Why a Recipient Can Be Charged to Receive a Tide Payment: Fee Routing Explained

Not necessarily. There are at least two distinct “fee families”: provider fees (charged by Tide according to plan and payment type) and third-party bank fees (charged by banks in the chain or by the recipient’s own bank).

Tide explicitly states that some banks apply charges to incoming international transactions and that Tide has no control over what a receiving bank may charge in recipient received a charge. That statement is about the recipient bank’s pricing, not Tide’s.

A cover bank is an intermediary used to process an international transfer when the sending bank and receiving bank do not settle directly. In those cases, the payment can pass through one or more institutions that apply handling charges.

Tide describes this mechanism as the cover bank potentially charging a fee to process the transfer, which can contribute to the beneficiary receiving less than expected in beneficiary receives less.

Lloyds similarly explains that correspondent bank charges may be deducted from the original amount and that routing and deductions can be outside the receiving bank’s visibility on its international rates and charges page.

Shared charging commonly results in the recipient bearing receiving bank fees and, in some cases, intermediary charges. That does not mean a recipient will always see a separate fee line; it may show up as a reduced credited amount instead.

Lloyds describes shared charging as the receiver paying their own bank charges plus those of any bank involved in processing on its international rates and charges page. Whether those charges appear as deductions from principal or as a separate debit depends on the recipient bank’s tariff and posting method.

“Pay all fees” style options aim to prevent intermediary and recipient-side deductions from reducing the amount sent, but they do not universally prevent a recipient bank from charging its own customer for receiving/crediting international funds.

Lloyds notes that a recipient bank may still charge a fee before crediting the money even where the sender arranges for the full amount to be received by the recipient’s bank in its send international payment guidance. This distinction is often at the heart of disputes: “full amount to recipient bank” is not always the same as “no charge to recipient”.

Recipient charging is most commonly discussed for SWIFT because correspondent banking routes are more frequent and less predictable. However, recipient banks can still have tariffs for receiving certain payment types, and FX mechanics can affect the net amount received on any rail where conversion is involved.

For Tide’s EUR SEPA pricing mechanics, Tide describes FX markup applying to EUR SEPA transactions on its page about fees to send or receive euro payments via EUR SEPA. For a Tide-specific rail overview (useful for diagnosing which processing chain is even in play), see SWIFT vs SEPA vs ACH.

Some banks and intermediaries deduct charges from the payment amount before it is credited, producing a net short credit. Others post the incoming credit in full and then charge separately.

Tide summarises both “cover bank fee” and “beneficiary bank crediting fee” as reasons the beneficiary can receive less than the amount sent in beneficiary receives less. This is also consistent with banks’ descriptions of correspondent charges being deducted in the chain, such as Lloyds’ explanation on its international rates and charges page.

Often, no. Predictability depends on the corridor, the banks involved, and whether the payment routes through intermediaries. Even when a provider is transparent about its own fees, third-party fees can still vary.

The FCA highlights the importance of explaining intermediary and recipient bank fees and notes that such additional fees are often not displayed up front in its publication on international payment pricing transparency. This is a transparency point rather than a promise that third-party fees can always be fixed or known.

A return or rejection can still involve processing steps where a provider fee or a bank fee is charged according to terms and tariffs. The accounting outcome can be confusing because the business sees “money back” but not necessarily every fee reversed.

For Tide-specific treatment of when charges can be reversed versus retained, see Tide refunds of fees explained. Separately, some bank tariffs also describe non-refundable elements for international handling; for example, Bank of Scotland’s international tariff shows separate fee lines for international payments and correspondent bank fees in its International Services Tariff.

For the sender, a fee might appear as a visible provider charge or an FX cost at initiation. For the recipient, the impact can be a reduced amount received or an explicit receiving fee. The direction matters because the “customer of record” for a receiving bank fee is typically the recipient.

Within the Tide context, the distinction between how incoming and outgoing charges are treated is covered in Tide incoming vs outgoing transfer charges. This is also why disputes often need both sides’ records (sender’s initiation details and recipient’s credit posting details) to reconcile what happened.

The most useful evidence is typically:

• The sender’s confirmation of payment details and charging arrangement (where their bank/provider shows it)
• The recipient bank’s posting information (incoming payment advice, any receiving fee line, and net credited amount)

Where a SWIFT route is involved, a proof-of-payment document can be relevant.

Tide references obtaining a “Proof of Payment” for delayed inbound SWIFT payments and also states that inbound SWIFT arrives minus Tide’s fee on its inbound and outbound SWIFT payments page.

For Tide-specific data fields that commonly matter for SWIFT processing, see Tide SWIFT payments: details needed (IBAN/BIC) and why.