Questions and answers on the definition of sweeping

The guidance provided by the CMA clarified that “e-money accounts that are used by consumers and SMEs as substitutes for current accounts [are in] scope”¹. Therefore, the destination account should have all the following characteristics:

• The account must have the features of a current account
  The account must have the features typically provided by a current account supporting day-to-day payment transactions, including receiving salary payments, sending and receiving bank transfers, using a debit card for purchases, making ATM withdrawals, and setting up regular payments. 
• The account should be used as an alternative to a traditional current account.
• The account should be promoted and marketed as an alternative to a traditional current account.
  The product should be used for day-to-day transactions as described above.

It is unlikely that a transfer into a Buy Now Pay Later (“BNPL”) account would meet the definition of sweeping.  These transactions are invariably linked to a single purchase of goods or services and so would be excluded from the definition of sweeping because “sweeping to make e-commerce purchases” was identified by the CMA as clearly outside of the scope of the CMA Order¹. 

Even where the BNPL facility is potentially a form of credit providing competition to an overdraft, because the borrowing and repayment terms are directly linked to a single e-commerce transaction, it is out of scope. 

This depends on the nature of the proposition.  The CMA states¹ that one of the intended purposes of sweeping is to introduce competition for overdraft customers such as provision “of alternative forms of credit that closely compete with overdrafts”.  Some agreements under the Consumer Credit Act or business lending may meet the criteria but others would not. There are three main types of credit which are excluded from the sweeping definition:

• Hire purchase (“HP”), retail store finance or personal contract purchase (“PCP”) are unlikely to be considered sweeping as they are facilitating a single purchase (which is excluded by the CMA).
• Credit agreements in which there is a one-time payment of funds to the consumer with a pre-agreed repayment schedule, e.g. a personal or business loan, are not considered sweeping. The CMA’s letter dated 3 December 2025 agreed with OBL’s recommendation that access to VRPs for Sweeping to repay credit may only be mandated for both personal current account customers and SMEs where the destination credit account has similar characteristics to an overdraft – specifically, having a revolving credit facility with no fixed repayment schedule.
• Loan products which are secured against an asset. These are explicitly excluded by the CMA.

Credit card repayments are explicitly included in the CMA’s sweeping definition, as credit cards are considered a method of alternative credit to overdrafts and suitable for cash flow issues. Charge cards, in contrast, require the balance to be repaid in full each month so do not offer similar repayment flexibility as an overdraft and are therefore excluded from the sweeping definition.

For a transaction to be considered sweeping, it needs to be between two accounts belonging to the same person or legal entity. There is nothing in the definition that prevents financial institutions from using collection accounts to facilitate the movement of funds if this ultimately results in a transaction between two accounts belonging to the same person. It is worth noting that some savings accounts, credit card accounts and other lending accounts use collection accounts to facilitate the processing of payments into customers’ accounts.

PISPs are expected to undertake appropriate checks to ensure that the ultimate beneficiary is the same person/legal entity as the owner of the source account of the sweeping transaction. OBL recommends that PISPs populate the optional Ultimate Beneficiary endpoint.

For clarity, the ultimate destination account must be such that the definition of sweeping can be met. There will be collection accounts that are NOT valid destination accounts for sweeping, for example, mortgage accounts.

No.  Destination accounts which fall within the definition of sweeping and fulfil the sweeping objectives set out in the letter¹ must belong to the same customer as the source account but there is no need for a valid sweeping destination account to have a unique sort code and account number.

Cash savings accounts are designed for customers to save cash and pay interest on money deposited in the account.

The clarification provided by the CMA states that, reflecting on the objectives of sweeping articulated in the Final Report, sweeping to a cash savings account that is capable of paying interest is within scope of sweeping under the CMA Order given the Final Report explicitly included sweeping to higher interest accounts as an example of overcoming customer inertia to make their current account work harder.

Given one of the intended outcomes of sweeping identified in the Final Report was to help customers earn higher interest on their cash balances, customers must receive a higher rate of interest than on their source current account to fall within the definition of sweeping. The destination account will need to help customers achieve this outcome to fall within the definition of sweeping. PISPs must undertake appropriate checks to ensure the destination savings account pays a higher rate of interest than the source current account.

