New request for personal info from Selftrade

bowlhead99

lyndylu wrote: »

It may be the case that Selftrade are prepared to accept much less detailed information, but this only serves to highlight the fact that Selftrade is cynically using the need to 'comply with regulations' to get hold of a lot of personal and financial data it isn't entitled to from people naive (or intimidated) enough to supply it.

Sure, and I don't want to come across as a selftrade apologist ; I closed my account with them years ago.

As suggested by some of the posters above, they seem to have suddenly found themselves in a bad place and now need to rapidly remediate and work out what will satisfy the regulator and put themselves beyond reproach. Inevitably they have done this in an over-cautious way: if in doubt about any of your customers, ask for more info.

However, if you're impartial, because you don't have an account with them, and you have a grasp of the regulations, you can see how they landed on the approach they have taken.

From a customer relations perspective, clearly the average customer sees it as a ball-ache, and are reluctant to give information to feed what they perceive as the "fishing expedition" being carried out by their broker. And everyone has an irrational fear of how their information could somehow be used against them, as if the agent handling your account will go and tell your best mate that you earned 400k by selling the family business last year which explains why you're able to deposit 300k into shares.

I'm not convinced that they shouldn't be able to ask why/how you are able to invest £300k or even £3k, if they are going to take your cash and give you nice clean cash in return.

Asking all customers to complete a form asking for info with menaces was not a great move. But ultimately, they should be able to say, " we've never got adequate identifying/background info from you, so unfortunately we can't give you clean cash back without getting that info first". There is law and regulation that supports that position for regulated financial services businesses.

So, my surprise is not that a company goes OTT when chasing down documentation to fix its holes in historic data. They have some legitimate fear; that they face fines or shutdown if they don't comply in due course.The surprise is that customers are so distressed that they resort to telling us that politicians are the Stasi, Gestapo and generally a disgrace for introducing regulations that make people disclose some wealth history when deploying that wealth.

The form they give you can be completed in quite a simple way. If you want to aggregate or simplify information, you can do. If I've got 90k of net worth I'll just say I have earned that "0-100k" from current employer. In reality I might have earned 600k from the current employer and 240k from previous employers and 50k investment income and then spent 800k over my lifetime. They are not asking you to account for every penny.*

*or at least, they might appear to be, but they will not have a problem if you have a legitimate sounding answer that explains where you might have got £0-100k from over the last x years.

dougz_2

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The surprise is that customers are so distressed that they resort to telling us that politicians are the Stasi, Gestapo and generally a disgrace for introducing regulations that make people disclose some wealth history

That might not surprise if you believed the typical British citizen still has some self respect, and thus values their right to privacy, and to carry out their law abiding lives free from intimidation and threats. Not to mention the insult to their intelligence that the mistreatment and time wasting is for their own good.

Yes a line has to be drawn somewhere, if someone was feeding their account with sackfuls of notes, then I agree questions should be asked. But for those transferring cleanly from their own personal current accounts, I say the scope of the interrogations via these Selftrade questionnaires way oversteps the mark.

Plumeria_Obtusa

Searching Google News this morning I see there is an article in Money Marketing titled: "D2C platform Selftrade reviews client data in money laundering checks". As a new user I'm not permitted to post a link but the article is easy to find.

Their adviser comments:

"Selftrade has perhaps not been as aggressive as others in its record keeping. The timing of this seems strange, as you would think firms would gather this information when people opened their account."

bob792

The bit I can't get my head around in answering this is how to determine how much of my assets derive from employment (over 30 years) and how much derives from investment and trading activity made over the last 30 years on those assets.

Anybody got any ideas for a formula that would help to divide the pot up into these two Selftrade boxes?

Nicholas-bloody-Parsons

bob792 wrote: »

The bit I can't get my head around in answering this is how to determine how much of my assets derive from employment (over 30 years) and how much derives from investment and trading activity made over the last 30 years on those assets.

Anybody got any ideas for a formula that would help to divide the pot up into these two Selftrade boxes?

Yes. Its impossible to calculate for a such a long period of time.

Use percentages based on your judgement of how well your trading has gone vs saved income.... Eg. 70% / 30%

dougz_2

Nicholas-bloody-Parsons wrote: »

Yes. Its impossible to calculate for a such a long period of time.

Use percentages based on your judgement of how well your trading has gone vs saved income.... Eg. 70% / 30%

Wild guesses such as that are not really an option because it has to be signed "I hereby declare the information provided is accurate and up to date as at the time of signing this form". Almost nobody can honestly sign that statement given the extreme scope of the questions asked. Thus they are blackmailing people into signing a false statement that could come back and haunt them.

I suggest everyone should refuse and write an "OFFICIAL COMPLAINT" to Selftrade and http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm at least.

misterdiy

I have received the follow-up letter today saying exactly the same as the first letter - only the title is in red!

One interesting note in the new letter as follows:-

"Regrettably, if we do not receive the requested documentation within one month from the date of this letter, we may need to restrict your ability to withdraw cash, transfer assets from your account or the transfer of your account to another provider"

So I have made a transfer request to my new provider today. I did move some cash to my bank account last week and that was OK.

It looks like they are giving us the nod to get out within a month.

I will keep you posted

grey_gym_sock

dougz wrote: »

Wild guesses such as that are not really an option because it has to be signed "I hereby declare the information provided is accurate and up to date as at the time of signing this form". Almost nobody can honestly sign that statement given the extreme scope of the questions asked. Thus they are blackmailing people into signing a false statement that could come back and haunt them.

i doubt that answers which involve very broad estimates, but which are not deliberately false, would come back to haunt anybody. however, if in doubt, you could always write on the form that certain figures are estimates, and (if applicable) that they relate to so long ago that you no longer have the paperwork to do more than make a stab in the dark.

Rostbif

The media has taken it on board at last including the FT and a reporter from the Telegraph is asking for feedback on another forum, herewith verbatim:

Hi all,

I'm a reporter on The Telegraph and interested in writing an article about these letters from Selftrade. I've received a few emails from customers affected and had been preparing a piece for this coming weekend about the intrusion. It looks like your emails to Jonathan Eley worked - the FT has run a story online this afternoon (unfortunate for me).

However, I'm planning something a little more to the point on the outrageous intrusion and threats being disseminated by ST, which I think the FT has downplayed.

I am keen to feature customers in the article. So if you feel inclined, please do get in touch with your views and thoughts. Please include a few basic details such as name, age, where you live.

My email is dan.hyde@telegraph.co.uk. You can look me up here (not allowed as newbie)

Thanks in advance.

Best

Dan

ducky2004

The first round of this was already done back in January 2014

(Google Fool, selftrade record review) if the link doesn't work.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/records-review-12952199.aspx?sort=whole#12955851

It is a totally over the top but to many, it will be less time consuming to comply than to fight them / raise an Financial Obmudsman case. If one must fight as a matter of principle, then so be it.

Intentionally filling in inaccurate information such as "no" is not advisable as that will get you into trouble.

I am able to report that they are ok after receiving the documents - you will get one e-Message on receipt, and then a confirmation that everything is ok (if it is ok) a few weeks later.

Of course, this is another case where the broker make a mistakes, and customers have to pay (with time and effort) case but then....