HSBC won't let me pay money into my own account

YorkshireBoy

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Show me the T&Cs that spell out what, when & why I cannot deposit into my accounts.

I can see what you're getting at, but you won't be sent/provided with any AML T&Cs when opening/operating the account.

Archi_Bald

BMN wrote: »

Conversely, where in the terms and conditions does it show that they have to accept a deposit?

I don't think I have seen such terms for current accounts. But perhaps, with jobsworths as there seem to be around these days, it seems worth for consumers to insist that banks agree to take deposits up to an agreed level for each type of account.

I'd love to hear what the CEOs of banks would have to say about whether their firm should take customer deposits, especially if they - as in the case of HSBC, don't cost the bank a penny of interest.

Give me good reasons why banks wouldn't take deposits, and give me even better reasons why I should believe that a cashier has the capacity to judge which deposits not to take. It's not like a wad of used £20 notes will blow up the branch (not yet, anyway).

BMN

Twopints wrote: »

Well, sure, they are a bank, why would they want to allow people to deposit or withdraw cash? Outrageous expectation, whatever next, pubs serving beer? Where will it all end....

Exactly... it's an expectation. Like JuicyJesus said, there is no "right" to be able to deposit the money.

Archi_Bald

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

I can see what you're getting at, but you won't be sent/provided with any AML T&Cs when opening/operating the account.

I am getting so tired of hearing about AML. It sounds like the free, democratic country's excuse for actually operating a big brother dictatorship. And like every bank clerk's ability to terrorise the bank's customers at will. I am surprised that even 'eminent' members of the MSE forum would hide behind AML when they run out of arguments.

It will take some time, but I am very confident that eventually the banks' self-assumed role as judiciary will go away. Either by legislation driven by common sense, or by people power that will find ways to do business without banks as we know them.

BMN

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I don't think I have seen such terms for current accounts. But perhaps, with jobsworths as there seem to be around these days, it seems worth for consumers to insist that banks agree to take deposits up to an agreed level for each type of account.

I'd love to hear what the CEOs of banks would have to say about whether their firm should take customer deposits, especially if they - as in the case of HSBC, don't cost the bank a penny of interest.

Give me good reasons why banks wouldn't take deposits, and give me even better reasons why I should believe that a cashier has the capacity to judge which deposits not to take. It's not like a wad of used £20 notes will blow up the branch (not yet, anyway).

I started off in a bank as a cashier (for a short time, not at HSBC).

It seems strange to me too. There were plenty of reasons I didn't have to accept a deposit (mainly because of capacity and technical reasons) - but AML regulations was not one of them.

With all large deposits I would ask the necessary questions including where the money has come from. Even without a satisfactory answer I would still accept the deposit. If I thought the circumstances were suspicious I would then file a report once the customer has gone in order to avoid tipping off.

This is how it's supposed to work and we are trained to know what is suspicious.

In this case if they didn't accept the deposit because of AML regulations then they would technically be tipping off. I think they chose not to accept the money for another reason...

But the only other (possibly relevant) reason I can think of at the moment is when a customer is being rude and abusive. It happens quite a lot when customers are asked where the money has come from (despite already having been politely informed of our obligation to ask them).

Archi_Bald

BMN wrote: »

I started off in a bank as a cashier (for a short time, not at HSBC).

It seems strange to me too. There were plenty of reasons I didn't have to accept a deposit (mainly because of capacity and technical reasons) - but AML regulations was not one of them.

With all large deposits I would ask the necessary questions including where the money has come from. Even without a satisfactory answer I would still accept the deposit. If I thought the circumstances were suspicious I would then file a report once the customer has gone in order to avoid tipping off.

This is how it's supposed to work and we are trained to know what is suspicious.

In this case if they didn't accept the deposit because of AML regulations then they would technically be tipping off. I think they chose not to accept the money for another reason...

But the only other (possibly relevant) reason I can think of at the moment is when a customer is being rude and abusive. It happens quite a lot when customers are asked where the money has come from (despite already having been politely informed of our obligation to ask them).

That sounds mostly eminently sensible and reasonable to me.

henm2

This all of course ties in with this other thread which is all about HSBC refusing to cash a cheque for what is said to be a large amount without documentary evidence of what it relates to.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4848966

The HSBC's new procedures on large cash transactions is AML related and applies to cash in and out through personal accounts. The bank would prefer a bank account to bank account electronic transaction so that for large amounts there is an audit trail as this would deter money laundering /tax evasion.

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

And like every bank clerk's ability to terrorise the bank's customers at will.

Yes, that's just what every bank clerk wants, to get their jollies by p*ssing off the bank's customers. Obviously.

Archi_Bald

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Yes, that's just what every bank clerk wants, to get their jollies by p*ssing off the bank's customers. Obviously.

so what is your explanation as to why a bank clerk refused to take the money the OP wanted to deposit?

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

so what is your explanation as to why a bank clerk refused to take the money the OP wanted to deposit?

Christ knows, because I wasn't there (and neither were you) but I'm going to be fairly sure that bank cashiers don't refuse deposits for funzies.