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

colsten

Annabee wrote: »

Presume the information I gave at the time of opening the account was sufficient at the time, so what has changed?

They have reviewed their records, and noticed they do not have the up-to-date information from/about you that their licence requires them to have.

Do you never review, and update if required, your records?

In the time it takes you to moan about it on here, you could just have provided them with the info they asked for. Or, if it is so totally unacceptable to you, move your account to somewhere else. Just don't expect any bank to have less stringent requirements, as all of them are licensed/regulated by the FCA and PRA, who require all of them operate to the same standards.

Annabee

Er, this is a forum where members comment on financial matters, right? Why waste your time posting, then?

I just find it a bit odd, really, and wonder if there are any implications. The bank should know who I am after 20 years.

As suggested earlier on this thread, I am going to propose to them that I take the information requested into my nearest HSBC branch, as that would be more convenient for me. I'll do it when I'm next in town, not going to make a special trip.

mgdavid

Annabee wrote: »

...... The bank should know who I am after 20 years..............

you are missing the point that was made quite clearly in the 1st paragraph of post #42.
The bank cannot prove to the regulatory authorities that they know who you are, therefore a new ID check is required.

colsten

Annabee wrote: »

I just find it a bit odd, really, and wonder if there are any implications. The bank should know who I am after 20 years.

They have reviewed the information they have on file for you, and have found it doesn't meet the requirements their licence puts on them. So they now asked you politely to provide the missing info. Is that so hard to understand?

Annabee

Well, maybe. I am intending to cooperate and give them the information they want. I am still taken aback a bit, though.

However, there is no need for your tone. Some, 'fantastic super money savers' (or whatever) seem to think because they have made a gazillion posts on MSE that entitles them to tell everyone else what to do/when to post. Maybe they should curb their tendencies to become a busybody and get a life or something.

Doc_N

colsten wrote: »

They have reviewed the information they have on file for you, and have found it doesn't meet the requirements their licence puts on them. So they now asked you politely to provide the missing info. Is that so hard to understand?

Your sarcastic comments are unhelpful. There are other possible ways of looking at this, besides your own. Perhaps:

1 First Direct (and it does seem to be primarily First Direct) messed up and should offer some recompense to longstanding customers, some of whom are being quite seriously inconvenienced by the new requirements, which are not always easy to comply with.

2 There are other ways for First Direct to regularise its records for compliance purpose - but it chooses this route because its cheaper for HSBC and places the cost and time onto the customer.

colsten

Doc_N wrote: »

Your sarcastic comments are unhelpful.

My comments are realistic, not sarcastic

masonic

Doc_N wrote: »

There are other possible ways of looking at this, besides your own. Perhaps:

1 First Direct (and it does seem to be primarily First Direct) messed up and should offer some recompense to longstanding customers, some of whom are being quite seriously inconvenienced by the new requirements, which are not always easy to comply with.

2 There are other ways for First Direct to regularise its records for compliance purpose - but it chooses this route because its cheaper for HSBC and places the cost and time onto the customer.

It would take a lot of unnecessary effort to consider and weigh up all of the possible ways of looking at this, given that such deliberations would ultimately be pointless.

It is well known that the regulatory requirements have become more strict, so it seems a little unreasonable to claim FD has messed up by not predicting the information it would be asked to hold about its customers 20 years in the future.

You could be correct that FD could make other arrangements for customers to provide information that would be more convenient for certain customers. However, FD is free to choose the terms under which it is willing to do business, just as every customer has the right to choose not to accept those terms and take their business elsewhere.

Annabee

Colsten - Not really. 'Please be nice to all money savers'. 'Courtesy helps'. (From the Forum guidelines). Maybe you could explain how the way you write fits in with this? Or what help you think you're giving other users? Still no doubt it gives you a little thrill to be 'right'.

Unfortunately there are a few users with a sneery attitude, particularly among the more prolific posters. All they do is put other people off posting, surely against what the site is supposed to stand for.

meer53

Is it not easier to post documents than trail to a branch of HSBC ? You can also show them your documents by video call, direct from your own armchair if you like.