Proving who you are!

competitionscafe

I had the same problem trying to transfer a business account from Lloyds TSb to RBS - they said the only form of id they would accept was passport or driving licence (I have neither) although their website stated other forms of id were acceptable, they said their own website info was 'an error'. This was after 45 minutes discussing the business, showing them past accounts, certificate of incorporation, etc and filling many pages of forms. I said I could offer references from my accountant, current bank/s, landlord, or whatever else they wanted but they were adamant. I understand the concerns over terrorism, money-laundering etc, but surely there should be some room for common sense! (If anyone can help with opening a business account in Scotland, please let me know!)

Mikeyorks

I find it all very haphazard .. as different institutions put their own interpretation on the relatively clear requirements .... generally to the disadvantage of their customers.

As the OP .. I have very little in the way of the List 1 / List 2 documentation - mainly because I do as much as I can online. But in the last few months I have opened 2 savings accounts with my existing provider (online) and a £40k funded one (telephone + signed downloaded application)with a Bank I've never dealt with before ... with no documentary evidence whatsoever. Except for the personal cheque with the latter.

Totally and irritatingly inconsistent (for others :rolleyes: ). I even changed the address on my sons Contents Insurance, over the 'phone, yesterday, as he's moving London flats next week and it won't get done otherwise. Told them I was his father, no lies, and problem dealt with. Must be the perceived honesty that comes from living in Yorkshire?

Gabriel-Ernest

Mikeyorks wrote:

I find it all very haphazard .. as different institutions put their own interpretation on the relatively clear requirements .... generally to the disadvantage of their customers.

They have to - the FSA are notorious about not giving clear answers (they never say that you need to get XYZ), and institutions are still expected to be compliant wth the regulations, so it really is a question of each to their own interpretation. Having said that, 'usual business practice' does come into it, and generally institutions know how roughly other institutions handle it through discussions and networking at seminars etc.

Mikeyorks

Gabriel-Ernest wrote:

They have to

No - they choose to. The original Govt guidelines were relatively clear and unambiguous. As Data Protection - the real idiocies have been created as different institutions have woven their own mysterious webs around it. How otherwise would you explain a customer of 26 years standing having to prove who she was.

Jake'sGran

When I am already known to the bank/building society they have never asked for "new" proof of identity. I would be tempted to go elsewhere. Is the bond that special i.e. above average interest rate? After 26 years I would be offended to be asked for these documents.

steady__eddie

I sympathise with the O/P. These money laundering regs. are rather farcical.
O.H. had the same prob. just before Christmas. Just before her mortgage matured with Bldg. Soc., I suggested that she opened a saving a/c. with £100 in order that she maintained her links with the society. Unfortunately she, like the O/P couldn't satisfy the i.d. regs to become a saving member. The fact that she had been using the proceeds from international terrorism and drug dealing for the previous 25 years to pay her mortgage cut no ice with them !
At mortgage maturity time, they said that they would post the deeds to her but she declined this and asked if she could pick them up from the branch. "Yes, but you will need to provide i.d. if you pick them up in person". She was aware that title deeds have no intrinsic value nowadays (unless you have a boundary dispute maybe) as everything is done by electronic wizardry by the land registry but she wanted to see, in writing, what she had been scrimping for, for the last 20 odd years and she didn't want to risk having them delivered by post just before Christmas. Eventually the Bldg. Soc. relented and allowed her to use photocard bus pass as suitable i.d.!
I wonder how many terrorists and drug dealers have got photocard bus passes ?

Gabriel-Ernest

Mikeyorks wrote:

No - they choose to. The original Govt guidelines were relatively clear and unambiguous. As Data Protection - the real idiocies have been created as different institutions have woven their own mysterious webs around it. How otherwise would you explain a customer of 26 years standing having to prove who she was.

As someone who works for an international investment firm based in the City in the area of risk/delivering AML training, let me explain the UK regulatory regime. The UK market is governed by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), which is an act of the UK parliament; the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the representative of the Government (and sole member of the company the FSA) delegates statutory powers to the FSA under FSMA to regulate the UK financial industry.

The FSA has a set of principles which it must have regard to in the conduct of its regulatory role. These principles (broad expectations on firms) are interpreted into more specific guidelines and are currently contained within the JMLSG Guidance Notes 2006 which have replaced the former FSA Guidelines. There are other acts like the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) which firms must comply with.

To carry out regulated investment business in the UK or into the UK markets, a firm must be authorised - either by the FSA or by their home state regulator and be EEA-passported in (unless they are exempt as certain firms are).

If they want to retain their ability to carry out regulated business, they have to comply with regulations both nationally (FSA) and internationally (FATF and various sanctions like the US Patriot Act). UK firms are audited by the FSA roughly every 2 years, and on a daily basis they must report to the FSA anything exceptional which means they have breached the regulations.

If they do not satisfy the FSA audit, they would face an increasing array of fines, sanctions and would eventually lose their licence. In addition, their reputational risk means that an FSA ruling seriously affects their ability to funtion competitively even if they do retain their licence; therefore firms are determined to not risk this happening. If they carry on business without a licence, it's a criminal offence.

No licence to conduct business within the UK or into the UK markets, no trading/deposit taking, no profit. Things have been tightening up since N-Day in November 2001 when FSMA came into force in the wake of 9/11, and it's only going to get stricter.

However last year the FSA began promoting something called the risk-based approach. This is less prescriptive for firms and in effect gives them the leeway to focus their compliance efforts on areas and products which they consider to hold more risk. But as a matter of CYA (cover your !!!!!) the FSA has refused to say that compliance with the JMLSG Guidelines is automatic satisfaction of the AML regulations; therefore firms are still tending to err on the side of caution.

Yes there has been criticism of the FSA for being onerous and reactive, but until the regulatory regime changes, investment firms are bound by it.

agal

As another poster has mentioned , it is the inconsistency that is very annoying (and puzzling). My wife opened an Icesave account with no identification at all. I was going to open a regular saver with Scarborough BS but not only did they require two separate pieces of identification, each had to be certified by a solicitor or accountant so I didn't bother.

Mikeyorks

Gabriel-Ernest wrote:

As someone who works for an international investment firm based in the City in the area of risk/delivering AML training, let me explain the UK regulatory regime.

Thank you .. but as someone who worked in Govt alongside the emerging ML legislation and testing its effect within some Govt departments - allow me to pass on your explanation.

And simply re-iterate that the conflict evident in the requirement from financial institutions ... is generated by those institutions, and not by the primary legislation.

Snow_Dog

Blimey, did you just type that lot out Gabriel?