trying to open an account!

ED

Campaign (working draft document) now placed here :

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=423014#post423014

It proposes the Government pay for a LIP department (Local Identity Proof) in each of the 4 major high street banks, at which the public can show proof of identity + home address, to facilitate opening an account with a distantly located bank or building society.

(Thought it best to start a fresh thread for this complicated subject.)

jonesMUFCforever

Just want to point out one thing here and to all posters in all the forums - the banks have had to do this re id and address confirmation. It is not through choice but some financial institutions have been fined millions through not keeping adequate records.
Eric

ED

ejones999 - true enough, I for one don't blame the banks + bdg socities for asking potential customers for proof of identity + address. Having started in 1994 with anti-money laundering regulations, it escalated due to 9/11 during 2001.

Eric, your input would be much valued in the thread linked from Post #32.

If possible, please can you answer, there, a specific question? :

Would the electronic check on potential customers, mentioned by Independent Financial Adviser (+ MSE regular) 'dunstonh', be adequate for banks + building societies, to meet anti-money laundering criteria? It's proposed the likely cost to the financial institution would be approx £1.20 - £1.50 per customer. This would be less than the Recorded Delivery post for returning iD+address proof documents to each customer.

jonesMUFCforever

Ed
In my opinion NO.
Banks do not trust the government,why should it do its dirty work?
Banks only require id and address confirmation to protect themselves - why would for instance Barclays bank take copies of id for someone wanting say a Northern Rock account or vice versa. Banking is cut throat these days.

In my opinion there are a variety of documents available which are acceptable to open an account (other than passport and driving licence)which every legitimate person should be able to get hold of.

Third party id confirmation is not likely to get off the ground in my opinion.
It is not only id or address fraud that we look at these days but we are specific in asking questions about the activity going through the account to counter money laundering.

Eric

Turning_into_scrooge

ejones999 wrote:

I am suprised at this because my bank specifically excludes mobile phone bills from acceptable addres confirmation.
Eric

I suppose to be fair he didnt want an over draft or any form of credit, he just wanted the basic account with the basic cash card but it was acceptable for him at Nationwide Building Society buthe was depositing £500 in cash at the same time so whether or not that swung it i really can't say

Turning_into_scrooge

grumbler wrote:

Just an example: Lloyds TSB:

Proof of your address:
Such as a recent utility bill – e.g. gas, electricity or telephone (not a mobile phone bill) or local authority tax bill, mortgage statement or bank or building society statement.

They do not make difference between PAYG and contract.

Personnaly i wouldn't touch LLoydsTsb with a barge pole but that is just my opinion, had nothing but trouble with them stuffing up DD S/O even credits and then charging for their !!!! ups had to fight like hell to get it all sorted out :mad: :mad: :mad:

grumbler

Turning_into_scrooge wrote:

Personnaly i wouldn't touch LLoydsTsb with a barge pole

This was just an example.
Well, if you prefer Barclays:

...Telephone bill for a fixed line, not a mobile (less than three months old) with evidence that the bill has been paid...

The subject here was mobile bill, but not the bank.

ED

ejones999 wrote "Banks do not trust the government,why should it do its dirty work? Banks only require id and address confirmation to protect themselves - why would for instance Barclays bank take copies of id for someone wanting say a Northern Rock account or vice versa. Banking is cut throat these days."

The draft proposal is for Government to pay a fee to the 4 major high street banks for each iD+address verification done for an external financial institution.

Indeed the high street banks may consider it a conflict of interest to enable the member of the public to open a savings account with a 'competitor'. But presumably their staff would, first, have an opportunity to coax the potential customer to consider rival products. The scheme would, after all, bring more people through the door...

Eric, please feel welcome to express your concerns in the thread, here

jen_jen_2

i have found that even the same bank will differ in their approach to id depending on the branch.

with basic accounts i beleive that the hassle of proving id is an excuse because they dont want these customers but the govt has told them they have to have accounts available.

eg barclays will verify id if you are opening a basic account and will pay a wage in, if you are only paying benefits in you have to send off the id. Now if the bank can locally verify id for wage earners why cant they do the same for benefit recipients when its the same account.

answer - they can try and sell the wager a current account and hence give them loans and overdrafts.

Remember the banks didnt make 9 billion pounds by being helpful

jonesMUFCforever

Quote fromJen_Jen eg barclays will verify id if you are opening a basic account and will pay a wage in, if you are only paying benefits in you have to send off the id. Now if the bank can locally verify id for wage earners why cant they do the same for benefit recipients when its the same account.
They can and do. It is the account opening form(together with certified photocopies of id) which is sent away to a central place to open basic accounts.

Quote from Ed The draft proposal is for Government to pay a fee to the 4 major high street banks for each iD+address verification done for an external financial institution.

Firstly there are more than 4 major high street banks these days. How do you propose to choose which ones to do this?The government are having enough difficulties trying to get a bill through Parliament to introduce an ID card let alone trying something like this.Why should the government waste more of our money doing this when it could be argued that everyone COULD get hold of enough ID and address confirmation if they so wish.
Eric