A Bank Wanted to Know If I Was Still Fit to Run My Own Life. I Wasn't Sure How to Answer.

 

The phone went at ten past nine on a Tuesday, which is already a confession. Nobody with good news rings before the second cup of tea has gone cold. A woman with a very patient voice — the sort they train with a laminated card that says do not sound alarmed, even if you are — explained that she was calling from my bank’s “customer safeguarding team,” and did I have a few minutes.

I had nothing but minutes. That’s rather the point of retirement, though nobody puts it in the leaflet. They mention freedom, golf, the grandchildren. They do not mention becoming infinitely available to people with scripts.

She wanted to talk about a transfer I’d made the week before. Nothing dramatic. Some money from a small writing project finally landing where it was supposed to, moved out of one account and into another so it could actually be useful. Ordinary. The kind of thing I did without thinking twice for forty years running a ship — except back then nobody rang up afterwards to check whether I still knew what a decimal point was for.

“It’s just a few routine questions,” she said. “For your protection.”

Then came the questions.

Did I know today’s date. Did I know roughly how much was in the account. Had anyone asked me to make this payment. Did I feel under any pressure. Was I confident I understood where the money was going.

I answered every one correctly, which is either reassuring or exactly what a coached, coerced pensioner would also say. I don’t think there’s a version of this call where you actually get to win. Pass, and you have merely proved you can still recite the calendar. Fail, and someone else starts managing your teaspoons.

What she asked next is the part I still can’t get out of my head. It wasn’t really a question about money. It was a question about whether I still counted. The honest answer took me two days and a great deal of tea to work out.

She asked what I intended to do with the money, in the exact tone you’d use explaining pocket money to a ten-year-old. I told her: a course I’d been meaning to take, a new kettle, the rest put by. She said “lovely” in the voice people use once they’ve stopped listening but haven’t stopped ticking boxes. You can hear the biro. You can almost hear the box.

Then the one that actually landed: “And do you feel confident managing your finances generally, at the moment?”

At the moment. As though competence were a mood. As though I might wake up next Tuesday having quietly mislaid the ability to do long division, and nobody would think to mention it to me first. I’d just find out the hard way, standing in a queue somewhere, holding up the till, wondering why the numbers had gone shy.

Fifty years I spent making decisions that genuinely mattered — the sort where getting it wrong doesn’t mean an overdraft, it means someone doesn’t come home. I’ve plotted a course through weather that would make this call centre look like a garden fete. I’ve made calls in under a minute that her script was working through in fifteen careful, cautious steps, each one designed by someone who has never had to make a real decision quickly in their life.

And here I was, at my own kitchen table, mug in hand, being quizzed by someone forty years my junior reading off a screen, about whether I grasped the basic concept of money.

Somewhere in a training suite next year, I imagine some poor new starter is going to be played a recording of this exact call, as an example of how to handle a “difficult customer.” For the record, I was polite throughout. I was also, I think, correct about everything, which may be the more irritating quality of the two.

Here’s the funny part, and it took me a good while to see it as funny rather than simply galling: I answered every question so precisely, so completely, so competently, that by the end she sounded almost disappointed. As if a slightly muddled answer would at least have given her something proper to write down. I was, by the standards of her script, too capable for the call to make sense. It is possibly the only exam I have ever sat where acing it felt like a small defeat.

I don’t blame her particularly. Somewhere in a compliance department there is a genuine, sincerely-meant policy protecting genuinely vulnerable people from being emptied out by a stranger on the phone, and given what I’ve read about who actually gets caught out by that sort of thing, I understand exactly why the policy exists. That isn’t the part that stings.

Every bank in the country runs some version of this now — a “vulnerable customer” framework, built in the name of consumer protection, and in fairness to the regulators, the fraud figures behind it are real and grim. But the framework was built to catch a crime. It wasn’t built to make room for a person. Those two jobs pull in opposite directions the moment you happen to be the one being screened, and nobody in the room designing the questions seems to have noticed they’d built one blunt instrument for two entirely different problems.

The part that actually stings is that the system has exactly one setting for “over sixty-five and moving money,” and it’s the same setting whether you’re sharp as a tack or three weeks into forgetting your own name. Nobody asked me a single question that could actually tell the two apart. They asked me things a checklist can score — a date, a sum, a yes or no — not things a person could genuinely judge. It’s protection dressed up as an examination, and the examination doesn’t measure the thing it’s named after.

If you’ve had one of these calls yourself, you’ll know exactly the flatness I mean — that particular blend of relief and insult, delivered in the same patient, unhurried voice. If you haven’t yet, you likely will. The threshold for triggering one seems to drop a little further every year, and I’ve seen nothing to suggest it’s about to stop.

It helped, oddly, that I had the rest of the day free to sit with how the call had made me feel, rather than rushing off to the next meeting and burying it under something more urgent. Retirement gives you that much, if nothing else — the time to actually notice when something has needled you, instead of swallowing it on the way to somewhere more important. I’m not sure that’s a small thing. I spent a working lifetime not having it.

What unsettled me more, once the call had ended and the tea had gone properly cold this time, was realising I don’t actually know what my own honest answer would be if someone asked me something harder than the date. Not “what’s today” — anyone can glance at a calendar for that. Something more like: how would I know, myself, before anyone else did, that the answer had quietly changed? There’s no form for that question. No safeguarding call checks in on your own certainty about your own mind, because the entire premise of the exercise is that somebody else notices first — a bank, a script, a stranger reading from a screen — and by the time they do, you’re the last to find out, which rather defeats the point of asking you anything at all.

That’s the quiet, unfunny bit sitting underneath the funny bit. I can laugh, genuinely, about being too competent for a competence test. I am considerably less amused by not having an honest answer to the real question hiding behind it.

So here is where I’ve landed, for the time being, because “for the time being” is the only honest tense available to any of us past a certain age: I answer every safeguarding call as though I’m giving a performance, because in a sense I am. Sharp, complete, unhesitating answers — not because I’m certain I’ll always be able to give them, but because right now I can, and right now is genuinely all any of us ever get to work with. There’s something almost bracing in that, once you stop resenting it. A kind of clean, present-tense freedom the young don’t get handed, because nobody has ever had reason to test whether they still have it.

I still don’t have a good answer to her actual question. I’ve simply decided that not having one yet is a different condition entirely from not having one at all — and until somebody rings to tell me otherwise, I intend to keep answering the phone myself.

Fair warning to my bank: next time, I’m answering entirely in Morse code, purely to see which box that ticks.

---

Want something more practical?

I’ve created a collection of guides for people who still believe life isn’t over just because the calendar says so. You’ll find them here:

The Library

Tea remains the official fuel source of The Old Grey Thinker.

And if you’d simply like to support the writing, some readers buy me a pot of Yorkshire Tea. It’s not mandatory. But neither is keeping the lights on.