Bank of Scotland and Non Ordinarily resident Status

rt29781

Mikeyorks wrote: »

Do you still have a vote in the UK?

I am resident in France why would I vote in the UK that would be unfair.

Mikeyorks

rt29781 wrote: »

I am resident in France why would I vote in the UK that would be unfair.

It was a rhetorical question. But, nevertheless, a reasoned answer.

But you used to live here. So how is it less fair that you lose your vote ..... than that you are declined the ability to open new accounts?

focae

Why on earth would anyone choose to live in France?

rt29781

focae wrote: »

Why on earth would anyone choose to live in France?

It has a fairer society and a better climate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240988/France-tops-list-best-places-live-world-fifth-year-row--Britain-languishes-25th.html
They also have control of their financial institutions.

MarkyMarkD

rt29781 wrote: »

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.

No, I clearly did not say that.

The costs of running overseas accounts are greater. That's a fact. And for a UK setup designed for UK based cusomers, the marginal cost of serving a handful of ex-pats is way higher, per customer, than the cost to an IOM operation designed entirely for ex pats.

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.

I didn't say, at all, that it's not allowed. But the point is that the risk of tax avoidance lies almost entirely with the institution, which it does not for R85 breaches. That is unfair, but it's HMRC being unfair not the financial institutions.

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."

I know, there's no legal bar. But it's a lot more faff, and therefore why should the banks and building societies do it and lose money? They are not charities.

And why should anyone in the UK government give a stuff about ex pats who don't generally have a vote?

rt29781

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The costs of running overseas accounts are greater. That's a fact.

Show me the evidence. We invest a large sum of money in a long term account. There are very few costs involved. We bank electronically. Banks lend money to people and they pay interest to investors. I can't see what the issue is with us being in France or the UK. Its all an excuse. There is a Fiscal reason why banks want to have offshore offices and it benefits the banks not the investors. I am not talking about a few quid in possible postage savings either.

gozomark

rt29781 wrote: »

Show me the evidence. We invest a large sum of money in a long term account. There are very few costs involved. We bank electronically. Banks lend money to people and they pay interest to investors. .

I think you mean

We save a large sum of money in a long term account. There are very few costs involved. We bank electronically. Banks lend money to people and they pay interest to savers

MarkyMarkD

I don't need to "show you the evidence". It is evident to anyone.

Unless you open the account and do all the opening admin online, there is obviously a higher postage (and admin) cost.

Unless you get all statements and account correspondence online, there is obviously a higher postage (and admin) cost.

If you claim to be exempt from UK taxation (and the institution accepts such declarations) there is definitely an increased cost due to the risk that some people in your position are lying to the institution, and HMRC holds the institution liable for their lying. And this would not be the case if it was a UK resident lying on an R85.

The up-front identity verification costs are higher for an overseas resident; in fact, it's virtually impossible to adequately conduct ID verification on a non-UK resident if you are a UK financial institution. So, there is an increased money laundering risk and increased risk of failure to comply with the law in regard to this. Whatever the FSA or TSC may say.

And you may mock "a few extra quid in postage costs". Apart from not accepting that the impact on a financial institution is just "a few quid", why should a financial institution incur that extra cost for no extra reward?

As for doing it "as an excuse" to push customers offshore, that's obviously garbage, because 90% of UK financial institutions don't have an offshore operation to push you offshore to. If it was simply an excuse for the large banks who do have an offshore operation, the smaller institutions would hoover up the ready and willing offshore customers.

Nothing in a free, competitive, market is "simply an excuse". If it was, someone would break ranks and make a big pile of profit.

rt29781

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't need to "show you the evidence". It is evident to anyone.

Unless you open the account and do all the opening admin online, there is obviously a higher postage (and admin) cost.

Unless you get all statements and account correspondence online, there is obviously a higher postage (and admin) cost.

If you claim to be exempt from UK taxation (and the institution accepts such declarations) there is definitely an increased cost due to the risk that some people in your position are lying to the institution, and HMRC holds the institution liable for their lying. And this would not be the case if it was a UK resident lying on an R85.

The up-front identity verification costs are higher for an overseas resident; in fact, it's virtually impossible to adequately conduct ID verification on a non-UK resident if you are a UK financial institution. So, there is an increased money laundering risk and increased risk of failure to comply with the law in regard to this. Whatever the FSA or TSC may say.

And you may mock "a few extra quid in postage costs". Apart from not accepting that the impact on a financial institution is just "a few quid", why should a financial institution incur that extra cost for no extra reward?

As for doing it "as an excuse" to push customers offshore, that's obviously garbage, because 90% of UK financial institutions don't have an offshore operation to push you offshore to. If it was simply an excuse for the large banks who do have an offshore operation, the smaller institutions would hoover up the ready and willing offshore customers.

Nothing in a free, competitive, market is "simply an excuse". If it was, someone would break ranks and make a big pile of profit.

So there is no evidence. The postal costs on our accounts are trivial compared to the money we have invested. HSBC have broken ranks and offer accounts worldwide to people subject to the identity checks being ok (these checks take a few minutes). (Considering I have banked with HBOS for 40 years I expect they know who I am .) HSBC even offer an english speaking service to UK citizens in France. They are however not part of the cosy UK banking industry being a US bank.

gozomark

HSBC is a UK bank - its incorporated in the UK, and its HQ are in London