Poor Service

LardyCake

dunstonh wrote: »

What other information did the Barclays clerk have available to them from existing records? We don't know. It could be that salary was the only missing figure or perhaps a figure they like to keep updated to ensure data they hold is accurate.

Well if Barclays had that info, the OP was known to them and they had no reason to suspect him of money laundering. I am afraid you have not convinced me that this question was anything other than an exercise in gathering data to enable Barclays to market other financial products.

jamesd wrote: »

LardyCake, inconsistency between data supplied to different places and failure of cross-checks can be used as a trigger for investigation. I don't know if the systems in the UK are sophisticated enough to do this outside the context of an existing investigation...
...The NSA reportedly...

The NSA? What is that?
I don't think we have yet become such a big brother state in the UK that anyone is coordinating this sort of information on UK subjects, though I am sure there are those that would like to...

dunstonh

Well if Barclays had that info, the OP was known to them and they had no reason to suspect him of money laundering.

Not a good enough for excuse. He could have been running the account for 2 years clean to build up such a reputation.

I am afraid you have not convinced me that this question was anything other than an exercise in gathering data to enable Barclays to market other financial products.

And how does that single question help them to market products?

LittleVoice

Together with other items of data -
Payment protection?
Life assurance?
Investment products?
that sort of thing

dunstonh

Payment protection?

Doenst tell them the occupation or if they need it or not.

Life assurance?

Income is only useful in helping calculate shortfalls but you need to know other things as well to do that.

Investment products?

For money laundering purposes, it's helpful to prove the money came from income but thats all.

I'm not ruling out that they may use the information in conjunction with marketing but seeing as the application has a marketing opt out box on it, I dont see what the issue is.

If you are that paranoid about marketing, opt out of it.

LittleVoice

I did write "together with other data".

I did acknowledge one could opt out of receiving marketing - but if you are sitting in front of them (because they can still demand that an established customer goes into a branch or one doesn't want to send valuable ID docs in the post) there isn't a question of not receiving marketing leaflets etc.

It's not being paranoid - it's about appropriate boundaries for their nosey-ness.l

jamesd

LardyCake, the NSA is the US equivalent of GCHQ. Best to google those terms if you want to learn more.

LardyCake

dunstonh wrote: »

Not a good enough for excuse. He could have been running the account for 2 years clean to build up such a reputation.

And how does that single question help them to market products?

Not sure I understand the first bit of your answer.
As for the second bit; my wording was imprecise, I should have written "those questions were". I don't suppose the data would be used in some precisely calculated way, as you imply, but rather along the lines of we will send marketing material (or even get the cashier to push, on next visit) about product X to those earning over 40, 000. I'm not in marketing but I think Barclays marketing dept would think this sort of information (salary, job etc) would help to build a social profile of the customer base...
The bottom line is neither of us knows. But like LittleVoice & the OP I find this sort of thing intrusive and I will take my business elsewhere.

masonic

I don't know why the matter of whether Barclays use the information gathered from the application for marketing purposes is being debated here, because Barclays clearly state that they do unless you specifically instruct them not to. If you don't trust them not you use your details for marketing purposes if you ask them not to, then it really doesn't matter whether you answer those offending questions or not.

You can't open an account without giving them your contact details, and that's all they need to barrage you with marketing material if they so choose. In fact, at least if they do profile you, you stand a chance of being excluded from some of their marketing, eh? So, either you trust them with your details or you don't. If you don't, you really shouldn't have got as far as being asked about your salary.

LardyCake

jamesd wrote: »

LardyCake, the NSA is the US equivalent of GCHQ. Best to google those terms if you want to learn more.

I see, so you are suggesting that all UK financial institutions/financial advisers/solicitors might be handing over details of all their customers to the GCHQ as a matter of routine? AFAIK all that happens is that if an organisation/FA/solicitor thinks anything is suspicious they have to inform the FSA.
But maybe you know different?
I am intrigued by this bit in your earlier reply:
"I don't know if the systems in the UK are sophisticated enough to do this outside the context of an existing investigation, but you should exercise caution if there's anything interesting to be found in your finances."
I suspect most of us on this forum are law abiding subjects of Her Majesty trying to be "sassy consumers" rather than a hotbed of terrorist money launderers with "interesting finances" to hide.

LardyCake

masonic wrote: »

I don't know why the matter of whether Barclays use the information gathered from the application for marketing purposes is being debated here...

Well, in my case because the smokescreen of money laundering rules was raised, its like a red rag to a bull...
(retires under a smokescreen of mixed metaphors)