We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BBC Watchdod: Banks freezing out innocent customers and blacklisting them
Options
Comments
-
They could be a lot more helpful.opinions4u wrote: »The banks are between a rock and a hard place on this.
They could get their !!!!!! into gear and do their investigations a lot faster.
They could also recognise that blocking an account itself constitutes tipping-off. If they really don't want to tip off a bad guy, they should avoid drawing his attention to the fact that he's being investigated. They could still block individual dubious transactions - they do that anyway.
And they could refrain from abusing their powers for their own purposes."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Perhaps. But it's not just the banks investigating.They could be a lot more helpful.
They could get their !!!!!! into gear and do their investigations a lot faster.
So it's okay to tip off one way, but not the other? Not sure that makes any sense.They could also recognise that blocking an account itself constitutes tipping-off. If they really don't want to tip off a bad guy, they should avoid drawing his attention to the fact that he's being investigated. They could still block individual dubious transactions - they do that anyway.0 -
If it looks like it's just the computer being stupid, you can't draw any conclusions. I get quite a few failed transactions and robotic phone calls. It hasn't made me abandon my life of crime.opinions4u wrote: »So it's okay to tip off one way, but not the other? Not sure that makes any sense."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
You also come on here and defend it.
Or more likely before, not after. And you aren't in a position to do any meaningful investigation.
Are you trying to pretend you're an idiot as well?
Why shouldn't i defend my job ? You're pretty free and easy with your opinions.
I block accounts for other reasons, the only reason an account is blocked without informing the customer is if money laundering is suspected.
Have much experience in looking at CIFAS markers do you ? I've agreed loans and overdrafts for customers with CIFAS markers on their accounts. It depends why the marker was applied in the first place, not all customers with markers will be declined.0 -
You know, meer53, I quite liked you until you started spouting this rubbish. What on earth makes you think you should have the right to judge over a person without that person having a right to defend themselves? How would you feel if you were in their shoes?Why shouldn't i defend my job ? You're pretty free and easy with your opinions.
I block accounts for other reasons, the only reason an account is blocked without informing the customer is if money laundering is suspected.
I have absolutely no issue with you identifying a potential unlawful undertaking, but I do have a massive issue with you also deciding on the punishment. Without any hearing. Without any chance for the accused to defend themselves. I know you are doing what you are asked to do. But this is Nazism and Dictatorship at its best.Have much experience in looking at CIFAS markers do you ? I've agreed loans and overdrafts for customers with CIFAS markers on their accounts. It depends why the marker was applied in the first place, not all customers with markers will be declined.
More "I have decided". Quite unbelievable that this sort of thing is happening in 2013 in the United Kingdom.
You, and the other bankers, may well continue to be allowed for some time to judge over people who are not allowed to defend themselves, but this has to, and will, stop at some stage because what is happening is just fundamentally incompatible with a society in which individuals have a right to defend themselves when they are being accused of whatever.0 -
Have much experience in looking at CIFAS markers do you ? I've agreed loans and overdrafts for customers with CIFAS markers on their accounts. It depends why the marker was applied in the first place, not all customers with markers will be declined.
Have you approved any that are not category 0 or 2 on CIFAS?0 -
-
opinions4u wrote: »I thought this was a bit of a harsh response.
Somebody has to authorise / decline lending decisions in these circumstances. That's hardly "unbelievable".
It *is* unbelievable that any old (or young) banker can block/close an account, without the account holder being able to- get any money from their balance to buy food and pay for their living expenses
- defend themselves
0 -
In what circumstances? If somebody is suspected of something, the only proper course of action is to investigate quickly and resolve the matter one way or the other. You can't just flag somebody as a suspect and then forever treat them as if they did it without ever finding any further evidence.opinions4u wrote: »I
Somebody has to authorise / decline lending decisions in these circumstances."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
It *is* unbelievable that any old (or young) banker can block/close an account, without the account holder being able to
- get any money from their balance to buy food and pay for their living expenses
- defend themselves
I also see that the opportunity in the non-AML case I gave hasn't been defended, and this has been noted in my own mind.
CK💙💛 💔0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards