First Direct want proof of identity years after account opened: anyone else affected?

katejo

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

When I wanted to make a withdrawal from an investment/unit trust/OEIC type dating back that sort of time from being originally opened I was required to provide full address and passport ID prior to any withdrawal being approved. I think this has happened on a couple of occassions now.
So these financial services groups are taking the attitude that existing old accounts are OK provided no transactions are done on them - if they are, than full ID to the current requirement has to be provided.

Recently an account of mine was made dormant due to inactivity by a saving group. To re-activate it I had again to send in full certified passport ID and original address ID.

My FD account is still fully active.

MoneySavingNovice

masonic wrote: »

You are correct that I disagree that this discussion is about a point of law. My view is that this discussion is about the practicalities of being asked for documentation by FD......

Your right.....my apologies for 'going down a rabbit hole' so to speak.

Actually I think that First Direct/HSBC could be in regulatory trouble over this, They are asking for identification proof years after the 2007 Money Laundering Regulations can into force. What have they been doing between 2007 and now to prove the identification of their customers?

If I am asked for such documents, I think I would write back to them offering :-
1) That I will go into my local branch of HSBC with the required documents for them to certify there.
2) They pay the cost for the certification of the document and I will provide these by post.
3) They can come and inspect the documents themselves at my home.
Thus putting the responsibility back to them to cover these costs.

I’m guessing that they might refuse, but in my view it’s worth the try.
It really depends on how far you wish to push this. They do have a clause in their T&C’s which allow them to close an account without providing any reason. For that reason if they were to refuse the above I would likely then send them what they were after and then move banks.

meer53

MoneySavingNovice wrote: »

Your right.....my apologies for 'going down a rabbit hole' so to speak.

Actually I think that First Direct/HSBC could be in regulatory trouble over this, They are asking for identification proof years after the 2007 Money Laundering Regulations can into force. What have they been doing between 2007 and now to prove the identification of their customers?

If I am asked for such documents, I think I would write back to them offering :-
1) That I will go into my local branch of HSBC with the required documents for them to certify there.
2) They pay the cost for the certification of the document and I will provide these by post.
3) They can come and inspect the documents themselves and my home.
Thus putting the responsibility back to them to cover these costs.

I’m guessing that they might refuse, but in my view it’s worth the try.
It really depends on how far you wish to push this. They do have a clause in their T&C’s which allow them to close an account without providing any reason. For that reason if they were to refuse the above I would likely then send them what they were after and then move banks.

If you're going to close your account and move banks, why bother sending what they have asked for ?

MoneySavingNovice

meer53 wrote: »

If you're going to close your account and move banks, why bother sending what they have asked for ?

To ensure that I'm not put in a position of FD closing the account before I have an opportunity to fully investigate the market. It's also not a good idea to have a bank closing an account, it might give trouble in the future.

I should have explained my logic in the original post! Sorry for my ommision.

GingerBob_3

MoneySavingNovice wrote: »

To ensure that I'm not put in a position of FD closing the account before I have an opportunity to fully investigate the market. It's also not a good idea to have a bank closing an account, it might give trouble in the future.

I should have explained my logic in the original post! Sorry for my ommision.

Why not? I seem to recall a while ago Egg closed loads of (credit card) accounts and people were advised that if anything it would help them.

Herbalus

GingerBob wrote: »

Why not? I seem to recall a while ago Egg closed loads of (credit card) accounts and people were advised that if anything it would help them.

There's a difference between having fewer credit cards and fewer current accounts. Though in this case there would be no marker that FD closed the account or you closed the account, and no mention of the reason.

Potentially it could make it harder for HSBC/FD to have you as a customer again in the future if you don't provide the documents. If you attempted to open another account and their history of you suggests you "refused" to provide ID, it might make you a higher risk proposition. But that's just me speculating.

Doc_N

Herbalus wrote: »

There's a difference between having fewer credit cards and fewer current accounts.

Thank God there are still people left still using 'fewer' instead of the ubiquitous 'less'. It seems to be largely restricted BBC news programme presenters now.

[Pedants' Corner]

System

Having carried out these identity checks to the current standard, are banks now going to be satisfied for another 20 years? People move, identities are stolen, some previously exemplary citizens doubtless becomecriminals, smugglers and money launderers.
If the checks are really necessary at all, why are they not carried out annually?

GingerBob_3

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Having carried out these identity checks to the current standard, are banks now going to be satisfied for another 20 years? People move, identities are stolen, some previously exemplary citizens doubtless becomecriminals, smugglers and money launderers.
If the checks are really necessary at all, why are they not carried out annually?

Because they are not necessary at all. Quiet! Don't put ideas into their heads!

Herbalus

Doc_N wrote: »

Thank God there are still people left still using 'fewer' instead of the ubiquitous 'less'. It seems to be largely restricted BBC news programme presenters now.

[Pedants' Corner]

I still complain whenever I see it published by big firms

"10 items or less", "This bus runs on gas so there's less emissions". Does my head in.