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

masonic

Patr100 wrote: »

Not necessarily. This passport or Driving licence fetish for the banks really makes me angry. Because any document, including a passport can be faked and often are.

Banknotes are also often faked. Perhaps retailers shouldn't accept them?

How do they know the person presenting as the account holder is the original opening account holder or the account holder is definitely not using a false identity? They don't.

There is no requirement for the banks to prove that a customer is definitely not using a false identity. They merely need to perform some due diligence and take steps to verify customers are who they say they are. Quoting the gov.uk paper I linked above, "In practice this means obtaining a customer’s: name, photograph on an official document which confirms their identity, residential address or date of birth. The best way to do this is to ask for a government issued document like a passport, along with utility bills, bank statements and other official documents."

It is not necessary for the system to prevent 100% of money laundering and fraud. Clearly that would be impossible. If we only took measures that were 100% effective, there would be almost no safeguards in place in pretty much any walk of life. No point setting a speed limit on the roads if there are still accidents; no point locking your doors if someone can still break in; etc, etc.

If like me , and many others you live in London, never needed to learn to drive to get to work etc . Haven't been abroad for many years and are not on benefits recently then your other options are very limited. The only other document I can provide is a HMRC letter informing me of my tax code which luckily I have just received due to particular circumstances but other than that, ironically if you are on certain benefits you can use those for proof of ID but if you haven't needed to have direct dealing with the tax office, do not drive or travel abroad, you are a non-person in the eyes of most of the banks. It really gets my goat. I am a FD customer of about 20 years (never requiring a loan or overdraft in that time) who has just received the "we need to check you out" letter. Hopefully the video call option will be Ok and not require me to incure cost but I haven't yet followed it up.

According to a recent FOI request, there are 45.5 million active driving records in the UK, out of an adult population of about 52 million. Many of those who have no diving licence will have a passport (about 70% of the wider population), so perhaps 30% of those 12% have neither document, i.e. around 4% of the adult population. Those people are going to have a hard time as the anti-money laundering requirements get more and more strict.

Whether the legal requirement to provide a basic bank account which comes into force next year, I believe , will make any difference remains to be seen.

The legal requirement on banks to identify their customers will take precedence over anyone's right to a basic bank account, I'm sure.

peter999

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Actually, you don't need to ask God. https://www.gov.uk/renew-adult-passport

The cost of around £8 a year, or 2p a day, is a bargain for those who travel regularly (incl. domestic air travel), and not exactly unaffordable to those who don't travel.

Cost per year or day has nothing to do with it, when they spend 15 minutes processing passport renewal & issuing a small mass produced document with tools passport office has for issuing 100's of thousands or millions of passports per year.

If you thought of things like that, then costs of everything would be astronomical.

Cost of passport renewal should be reduced to £5 to £10 !!

Patr100

masonic wrote: »

Banknotes are also often faked. Perhaps retailers shouldn't accept them?

Sometimes they don't, but banknotes are not being used to identify the person offering them for use.

masonic wrote: »

According to a recent FOI request, there are 45.5 million active driving records in the UK, out of an adult population of about 52 million.

45 million out of 52 ie 86% of the adult population? Really? That seems abnormally high IMO. What constitutes an "active driving record"? I see the question being asked as number of people but the official answer given possibly significantly doesn't actually refer to the number of people . Are perhaps those who hold more than one type of licence being counted more than once?
The estimate in the link below (taking uk gov data from a couple of years ago) suggests the figure is nearer 72%
or if there are 49 million Britons over the age of 17 (see my link) , then according to your FOI DVLA link that leaves just 2 million non DL holders. Really?
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/who-drives-in-britain/

masonic wrote: »

Many of those who have no diving licence will have a passport (about 70% of the wider population), so perhaps 30% of those 12% have neither document, i.e. around 4% of the adult population. Those people are going to have a hard time as the anti-money laundering requirements get more and more strict.

Anyway whatever the figures, "having a hard time" doesn't address the fact that the banks regulations are excluding certain legitimate law abiding members of the population. But hey, why should anyone with a DL or Passport give a XXXX about the others?:wall:

masonic

Patr100 wrote: »

Sometimes they don't, but banknotes are not being used to identify the person offering them for use.

No they are not. Banknotes are used to pay for goods and services. Fake banknotes trick the retailer into thinking goods have been paid for when in fact the goods have not been paid for. Fake passports and driving licences [you contend] trick the bank into thinking the customer has been verified when in fact they have not been genuinely verified. I would have thought the analogy was obvious.

