Bank of Scotland and Non Ordinarily resident Status

Aegis

rt29781 wrote: »

Eventually HBOS admitted I could open a new account in HBOS ordinary accounts but not in private banking. Then after further discussion, where I pointed out their staff had misled us, they said I could open a new account in Private Banking although this arrangement is soley for us and not an indication that HBOS will allow others to do so. It would appear that HBOS can be talked too. I have not let this subject drop though and want an answer from the FSA and the TSC. It is discriminatory to exclude a section of UK citizens solely on where they live. They couldn't get away with it if it was on the grounds of the colour of my skin so why on the grounds of my residency. Any notion it is to do with TAX is rubbish. I do accept that as a commercial company HBOS can deny people an account but they have to do so consistently without discrimination and cannot coerce or bully people into changing accounts especially by misleading them.
Race Discrimination in the Provision of Goods, Facilities and Services

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Serif]Part III of the RRA also covers any ‘goods, facilities or services’ which are offered to the public or a section of the public. This means, for instance, the services and facilities offered by hotels, boarding houses, pubs and restaurants, banks, insurance companies, credit houses and hire purchase firms, transport authorities and local authorities. A recent case has also held that it might cover the investigation of crime too. Direct or indirect discrimination by any such organisation will be unlawful.[/FONT]

The same legislation that gives equal rights to people irrespective of the colour of their skin could be used to challenge discrimation on the grounds of residency. Not that it my case it is required now.

Your race is independent of your country of residence, so there's no way that you could challenge any such ruling on grounds of racial discrimination.

Such rules are purely for security and administrative reasons, and a UK domiciled bank is perfectly justified in requiring its customers to reside in the UK if that's the business model they choose.

I very strongly believe that you'd get nowhere with a complaint to the FSA or the TSC.

rt29781

Aegis, Discrimination is not allowed under european law. Just becaues a company feels it is right doesn't mean it is lawful. As I said a bank can refuse a new account to persons according to their rules. The FSA are there to ensure "customers are treated fairly". Discrimination is patently unfair for whatever reason. I used the case of skin colour because the law has been clarified on this point many times but the reason for the law is to prevent discrimination. You said the same thing on the 18th November
"A bank does not have to open an account for anyone that doesn't meet their criteria." but since then HBOS have re instated our right to an account. They wouldn't do that if they were on sound legal territory. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

gozomark

rt29781 wrote: »

Aegis, Discrimination is not allowed under european law.

yes it is - think of car or health insurance, or state pensions having different age for men and women, or the right to vote in general elections based on residency or age to name a few

MarkyMarkD

There are multiple valid reasons why UK banks and building societies will not offer accounts on the same terms to non-residents as to UK residents.

Firstly, (and pretty obviously) there is an extra cost to them in posting letters overseas. Not simply because the stamps cost more, but because automated processes for bulk mailings are designed for massive volumes of post to UK addresses, and overseas mailings have to be dealt with with a far higher degree of manual processing.

Secondly, there is the R85/R105 issue which has been mentioned in passing.

The problem is that, in order to reduce tax avoidance, HMRC applies different responsibilities to R85s and R105s. For an R85 (useable only by UK residents), HMRC allows the financial institution to rely on self-certification by the investor. In other words, if the investor says they are exempt, and they fill the forms in correctly, that's OK and the institution cannot be fined by HMRC if the investor was lying.

For R105s, exactly the opposite applies. If there is any reasonable way that the financial institution could have suspected that the investor was in fact not eligible for tax-exemption, they are liable for any tax which should have been deducted and was not. The costs to police this are huge and it is unreasonable to expect the banks and building societies to take this risk.

If you are unhappy with the R105 issue, then it is HMRC/your MP you need to complain to, not the FSA or the banks or building societies.

If it were merely the cost issue, then it is likely that more institutions would (possibly) choose to offer special ex-pat accounts, but there's still no logical reason why they would offer mainstream UK products to customers who will be more hassle (from a money laundering risk point of view) and more expensive (from an adminstrative point of view).

rt29781

Gozomark, discrimination is not allowed. The pensionable age in the UK is going to be the same in time. No one is discriminated against at voting. Women many years ago did not have the vote but they do now because that practice was not fair. People get to an age and then they are eligible to vote. That's fair.

If you know of an insurance practice that is unfair then it needs to be stopped. The laws to do it are there now. If insurance companies discriminate then they can be challenged.

gozomark

Discrimination and fairness are not the same thing.

People get to an age and then they are eligible to vote. That's fair. - I agree, its fair, but its still discriminatory


Insurance companies discriminate based on age, sex, location etc

The pensionable age in the UK is going to be the same in time. - ie its discriminatory at the moment, so its allowed

No one is discriminated against at voting - EU citizens cannot always vote in general elections in the country they live in if its not their country of birth

rt29781

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

There are multiple valid reasons why UK banks and building societies will not offer accounts on the same terms to non-residents as to UK residents.

Firstly, (and pretty obviously) there is an extra cost to them in posting letters overseas. Not simply because the stamps cost more, but because automated processes for bulk mailings are designed for massive volumes of post to UK addresses, and overseas mailings have to be dealt with with a far higher degree of manual processing.

Secondly, there is the R85/R105 issue which has been mentioned in passing.

The problem is that, in order to reduce tax avoidance, HMRC applies different responsibilities to R85s and R105s. For an R85 (useable only by UK residents), HMRC allows the financial institution to rely on self-certification by the investor. In other words, if the investor says they are exempt, and they fill the forms in correctly, that's OK and the institution cannot be fined by HMRC if the investor was lying.

For R105s, exactly the opposite applies. If there is any reasonable way that the financial institution could have suspected that the investor was in fact not eligible for tax-exemption, they are liable for any tax which should have been deducted and was not. The costs to police this are huge and it is unreasonable to expect the banks and building societies to take this risk.

If you are unhappy with the R105 issue, then it is HMRC/your MP you need to complain to, not the FSA or the banks or building societies.

If it were merely the cost issue, then it is likely that more institutions would (possibly) choose to offer special ex-pat accounts, but there's still no logical reason why they would offer mainstream UK products to customers who will be more hassle (from a money laundering risk point of view) and more expensive (from an adminstrative point of view).

Let me get this straight HBOS are going to save money by moving our bank account to the Isle of Man. Are their postal charges much lower? Surely their postings would be smaller from the IOM.

The tax avoidance story is fiction, read through the thread neither the FSA or the TSC could find any valid reason for non resident Uk citizens to be denied an account on tax reasons. . The tax authorities are very savvy now. We fill in a form with our French tax reference number. If we wanted to avoid tax then surely we would go offshore, but we don't, it is an excuse.

Economic Secretary (Economic and Business), HM Treasury, and also Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Economic and Business), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform—Mr. Ian Pearson, MP, stated during the House of Commons' Icelandic Banking Debate,"There is no legal bar under UK financial services regulation that would prevent a non-UK resident from opening a new bank account here."

rt29781

Discrimination is unfair. The FSA is tasked with ensuring banks are fair to their customers. No-one said we live in a perfect world but the european laws are their to make it fair. Clearly what the banks have done to non resident UK citizens is not fair that is why the TSC asked the FSA to investigate it.

People get to vote when society regards they are of age, that's fair.

gozomark

Discrimination is unfair. - so is having too many yellow smarties in a tube, doesn't mean its illegal

Mikeyorks

rt29781 wrote: »

People get to vote when society regards they are of age, that's fair.

Do you still have a vote in the UK?