HSBC - only accept face-to-face ID?

Dagobert

I applied for an HSBC basic current account over the phone on 22nd September (4 weeks ago). I have never heard back from them since. Instead, I have been phoning after them trying to ascertain what's happening.

When I applied, I was not assigned to a branch but to the headquarters as I live nowhere near a branch.

7th Oct: phoned the call centre:
I was told that someone would phone me back.

13th Oct: phoned the call centre:
I was told to go to a branch. (Eh? Even though I never received a letter advising me to do so?) Only after a lengthy discussion, did the woman look up my details. Apparently, the account had been approved. But she insisted I had to go to a branch for proof of ID. I explained that my application had been accepted knowing that there are no branches nearby. When I explained that the Aberdeen and Edinburgh branches are at least 3 hrs away, she suggested "Why don't you go to Belfast?"
Eventually, she advised me to wait another week for a phone-call.

19th Oct: phoned the call centre:
Again, it was explained to me that HSBC only accept face-to-face proof of ID.

Is this true?

amandathepanda

I think this is true of all Banks now. It is all to do with money laundering and fraud prevention. It is the day and age that we live in unfortunately.

Dagobert

amandathepanda wrote:

I think this is true of all Banks now. It is all to do with money laundering and fraud prevention.

Wrong! I have opened nearly 3 dozen accounts in the last year, and all of those banks accepted proof of ID through the post ranging from original bank statements to certified photocopies of passport or driving licence.

How else could online banks operate?

dunstonh

money laundering checks can be done electronically. However, these cost money and has a failure rate of around 15% (based on my experience of using it). Maybe HSBC have decided that the cost to gain ratio is not sufficient at this time.

ID has to be shown face to face or the originals provided. With items with a photo, the photo should match the person. If you are not there, face to face, then it is hard for them to verify that the photo matches. The two main methods are passport and driving licence, and with DLs now increasingly carrying signatures, this doesnt leave much which can be used to satisfy id of person. Especially since the removal of P45s and P60s.

Dagobert

dunstonh wrote:

ID has to be shown face to face or the originals provided.

Not true. I have opened accounts with 17 banks in the last last year, all through the post. Virtually all these banks enclosed leaflets detailing acceptable forms of ID for postal applications. Only few of those banks carried out electronic checks. In fact, one-and-a-half years ago, not all Credit Reference Agencies had a record of me. In most cases, I was asked to provide proof of ID in the form of certified photocopies of passport and driving licence.

dunstonh wrote:

If you are not there, face to face, then it is hard for them to verify that the photo matches.

That's why certified copies are typically requested, which show name, occupation, address, and telephone number of the signatory and date of certification. Copies sent through the post must be certified as being a true likeness of the original by a lawyer, banker, teacher, minister of religion, or doctor.

How else do you think could online banks obtain proof of identification?

dunstonh

Not true.

A certified copy is treated as an original as the legal liability lies with the person certifying the copy. How many people know someone well enough to get a certified copy? I am sure some of those occupations do not realise the legal position that they are putting themselves in if they do certify a copy.

For example, I am in one of the few professions that can certify a copy and where I do, I have to place a copy on file and keep it indefinitely to protect myself in the case of a fraud or money laundering event.

The money laundering guidelines allow companies to interpret the rules a little and take what they may or may not believe to be a business risk. Some companies may decide that it they can save £5 mill accepting a type of identification but risk a £250,000 fine if they do, then that is acceptable. This is why you get some differences.

Every day i sign a certificate of identification saying that i have have seen the originals yet i do not provide them to the companies. Every day I run the risk of imprisonment if i get it wrong.

I have opened accounts with 17 banks in the last last year

OT, but why???

rrwfotr

Dagobert wrote:

Wrong! I have opened nearly 3 dozen accounts in the last year, and all of those banks accepted proof of ID through the post ranging from original bank statements to certified photocopies of passport or driving licence.

How else could online banks operate?

Hi ifyou dont mind me asking .....why did you open all those accounts? Are you carpet begging?

Nick_C_4

I've opened several accounts in the past year by post or online, and not even had to have anything certified. Tax Coding Notices, Child Benefit letters and Child Tax Credit letters have all been acceptable as primary ID, along with a bank statement or utility bill. As my wife and I receive multiple copies each of every Child Tax Credit statement for some reason, we have them to burn. Either HSBC are being a bit OTT, or these other banks etc. (Intelligent Finance, Alliance & Leicester, Sainsbury's Bank, Derbyshire BS) are being rather lax.

Benuk73

I opened a nationwide flex account no id was requested at all. All done via internet and just signed documents they sent and then i got the debit card/ OD limit etc etc

Dagobert

dunstonh wrote:

A certified copy is treated as an original as the legal iability lies with the person certifying the copy.

Even more reason to question why HSBC apparently has no procedure in place for postal applications.

JanCee

The regulations for providing ID are different for online or postal accounts because you can't pay cash into them whereas with a branch based account you can. The regulations relate to money laundering and HSBC are just sticking to their procedures in the same way that any other High Street Bank would do. The risk of money laundering is much higher with an account that is able to accept cash - for obvious reasons.