Santander eSaver issue 4

gadgetmind

CleanShirt wrote: »

Good luck with that.

It's work fine so far, but we have a secret weapon in that all of our savings are in my wife's name, and she can just put "housewife".

It's a regulatory requirement of all financial institutions to 'know your customer'.

What I tend to find is that as you drill down into the actual wording of the underlying regulations, they don't tend to say what those interpreting them claim they say. This is why we tend to see such wildly different interpretations both between companies and over time.

I have never been asked these irrelevant questions when opening SIPPs nor S&S ISAs nor NS&I bonds, yet we have 10x as much in these instruments as in other savings accounts.

katies_mum

I changed my account by ringing them, girl I spoke to did say she didn`t know it asked for all this info!! when you applied to change accounts online. Hubby did his online and it all changed over including the balance from one account to the other and it shows in his list of accounts....he then got an email asking for ID and a change of details form to be filled out as his DOB is different and they can`t add or link it to his account (but they already have...) we have sent them a message via their system to find out whats going on!.
We also hold accounts with the Coventy BS, we logged in ticked a box as to what accounts we wanted to change to and it was done... took seconds...
Seriously thinking about finding a new home for our Santander money! but at least its in better accounts for the time being.

Cameraman

Well impressed with Santander. Was coming to the end of my 12 months on the issue 3 (I think) so applied for the issue 4 on Sunday online and asked for the balance to be transferred to the issue 4. Got an email Monday morning as it was all done. Excellent service!

RetiredInThailand

CleanShirt wrote: »

So institutions are in a rock and a hard place. They are fearful of being prosecuted by not doing enough and also from taking too much info. They only do it to cover their back from all the red tape involved.

By having up to date info like that they are ensuring they are doing all they can from a regulatory perspective. Hardly 'just being nosey' for no reason. The EU and British Government require them to, or face prosecution.

No matter how you look at it, Santander ask for far more information than any other bank I have ever dealt with. This extends to their offshore subsidiaries where Santander has actually been criticised by the IOM government for asking for too much info, and in an unpleasant way.

If other UK banks dont need so much info to abide by the law then neither do Santander. I have an email from their customer service explaining that some of the info requested is a legal requirement but that the rest is "internal Santander group policy".

Besides which, it's not just the amount of info that causes a problem, it's the arrogant and intrusive way that Santander demand it, always with the undertone that the customer is probably a crook anyway. This of course is exactly the same problem that they have with constantly blocking accounts for no valid reason. Other banks dont do that either.

Special_Saver2

I have had some terrible experiences with Santander but I agree with others that if you try and open an account by talking to one of their customer service agents over the telephone then you do not have to give out as much information compared to trying to open the account online. Switching from an old eSaver account (because the bonus is about to run out) to the current issue of the eSaver account over the telephone is a relatively easy process.

I will also mention that the Santander eSaver Issue 4 (paying 3.1%) has been replaced with Issue 5 (paying a slightly lower interest rate of 3%). You can find accounts paying more interest on the MSE Savings page.

SS2

CleanShirt

I agree with you guys tbh. Just being the devils advocate in the reasoning behind it.

I don't get the whole income thing, and the occupation is as simple as proprietor or comp director etc. Putting yourself as an outrageously wrong thing with wrong sums could potentially have unintended consequences.

gadgetmind

CleanShirt wrote: »

I agree with you guys tbh. Just being the devils advocate in the reasoning behind it.

Fair enough, but said reasoning is on very thin ground IMO. I like my reasoning a little more reasoned!

Putting yourself as an outrageously wrong thing with wrong sums could potentially have unintended consequences.

I prefer vague and unhelpful to misleading. I have found that putting "NA" in any boxes that you don't regard as relevant is rarely challenged.

I have also found that totally ignoring the census works just fine. It's compulsory (they say), and essential (they say), and we'll fine you or worse if you don't answer every question including (amongst others) your colour/race and how many rooms there are in your house. I can reveal that it's lies, all lies! I have *never* taken part and *nothing* has even happened as a consequence.

You can tell HMG, Santander, and any other nosey Tom, !!!!!! or Harry absolutely anything you like about yourself, no matter how personal and/or irrelevant. I will tell them the absolute minimum, with zero being my opening gambit.

CleanShirt

gadgetmind wrote: »

Fair enough, but said reasoning is on very thin ground IMO. I like my reasoning a little more reasoned!



I prefer vague and unhelpful to misleading. I have found that putting "NA" in any boxes that you don't regard as relevant is rarely challenged.

I have also found that totally ignoring the census works just fine. It's compulsory (they say), and essential (they say), and we'll fine you or worse if you don't answer every question including (amongst others) your colour/race and how many rooms there are in your house. I can reveal that it's lies, all lies! I have *never* taken part and *nothing* has even happened as a consequence.

You can tell HMG, Santander, and any other nosey Tom, !!!!!! or Harry absolutely anything you like about yourself, no matter how personal and/or irrelevant. I will tell them the absolute minimum, with zero being my opening gambit.

Being ambiguous is the key. It's not HMG and Santander you should be worried about. It's Google et al that are the ones to watch. Ive got a dozen extensions blocking them monitoring me left right and centre when im on the web.

gadgetmind

CleanShirt wrote: »

It's Google et al that are the ones to watch.

They do let you do a fair bit of direct opt-out, but I also use cookie blockers/deleters, have Javascript off/knobbled, and have three layers of ad blockers.

I see more ads on MSE than on all of my other web browsing combined and multiplied by 100!

mgarl10024

gadgetmind wrote: »

Uncanny!

When my dentists gave me an overly large and nosey form to complete, I put occupation down as "Medical Malpractice Litigator".

He never sends me reminders.

Love it