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

peter999

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

Peter999
As I've said elsewhere on this forum before:
I've had various long term investment holdings dating back decades and when I wanted to make a withdrawal I was informed that I only do this if I provided full ID to the current standard as when I opened the account no ID of any form was required.
This has now happened to me on a number of occasions.

So these groups are taking the attitude that existing long term holdings with no transactions on them are OK but as soon as a transaction is attempted then full ID is required.

A bank account where lots of transactions occur then yes I would have expected HSBC having been seriously caught out on this now to require old accounts from decades ago where they subsequently have no sight of any ID acquired since to be looking to update their records.

I recently had a savings account go dormant though non use - to re-activate it again I had to send of full certified ID so that is a certified copy of my passport plus another original document containing my name and address on it - like a bank statement.

So yes its is happening elsewhere - it's just that the rest of us don't make a huge fuss on these forums about it.

So I'd go and get yourself a passport!

My FD account is active, has been all its life.

Where have other banks been systematically verifying old accounts ?

My HSBC account is older than my account than my FD account, haven't heard anything from them, haven't seen similiar thread for them or other banks.

Why should I get an expensive passport to verify an account, when I'm not leaving the country ?

The whole thing is absurd.

peter999

masonic wrote: »

Yes, they didn't do it when they were supposed to do it several years earlier, hence they are doing it now. Other banks got all this out of the way years ago. FD is one of the last refuges of the non-verified customer.

So all other banks, building societies, have verified their old accounts over past years.

So there would be some threads on this subject on this board, with people go through this palaver.
.

CKhalvashi

peter999 wrote: »

My FD account is active, has been all its life.

Where have other banks been systematically verifying old accounts ?

My HSBC account is older than my account than my FD account, haven't heard anything from them, haven't seen similiar thread for them or other banks.

Why should I get an expensive passport to verify an account, when I'm not leaving the country ?

The whole thing is absurd.

This one?

I had one about 2 years ago, and we've had one again last week.

Called them on Friday, went through the info, took about 5 minutes.

peter999

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This one?

I had one about 2 years ago, and we've had one again last week.

Called them on Friday, went through the info, took about 5 minutes.

Not sure this letter is the same, looks like updating personal information for general protection rather than saying they want to verify your Identity & Address.


Are they asking for certified copies of your documents ?

How do they do it over the phone, is this a video call, what do they ask or look at ?
.

CKhalvashi

peter999 wrote: »

Are they asking for certified copies of your documents ?

How do they do it over the phone, is this a video call, what do they ask or look at ?

They just wanted details of our income last year, as the money going through the account has changed significantly, because OH has restarted work, and to check details of nationality.

No ID checks etc needed, it was sorted on the phone in about 10 minutes.

masonic

peter999 wrote: »

So all other banks, building societies, have verified their old accounts over past years.

So there would be some threads on this subject on this board, with people go through this palaver.

They don't need to verify "old accounts", they need to verify all existing customers. Anyone who has opened a new account with their bank in the past decade or so will have been verified as part of the account opening process, either by showing ID or by electronic identity verification checks via the credit reference agencies. But if you trawl back through the threads of several years ago you'll see people complaining about other banks and other financial institutions asking them for ID.

For example, only last year, Selftrade started demanding its customers not only provided documents, but also gave details of their total wealth and how it had been built up. Unlike FD, they did not give customers to opportunity to leave rather than supply the information - if you did not comply, they threatened to freeze your accounts until you did. The amount of information requested and the way Selftrade went about it was OTT in that case. You'll see the comments are not too dissimilar to those in this thread...

Roadsweeper2 wrote: »

I have sent Selftrade a message box reply in which I queried the necessity to confirm my identity after many years as a customer.

If you go back a lot further, you'll find instances of long term customers of other banks complaining about being asked to bring in ID.

masonic

peter999 wrote: »

Are they asking for certified copies of your documents ?

How do they do it over the phone, is this a video call, what do they ask or look at ?

