jkg kjh khkh lhl lh lkh

grumbler

Do you really think that banks care?
Luckily for customers, at least the chair of the Financial Services Authority's Consumer Panel, admitted that

current practices go against the rules of natural justice

However, it typically takes ages in this country to make any even long-overdue changes.

pqrdef

JuicyJesus wrote: »

chiefly that alerting someone that they have been reported to SOCA allows them to take action to hide assets which would otherwise be evidence of crime or further conceal the proceeds of crime.

Whereas, on the other hand, in complete contrast, just closing their accounts with no reason given after telling them to take all their money out is completely different, has no such effect at all, they won't suspect a thing.

Fact is, if they think they're on a genuine case, they'll avoid attracting attention. They'll put a watch on the account and if they're compelled to block any particularly dubious transaction they'll blame technical problems. More likely they'll allow an offence to be committed while they're watching, because then it'll be easier to prove who exactly was involved, against a defence of "somebody must have hacked my account" etc.

pqrdef

grumbler wrote: »

the chair of the Financial Services Authority's Consumer Panel

Do you really think anybody listens to the Consumer Panel?

grumbler

I hope so, but I might be deluded.
The country is ruled by people from Brussels and UK that live in a different dimension than ordinary people and are divorced from reality.

Maestro.

TheEffect wrote: »

This sounds like a CIFAS placed on your address.

i.e. someone has committed fraud/lied on an application when applying for a credit product at your address.

Apply for your credit report with Experian and Equifax. My money is on a CIFAS placed on your address.

So if someone nicks your identity, the banks respond by closing your accounts?

Natwest - helpful banking...

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

Come one... There always is a lot of flexibility.
I am under impression that these departments just hide behind the law to act with impunity - pretty often just to justify their existence and the salaries they get.

There is NO flexibility.
The law maybe a !!!. But it is the law... To many banks have been flexible in the past and had to pay the fines for doing so.

You think these people get paid massive wages :rotfl:Dream on....

Something the OP said about the other person using the address, while not living there.
Perhaps it is what they do that is the issue. There are many roles that require a much higher level of checks on their accounts and how they are run. (Forget any credit agency statements) Add this in to not supplying the correct address and being related to the person living at that address and DUE DILIGENCE will see the action that has been taken.

OP is lucky that the new 7 day switching service has just started

grumbler

OK.
Quote the law that says that the account must be closed and under what conditions.

Something the OP said about the other person using the address, while not living there.
Perhaps it is what they do that is the issue. There are many roles that require a much higher level of checks on their accounts and how they are run. (Forget any credit agency statements) Add this in to not supplying the correct address and being related to the person living at that address and DUE DILIGENCE will see the action that has been taken.

Again, you are very welcome to quote the law saying that the account has to be closed in this case.

DPA springs to mind that banks' (and not only banks') staff like to refer to and hide behind left right and center while actually having very vague idea of what it is about.

You think these people get paid massive wages

Why do you think that I think so? I did say "their salaries", but I have never said "massive". Any position needs justification and without enough activity is under danger of being cut.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

OK.
Quote the law that says that the account must be closed and under what conditions.
Again, you are very welcome to quote the law saying that the account has to be closed in this case.
.

Despite having just completed the module (2 hours, of my life I will never get back) that covers this very type of thing. I can't think off the top of my head which it is as they are far many different regulations that banks have to work to. Which also cover across various counties regulations.

Fact is that the regulators require ALL accounts to be under constant review and if you are in certain business or certain roles then they attain even greater review.

If a bank feels that the regulations are being breeched. Then backside covering comes into play and like any other business they reserve the right to end the relationship.

grumbler

"Reserve the right to end the relationship" and "must close with 30 days notice because the law say this" are not the same, are they? The latter is essentially what you said earlier in other words: "There is NO flexibility".

In fact they can end the relationship without any reason whatsoever if they want.

fishforsale

dalesrider wrote: »

Despite having just completed the module (2 hours, of my life I will never get back) that covers this very type of thing. I can't think off the top of my head which it is as they are far many different regulations that banks have to work to. Which also cover across various counties regulations.

Fact is that the regulators require ALL accounts to be under constant review and if you are in certain business or certain roles then they attain even greater review.

If a bank feels that the regulations are being breeched. Then backside covering comes into play and like any other business they reserve the right to end the relationship.

Imagine if you were in a town were the only food shop for 15 miles was a tesco

Now, do tesco have a right to end a relationship?