45 million out of 52 ie 86% of the adult population? Really? That seems abnormally high IMO. What constitutes an "active driving record"? I see the question being asked as number of people but the official answer given possibly significantly doesn't actually refer to the number of people . Are perhaps those who hold more than one type of licence being counted more than once?
The estimate in the link below (taking uk gov data from a couple of years ago) suggests the figure is nearer 72%
or if there are 49 million Britons over the age of 17 (see my link) , then according to your FOI DVLA link that leaves just 2 million non DL holders. Really?
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/who-drives-in-britain/

Different categories are added to the same driving licence. I'm not going to quibble over the difference between the "around 4%" I guestimated and the 8% one would come to if using the data from that wordpress blog. Of course, it could be that a higher proportion of those without a driving license would hold a passport, especially among younger people who will probably have a need to prove their age from time to time. Regardless, it is a small minority of people who do not have either document.

Anyway whatever the figures, "having a hard time" doesn't address the fact that the banks regulations are excluding certain legitimate law abiding members of the population. But hey, why should anyone with a DL or Passport give a XXXX about the others?:wall:

It was successive Governments who passed the anti-money laundering legislation and they have decided that Government issued photo ID documents should be the primary means for someone prove one's identity to a bank (see below). It is not about giving "a XXXX about the others". This is the reality of the situation. Getting upset about it is futile. If I come across as impassive, it is because I know it is something I cannot hope to influence. It is simply a fact that those without passports or driving licences will struggle under the progression of AML legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-your-responsibilities

Archi_Bald

Patr100 wrote: »

Anyway whatever the figures, "having a hard time" doesn't address the fact that the banks regulations are excluding certain legitimate law abiding members of the population. But hey, why should anyone with a DL or Passport give a XXXX about the others?:wall:

As a law abiding person, you shouldn't find it difficult to understand that banks are abiding by the law when they ask you to prove your ID, and presumably you wouldn't want them to do anything illegal for you personally?

Given that a passport costs you about 2p a day, it's a superbly cheap way to prove your identity to as many banks or other places as you like.

mgdavid

Patr100 wrote: »

......why should anyone with a DL or Passport give a XXXX about the others?:wall:

Exactly.
You've been given good advice, it is entirely your self-inflicted prerogative to ignore it and continue being stressed about it.
Some people are beyond help.

CKhalvashi

Patr100 wrote: »

Not necessarily. This passport or Driving licence fetish for the banks really makes me angry. Because any document, including a passport can be faked and often are

I believe banks have access to passport and DL databases.

I know that part of an ID check with RBS involved using a pp number, and this was instantly accepted as ID without needing to pop into a branch.

An expired pp should be fine, however may not be.

meer53

Banks can use a database to check whether a PP is valid, but It doesn't stop fake PP's being used. Banks try to mitigate their losses by asking for certified copies of documents, some banks only allow certification by specific persons who they can verify independently, which is what some people moan about as it usually involves a cost.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If you want a new bank account or are asked to provide details for an existing account, why not just do it ? Not many banks will care whether you open/close an account. The majority of people are happy to comply with any requests, it's not really that difficult.

Archi_Bald

To be fair, there have only been reports of one bank requiring certified copies of ID - namely First Direct.

May be their explanation is that they are a telephone bank only, without access to Branches. Oh hang on............

GingerFurball_2

masonic wrote: »

I don't think they would even need to do so in the T&Cs on the non-advised sale of a current account. If the customer could demonstrate that a bank employee discussed their intention to hold a large sum of cash in the account with them and then neglected to mention the lack of interest, then that would probably be a failure in duty of care. However, I don't believe banks are under any obligation to keep the circumstances of their customers under review after the sale of a bank account, so £30k sitting in the account 20 years later would be a different situation entirely, especially if the bank regularly sent the customer a brochure of interest rates with details of alternative interest paying accounts.

I'm not sure I'd even want to be in the situation where a bank had to pro-actively contact any customer who moved a large sum of money into their current account to discuss alternative options. Maybe there is a gap in the market for some sort of packaged bank account that offers the customer regular reviews and help choosing appropriate products for their needs, but I don't think it would be in the customer's best interest to rely on the products and services of a single bank - as demonstrated by your aunt's move to Santander, which is a better outcome than anything FD could offer.

What if a customer has indicated to their bank that they don't wish to be contacted for marketing purposes?