Fraud Alert Closes Account of Six-month-old baby girl

stclair

It also makes me wonder how many other accounts have also been closed in error.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15794539

le_loup

Classic media Hype story.
I'm sure banks get a lot wrong but the fact that this was the account OF A SIX MONTH BABY is pure bullsh1t. If a money launderer wanted to use an account, what better account to use?
Move along, nothing to report here and I'm amazed at the Money Program for using the story.

stclair

I though that to be honest however after giving it some thought.

I was wondering why people was never given the option to appeal these decisions.

meer53

It was a mistake, Natwest have apologised. Must be a slow news day.

Sceptic001

stclair wrote: »

I was wondering why people was never given the option to appeal these decisions.

I thought the point of the story was that NatWest should have said that there is a right of appeal but failed to do so.

For obvious reasons where fraud is suspected the bank is forbidden from disclosing the reason for account closure, but that should not stop them reconsidering if a mistake has been made.

The most disturbing bit of this story is this:

When Money Box contacted NatWest to try and find out why the account had been closed, it came back with a one sentence explanation: "The customer lives at the same address with a person who committed an impersonation fraud."

Surely NatWest broke the law by giving this statement to the BBC. Not only did it disclose information relating to a potential fraud, but also broke data protection laws (and libelled the account holder in the process:()

rb10

Given that Natwest pays 0.8% on it's children's savings account, it's probably a blessing in disguise.

jamespir

banks are to quick play the fraud card i cant believe the amount of times ive had my card swallowed by machine and when you go into to find out why they say some transactions were flagged by our anti fraud brigade

i use my card to purchase things on the internet yes but banks that done mean every net transactions is fraud


in fact they have suspended access to my account this week because i went away last week and used my card to get money out from the place i was and on the same day on the way home got money out from a taxi at home but according to the bank thats not possible

pqrdef

Richard Hurley from the fraud prevention network CIFAS said NatWest did not appear to have followed accepted rules: "A person's address will form one part of any checking and verification procedure associated with an application or claim for a product or service.

"However, an address being matched to one associated with a previous fraud should never be the sole basis behind a decision to decline an application. In any case, where an application has been declined solely because of an address match, the organisation in question must address their processes and policies."
Who's kidding who?

CIFAS know perfectly well that bank staff will simply see a CIFAS marker and just say No.

And in this case, they put a mark against an address without bothering to check that the fraudster had ever lived there or even received post there - thus confusing the fraudster with the innocent target, something that should never happen.

It's their own processes and policies that need addressing.

James

Maybe the application should have considered the 'Thumbprint' system of FREE ID Protection, then he/Natwest wouldn't have had a problem with the account whilst at the same time protecting his child.

Click here for more info or here

More effective than a CIFAS marker methinks