As mentioned earlier in this thread, you can phone FD to discuss options - certified documents are not the only things accepted. Alternatives include bringing original documents into an HSBC branch and a video call, which a couple of people have used.

When HSBC verified me earlier this year, I had to make an appointment, brought my passport and council tax bill into a branch, and it took about 10 minutes. The main thing they wanted me to do (but didn't mention when they requested the ID) was sign a FATCA form to state I was a non-US person and not subject to any US taxation.

Doc_N

Just to put all this into context, this was the post that started all this just over a year ago:

There are letters going out from First Direct saying this:

"As you'd expect at first direct we set ourselves the highest possible standards, but we're sorry to say that in the past we have fallen short of this in some areas and we now hold incomplete proof of identity and address for a number of our customers. We have to put that right, as it's only through having the most up to date customer information that we can do the best possible job of keeping you and your money safe from fraud and financial crime."

What they're asking for is certified copies of two documents - one proving identity and another proving address. No mention of taking these documents into a HSBC branch - presumably because the branches wouldn't be able to cope with the additional work.

There's a list of possible certifiers (including solicitors, doctors etc, many of whom will charge a fee) and lists of acceptable documents.

First Direct are being very coy as to exactly why they are doing this to customers like my aunt (90 years old - and a First Direct account holder for 20+ years) but I'm guessing they're being forced to do it by a regulator.

It's impossible to provide the proof they need in her case (no passport, no driving licence, nothing from HMRC or DWP dated within the last 4 months) and she's really annoyed that after 20 years they're coming along with this demand - and expecting her to pay the costs involved! The result's likely to be a profitable account (large balance, no interest) lost to FD.

Anyone else had one of these letters?"

It's not so much about what they're doing, as the way they're going about it. If they'd just asked for ID to be taken into a branch of HSBC I wouldn't have bothered posting. It wouldn't have been any big deal.

But they didn't do that - they expected customers to pay (for certification) to sort out their failures.

And they still seem to be doing it - though at least they'll now accept alternative ways of doing it if you complain. At the outset that was difficult, so maybe at least they've learned something.

masonic

Doc_N wrote: »

It's not so much about what they're doing, as the way they're going about it. If they'd just asked for ID to be taken into a branch of HSBC I wouldn't have bothered posting. It wouldn't have been any big deal.

So FD didn't invite people to phone them if they are having difficulty with the request in the original letter?

But they didn't do that - they expected customers to pay (for certification) to sort out their failures.

As we've already been through several times, their failure was asking for the information in 2014 and 2015 instead of from 2007 onwards. Somehow I don't think you'd have been any happier if they hadn't failed in this respect.

And they still seem to be doing it - though at least they'll now accept alternative ways of doing it if you complain. At the outset that was difficult, so maybe at least they've learned something.

I don't think a complaint is necessary. From what others in this thread have suggested, you simply need to ask for alternatives if what they are asking is too difficult. ISTR one person even mentioned they will refund the cost of getting the documents certified?

Doc_N

masonic wrote: »

So FD didn't invite people to phone them if they are having difficulty with the request in the original letter?

As we've already been through several times, their failure was asking for the information in 2014 and 2015 instead of from 2007 onwards. Somehow I don't think you'd have been any happier if they hadn't failed in this respect.

I don't think a complaint is necessary. From what others in this thread have suggested, you simply need to ask for alternatives if what they are asking is too difficult. ISTR one person even mentioned they will refund the cost of getting the documents certified?

No, they didn't invite people to phone them - it was very much take it or leave it (and this was a woman with around £30k sitting in her account earning no interest - almost all of which has as a direct result gone to Santander).

A complaint most certainly was necessary. My aunt got nowhere with them, and when I intervened it was by no means easy to persuade them to accept the documentation being taken into a branch. Too much trouble for them.

The scheme was ludicrous from the outset and reflects badly on what is actually a good bank. HSBC, by comparison, as I've found out recently, are awful.

Things look to have improved since the original letters went out - maybe somebody at FD has picked up on this thread.