Any cash savings product which meets the above criteria will be a valid sweeping destination account including instant access accounts, notice accounts and fixed term accounts.

The destination account must be promoted and marketed as a cash savings product in its own right. A cash account whose main purpose is to hold deposits pending investment will not be a valid sweeping destination account.

The destination account must meet the definition of sweeping in its own right.

The destination account must NOT be used as a transfer mechanism to enable automatic sweeping into investments.  The CMA has stated that sweeping into investments is not within the scope of the CMA Order¹.  For example, if the destination account enabled the automatic transfer of funds into investments on receipt of a sweeping transaction, then the account is being used as a transfer mechanism to support sweeping into investments. However, if a customer decided to manually move funds from the destination account into investments, that would not invalidate the account from being a valid destination account for sweeping as the transfer into investments was completely independent from the sweeping transaction.  Each movement of funds would need to be done manually.

There are no specific limitations on the use of funds after sweeping has taken place.  However, the sweeping destination account must be such that all aspects of the sweeping definition are met and, as noted above, must not be used as an automatic transfer mechanism for destinations outside the scope of sweeping. Therefore, the onward transfer to a destination account outside of the scope of sweeping must be completely independent of the sweep (for example, the transfer takes place following a specific request from the customer). If the onward transfer is carried out automatically and triggered by the receipt of the sweeping transaction, it is likely that the account would be considered to be enabling the sweeping of funds into the onward destination account which may not be within the scope of the CMA Order.

If the onwards transfer is automatic, its determination as sweeping will depend on the terms and conditions of the account receiving the onwards transfer.

For clarity, if there is a payment authority on the sweeping destination account, such as a direct debit or standing order, to an account that is entirely unconnected with the sweeping use case, then this is likely to be considered completely independent from the sweep.

In the first instance, we would expect the CMA9 firm and PISP to discuss the issue and, where possible, reach a common understanding.

If the CMA9 firm and the PISP are unable to reach an agreement, we would expect both parties to do all they can to minimise any adverse impact on consumers and SMEs who are using sweeping-dependent services. For example, we would not expect CMA9 firms to unilaterally switch off sweeping access to a PISP.

In addition, we would expect the parties to adopt the following process:

1. The CMA9 firm or PISP to inform OBL (including by raising a ticket via the Open Banking Service Desk) that there is disagreement over whether a particular use case or transaction meets the definition of sweeping within the scope of the CMA Order as clarified by the CMA in its March 2022 letter and by OBL in these Q&As.
   
2. OBL will investigate the matter. For example, by requesting evidence from the CMA9 firm as to why they believe the use case or transaction is not sweeping, and asking the PISP for evidence to support their assertion that a particular use case or transaction meets the definition of sweeping.
   
3. Based on the evidence provided, OBL will consult with the Trustee and issue a provisional Decision as to whether a particular use case or transaction meets the definition of sweeping. This provisional Decision would be provided to the CMA9 firm and the PISP involved in the disagreement. The CMA will also be informed by OBL of its provisional Decision. Depending on the outcome, the provisional Decision will either expect the CMA9 firm to continue to allow the PISP access to sweeping, or expect that the PISP ceases the use case or adapts it to meet the sweeping definition. Where the relevant firm takes the action expected of them by the provisional Decision, a formal Trustee Decision may not be required.
   
4. Where the CMA9 firm or PISP involved in the disagreement wish to contest the provisional Decision, they may make further representations and request a formal Trustee Decision. Where the Trustee decides that the use case is sweeping, the CMA9 firm will be directed to continue to allow the PISP access to sweeping. Where the Trustee decides that the use case is not sweeping, the Trustee will write to all of the CMA9 firms confirming that they are not mandated to allow sweeping access for the use case.
   
   The Trustee acts on behalf of the CMA and the CMA will be informed of the decision.
   
5. OBL will publish the outcome of formal Trustee Decisions on its website, including the parties involved and the key facts of the use case.

OBL will only consider disagreements between a CMA9 firm and a PISP. In a scenario where a PISP believes a competing PISP has a use case that is not sweeping, an appropriate first step may be to engage with CMA9 firms to understand the basis on which access is being allowed, for example, under commercial terms. This process does not prevent the CMA from taking enforcement action against a breach of its remedy where appropriate or for parties to undertake private enforcement action against a breach.