How much personal information should we give to banks ?

Consumerist

harz99 wrote: »

Every company is entitled to set their own terms and conditions of business within the laws applying at the time. If these terms and conditions then become a bar to trading profitably, the company will change them. Natwest clearly have many customers who are not as exercised as the Op about their T&Cs so nothing is going to change.

On the first point, ok - within the laws applying at the time.

The third principle under the Data Protection Act states that "Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed"

My question, yet again, is: In what way is information concerning residential status, marital status or number of dependants relevant in relation to the purpose of an application for a cash ISA? If such information is not relevant to the purpose then, surely, it is also excessive. This is the question I would put to the Information Commissioner.

On the second point, it is true that most bank customers don't have the time to pursue complaints of this nature but that does not mean to say that they approve of the collection of unnecessary personal information about them.

If people did not complain, we would not have democratic government, women would not be able to vote, there would still be slavery and children would still be sent up chimneys (etc, etc, etc. ) . . .

. . . and we would still be paying £25 or more as default charges on credit-cards.

Why should you help to beat down the door when, once others have knocked it down, you too will be able to walk through?
.

harz99

As I said before; move on.

Looking through this thread, there are several posters all saying basically the same thing - you have decided not to do business with Natwest, so just go elsewhere until you find another savings provider that complies with your requirements.

The fact that nobody has answered your questions does not mean that we agree or disagree with you; more that for most of us, our time is better used living life, not chasing futile and largely irrelevant complaints.

chesky369

......not chasing futile and largely irrelevant complaints.........

blimey, the whole website would close down in that case.

Consumerist

chesky369 wrote: »

......not chasing futile and largely irrelevant complaints.........
blimey, the whole website would close down in that case.

Can we take it that you and harz99 haven't bothered with the current petition either ?

Oh what useful contributors you are.

PBA

eeja wrote: »

Abbey do ask for this info....even when you just want to place a fixed rate deposit with them and do not want a bank account.
One's employment is none of their business. They even want details of ones house ! Not come across any other bank that asked for this info when placing a fixed deposit.

If you're a new customer to Abbey then you need to have a current account before you can open a fixed deposit, so then those questions become relevant.

Consumerist

PBA wrote: »

If you're a new customer to Abbey then you need to have a current account before you can open a fixed deposit, so then those questions become relevant.

Now, that does raise an interesting (and valid) point. I believe that that there is a similar requirement for the NatWest cash ISA plus. This may very well be the reason they ask such questions.

It seems that gaining current accounts is the name of the game in retail banking these days and offering competetive savings rates is a means to that end.

For people who are already NatWest customers, there is also a requirement on the banks to keep such information up to date.

I'm still not sure about the necessity for data regarding marital status and number of dependants but I can see some merit in the banks knowing your residential status.

I may not like it but I think I can now understand their reasoning.

Time to move on. Thanks.


.

samizdat

Well, I think we should all complain constantly about anything we believe to be unnecessary, unreasonable, below par or in any way displeasing to us. That is one of the major things wrong with British culture; a failure to put up with the mild discomfort of complaint, whether one is doing the complaining or being complained to.

This is a case in point. You want to open an ISA and are asked irrelevant questions. It turns out this may be because it is a pre-condition of opening the ISA that you have a current account; and to open a current account these questions may be necessary under KYC rules or money-laundering regulations. In these cicumstances, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to complain to the Bank about the requirement to open a current account in order to qualify for the ISA. Equally, the Bank may feel it is perfectly reasonable to insist upon this for its own commercial reasons. I'm not sure whether it is reasonable; but there is absolutely no harm in complaining about it and I think people should, if they do object to this.

Well-run companies do actually listen to their customers and potential customers. The fact that a company may not listen does not mean that people should refrain from complaining to it; suffcient levels of complaint will eventually lead to a change of policy, or will at least cause competitive harm to the company (particularly public complaint but also through word-of-mouth), reducing its commercial influence.