a 3rd party bank to effect the the transaction.

Once again it is most likely not at the Thai end except for the 200-500 baht charge.  Likely they received less money than you sent due to your home bank or the bank they use for international transfers (or both) taking out their fee before K Bank received it.  

[Pib]

Yeap...sure sound like a middle man bank (correspondent bank) took a slice.   A person can go to their branch and ask for a printout which provides details of the arrival amount.  It show how much foreign currency arrived before the receiving bank took their slice, should show where the money arrived from, and other info.