BBC Watchdod: Banks freezing out innocent customers and blacklisting them

grumbler

I think it's worth posting as there were many reports here recently about this and the way banks treat presumably innocent customers is indeed appalling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4fmsdFpNjBWnMMKLQDpbr8Q/banks-freezing-out-innocent-customers

pmduk

Don't confuse watchdog with reliable reporting. It's solely an entertainment programme.

MoneySaverLog

But that is exactly what happens, they freeze the account put a CIFAS marker on and block you from opening any other UK bank.

innovate

Yep, it's got to stop that any old oink in a bank can just put a block on your account without you having any means of appealing. I would support that the appeal should not be to the bank, but some auditing function which has the powers to confirm or overrule the bank's decision. All that within max 1 business day from when the oink says the account must be blocked.

The only trouble is that the auditing function would probably also be staffed by a lot of oinks.

The banks should also be forced to allow you to withdraw a minimum amount each day/week from your blocked account balance because even crime suspects need to buy food and pay rent.

Thrugelmir

grumbler wrote: »

I think it's worth posting as there were many reports here recently about this and the way banks treat presumably innocent customers is indeed appalling.

Be interesting to hear the full story as to how the account was managed.........

grumbler

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

But that is exactly what happens, they freeze the account put a CIFAS marker on and block you from opening any other UK bank.

I think that CIFAS was designed for extra caution to be taken when dealing with new applications. Instead it seems to work now as some black list preventing the victims of ID fraud from opening any new accounts as banks find it easier just to reject applications instead of making extra checks.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Be interesting to hear the full story as to how the account was managed.........

If the account is not managed well banks can just close it. The problem is with the way they behave when freezing accounts for some investigation. Until the investigation is finished I think it's fair to presume that the customer is innocent and treat them accordingly.

Sensory

So an innocent victim of crime is unable to access any form of banking, is treated like a criminal and cannot appeal promptly, potentially cannot afford to cover accommodation costs and living expenses for an indefinite period of time, therefore suffering considerable amounts of additional stress, hardship and consequential loss... and banks just respond with stock responses and apologies worth less than excrement?

Does the law really allow this to happen?

MoneySaverLog

Sensory wrote: »

So an innocent victim of crime is unable to access any form of banking, is treated like a criminal and cannot appeal promptly, potentially cannot afford to cover accommodation costs and living expenses for an indefinite period of time, therefore suffering considerable amounts of additional stress, hardship and consequential loss... and banks just respond with stock responses and apologies worth less than excrement?

Does the law really allow this to happen?

Yes it does and it should be changed

dalesrider

Sensory wrote: »

Does the law really allow this to happen?

Yes....

It is the LAW that causes it.

giblet10

As I have said before on here, CIFAS is a law unto itself. Unlike a parking ticket or murder conviction, you have no right of appeal - just like the CRA's CIFAS will bounce you straight back to the CIFAS member who placed the marker on your file.

As another poster said, what started out as a protective organisation for the consumer and banks has now become very one sided.

I have tried to find someone who has successfully taken CIFAS to court but drawn a blank so far..

Thrugelmir

grumbler wrote: »

If the account is not managed well banks can just close it. The problem is with the way they behave when freezing accounts for some investigation. Until the investigation is finished I think it's fair to presume that the customer is innocent and treat them accordingly.

Amazes me the number of active current accounts that some people deem it necessary to have. So the suspicion will be that individuals are out to deceive. Closure of accounts which aren't operated in a "normal" manner will more than likely come under increasing scrutiny.