HSBC wil not give people their money back!

BobQ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717

So HSBC will not let their customers draw out their own cash without a reason.

jonesMUFCforever

There has already been posts on these forums.

It looks like they have been embarrassed to climbdown.

HelenRachel

HSBC have always done this. When I was 19 I tried to withdraw £1000 in cash from them (this will have been 11yrs ago), I made three attempts! My first I went into the local branch with my cash card and was refused as had no other ID. Second time I had passport, driving lisence and utility bill to be told that as the teller didn't know me I couldn't have the money. I told her that was unbelievable! She said I could use their telephone to transfer it if I wanted to. I'm discalculic so told her that wasn't an option. The third time I went into the main branch in town with the same ID to be told again I couldn't have it. So I asked to close my account and took the balance out in cash. Have never and will never bank with them again!

SaveTheEuro

"We had no need to pre-notify customers of the change" is an excellent statement from HSBC on how they like to conduct business.

J_i_m

I think perhapps the security measure is in need of some "fine tuning"

However, I think people would be even more scandalised if HSBC had let fraudsters away with £1000s of other people's money.

A little bit of sense and perspective is required.

rb10

J_i_m wrote: »

I think perhapps the security measure is in need of some "fine tuning"

However, I think people would be even more scandalised if HSBC had let fraudsters away with £1000s of other people's money.

A little bit of sense and perspective is required.

Every other bank manages to have a better system.

1) They require ID, to ensure that the account holder is present.

2) They train their cashiers to ask gently probing questions so that they can gain a view as to whether the customer is acting under duress or not.

Requiring proof of whatever the customer plans to spend the money on is taking it a step too far. I can't see this achieving anything that 1 and 2 above cannot achieve.

J_i_m

As I said, fine tuning is needed.

But to take outright offense at a security measure which is aimed to protect the customer is a little too knee jerk.

Archi_Bald

J_i_m wrote: »

As I said, fine tuning is needed.

But to take outright offense at a security measure which is aimed to protect the customer is a little too knee jerk.

What protects the customer if a bank insists on proof of what the money is intended for?

It's hardly "fine tuning" to have that utterly outrageous request removed!

And it's hardly "knee jerk" if people don't want to tell a bank clerk what they want to use their own money on.

J_i_m

What I'm trying to say is that the policy isn't necessarily at fault. It's how the staff put it into action.

Maybe some customers have been unlucky to come up against a poorly informed member of staff, maybe one who lacks tact as well.

However, personally even considering the inconvenience I would take some comfort in the fact that the bank were in fact taking security seriously.

If I managed to walk out of the bank with significantly large sums of cash with minimal security procedures to pass, it wouldn't take me long to fear how vulnerable the security was.

It's simply my opinion, you many not share it. Maybe there isn't the need to "pooh pooh" it.

henm2

SaveTheEuro wrote: »

"We had no need to pre-notify customers of the change" is an excellent statement from HSBC on how they like to conduct business.

That was because it was already in their terms and conditions
"25.4. We, or any other member of the HSBC Group,
may take whatever action we consider appropriate
to meet any obligations, either in the UK or
elsewhere in the world, relating to the prevention of
fraud, money laundering, terrorist activity, bribery,
corruption, tax evasion and the provision of financial
and other services to persons who may be subject
to economic or trade sanctions. This may include,
but is not limited to, investigating and intercepting
payments into and out of your account(s)
(particularly in the case of international transfers of
funds) and investigating the source of or intended recipient of funds. "

It should though have been better publicised.

retiredin2011

If I managed to walk out of the bank with significantly large sums of cash with minimal security procedures to pass, it wouldn't take me long to fear how vulnerable the security was.

But we are talking about people who have passed security checks but because they want more than an undisclosed amount that the bank won't even disclose because the customer doesn't have an invoice that he has to pay that amount.

If I wanted to buy a car from a private seller can you see the bank accepting a piece of paper stating that I need the money to pay for a car?


I left a previous bank because I wanted £1400 and was told I could only withdraw £1,000