Dubious practice by Fidelty..?

N1AK

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I can only think that they are deliberately blocking my withdrawl to retain the money i.e MY money and putting me through unwarranted inconvenience.

Well your lack of imagination doesn't automatically make it true. The costs involved in handling the process for them would make this an entirely unprofitable thing to do just to inconvenience a customer. No one is going to just abandon £1,000 and the idea that they'll make more off holding the money for a little longer than dealing with this costs is pretty laughable.

C_Mababejive

dunstonh wrote: »

How do they know you are not?



Were the copies certified?

Yes,the copies were certified using the Post Office certification service and the stamped form from the PO was enclosed. The cost for that service is currently £7.00. Never mind,i will get MY money back. I am just posting my experience for the benefit of others.

C_Mababejive

N1AK wrote: »

Well your lack of imagination doesn't automatically make it true. The costs involved in handling the process for them would make this an entirely unprofitable thing to do just to inconvenience a customer. No one is going to just abandon £1,000 and the idea that they'll make more off holding the money for a little longer than dealing with this costs is pretty laughable.

I agree it is laughable. I can hardly believe it myself. I do hope that this is an isolated case because if this is what Fidelty does to a large number of their customers then a lot of them will feel the way i do.
As they are so keen on spending time on administration, they can deal with my official complaint to the relevant regulatory body once this is done and dusted.

BillJones

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I frequently shunt far larger amounts in and out of my other accounts without any questions being raised. Its equally possible i would have moved money in/out of my fledgling Fidelity account. Its my money. I can do as i wish with it.

Well as you've seen, no, you can't. Were you not complaining of exactly this problem when you started this thread?..

This doesn't really explain the inconsistency in your story, anyway, which is that your claim that you made an initial payment and planned to add more later is simply not true. You made a small payment, and then tried to take it out again.

Saying now "They'll regret it, this was just the start of something big" sounds like false bravado, given your actual dealings.

Well, attempted dealings...

Daniel54

In their Buisnes Plan and Risk outlook 2014/15 the FCA specifically state that anti-money laundering compliance has been highlighted as an area of key activitiy in terns of enforcement.

The cost of regulation is already high and inevitably passed on to ther consumer at least in part.Frivolous complaints such as the one suggested by the OP simply add to the costs for all of us.

C_Mababejive

BillJones wrote: »

Well as you've seen, no, you can't. Were you not complaining of exactly this problem when you started this thread?..

This doesn't really explain the inconsistency in your story, anyway, which is that your claim that you made an initial payment and planned to add more later is simply not true. You made a small payment, and then tried to take it out again.

Saying now "They'll regret it, this was just the start of something big" sounds like false bravado, given your actual dealings.

Well, attempted dealings...

Your attempts at trolling and adding spurrii to this commentary are futile.I am not about to air the full expanse of my personal wealth on a public forum. I am simply stating what has happened. When i have further to add, i shall add it. Fidelity do not provide the level of customer service i expects and require. I shall in due course have my monies returned ,i shall then terminate my account with them and continue to invest in my existing accounts.

C_Mababejive

Daniel54 wrote: »

In their Buisnes Plan and Risk outlook 2014/15 the FCA specifically state that anti-money laundering compliance has been highlighted as an area of key activitiy in terns of enforcement.

The cost of regulation is already high and inevitably passed on to ther consumer at least in part.Frivolous complaints such as the one suggested by the OP simply add to the costs for all of us.

Unless people complain, it is often the case that things do not get better. I shall make my complaint and the relevant body can investigate or not as they so wish.

bowlhead99

C_Mababejive wrote: »

To date i have photocopied my Passport, My photocard driving licence, my paper counterpart driving licence and included an original and recent credit card statement from a well known high street bank bearing all my personal details and guess what? They continue to nit pick and have returned said docs and are asking for more.

If all the above was original (or properly certified as a true copy of original) and all those documents were on their approved list of what documents they would accept to separately prove your identity and your residential address, I can see why that would be frustrating.

Presumably they were only asking for them in the first place because they weren't able to verify you electronically. Without meaning to sound like we're all ganging up on you, what is the nature of the "nit picking" and what more have they now asked for? Something they hadn't already asked for?

For example, some companies want a utility bill to evidence your current address. But sometimes, customers will instead send them a driving licence or credit card bill or mobile phone invoice, which in the eyes of the company do not actually demonstrate that you live at the address.

Each company freely sets its own risk management policies to fit in with what it perceives as its businesses risks and the extent to which it should cover off those risks under the AML / regulatory frameworks. If they told you they would accept a document that they now won't, that seems like bad service and you're free to complain.

But as mentioned by others, you can be assured that with bank base rates at pretty much nothing they have no real interest in deliberately holding £1000 back from you for months to earn 10p a week off it, while simultaneously employing staff and running infrastructure to keep spending the manhours following up with you for the outstanding documentation. They would much rather you gave them the docs and let them clear off the checklists and let you go.

The T&Cs do warn that they have to reject capital withdrawals until they have completed this process. So it's unfortunate that you got picked out for review, but as you would expect, their staff would find it very much easier to follow their compliance policies and avoid getting fired - than bend the rules to accommodate you and then have to document why they bent them or on what grounds their actions to let you out without following the standard process don't qualify as bending them.

dunstonh

I like bowlhead's posts. After all these years, he still puts the effort in to write full detail responses when some of us have got tired repeating the same things over and over.

So it's unfortunate that you got picked out for review,

I think it is more likely due to it being flagged as a higher risk. Money in and money out very quickly after putting it in. Whilst it may well be genuine, that sort of transaction is frequently viewed as higher risk of money laundering.

what is the nature of the "nit picking" and what more have they now asked for? Something they hadn't already asked for?

In the interests of fairness and balance I think we do need to know that. If the criteria is met then it should not be an issue. So, what is the blocker?

BillJones

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Your attempts at trolling and adding spurrii to this commentary are futile.

I'm not trolling, I'm just pointing out that you have changed your story.

If you don't want people to point out inconsistencies in your tale, then stick to the truth...