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

mgdavid

Annabee wrote: »

I am sorry, I think this is piffle. In response to my first post I was immediately answered in an aggressive way, (or at least very unfriendly) by colsten, or whatever his name is. What is his problem? He could, if he wanted, have made the same points in a non-aggressive way, but chose not to.

I am seen similar posters on many sub-forums on here, jumping on posters and telling them they are wrong/should have known better etcetera. One wonders what they get out of it. Usually they are among the most frequent posters. As are you, I notice.

So I assure you I am far from ashamed to point this out!

Thankyou for clarifying; I must remember not to bother answering any of your future questions as you appear to be one of those people that cannot accept a factual answer that does not support your particular whinge. Like others, I cannot find anything aggressive in post #42 and am left wondering which part of it you didn't understand?

Annabee

My first post was quite uncontroversial, i would have thought. Immediately though I got this:

'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.'

From 'Colsten's first post to me. He has stated the reasons he believes FD to be doing this. Maybe he's correct, OK. But he appears to be personally affronted that I dared to mildly question First Direct's actions. Also, apparently, posting on here about the issue is 'moaning' which I shouldn't be doing. Or something. Similar to your own stupid comments about 'whinging'. Never mind that the forum wouldn't exactly have much content if criticizing companies and financial organisations were not allowed, now would it? Please be logical.

Post 41, immediately above 'Colsten's, by 'Herabalus' was basically saying the same kind of stuff, but written in a neutral way, to which no one could take offence. Read them both through. Can you really not see the difference?

What exactly is the point of this style of post? , nobody has answered that one yet. This style of posting is becoming more and more common on MSE and it's unpleasant and negative, and just puts people off. This is supposed to be a forum for the consumer, right?

And you obviously don't like being called on it!

Doc_N

Fair points, Annabee - difficult to understand why some posters feel the need to be so condescending in responses. Perhaps it makes them feel 'clever' perhaps (whilst actually having the opposite effect).

Difficult also to understand why there's such support (on a consumer forum!) for a bank that's so clearly got it wrong (by its own admission) and equally clearly (because they will find other ways round this if you push them) messed up on putting their past mistakes right.

First Direct is a fine bank. I've been with them for more than 25 years, more or less from the start, and in that time they've given exceptional service. It's the one account I won't switch.

Having said that, however, on this particular point they are completely wrong. They messed up - fine. But there are better ways of dealing with the problem that don't put customers to so much trouble, and they haven't chosen to use them because it's cheaper for them not to bother.

Annabee

Thanks Doc. I will make your points to First Direct when I ring them about it!

masonic

Doc_N wrote: »

Difficult also to understand why there's such support (on a consumer forum!) for a bank that's so clearly got it wrong (by its own admission) and equally clearly (because they will find other ways round this if you push them) messed up on putting their past mistakes right.

First Direct is a fine bank. I've been with them for more than 25 years, more or less from the start, and in that time they've given exceptional service. It's the one account I won't switch.

Having said that, however, on this particular point they are completely wrong. They messed up - fine. But there are better ways of dealing with the problem that don't put customers to so much trouble, and they haven't chosen to use them because it's cheaper for them not to bother.

As has been pointed out several times now, they only messed up by leaving it until 2014/2015 to ask for this information from its customers, rather than several years earlier. It is totally unreasonable for anyone to expect to have had their ID and address verified when they opened their accounts in the 1990s when the anti-money laundering regulations only came into effect in around 2007. So yes, FD should have asked for this information around that time, rather than leaving it until now. Would that have made any difference to your feelings about providing the information?

If not, then your argument that FD messed up is irrelevant, because if they didn't mess up, this thread would still exist, just with an earlier start date. What you are really complaining about is AML regulations and FD's decision about what information it is willing to accept in order to comply with the law.

I am a FD customer, and as I have stated in earlier replies to this thread, I might be affected by this. If I am, I will decide to either comply with the request, or take my business elsewhere. For all accounts I have opened in the past few years (other than HSBC), I have been electronically verified with no need for further documents, and in the case of HSBC I had no problem bringing original documents into a branch for verification. So, it's really quite simple: the bank chooses the terms under which it is willing to do business and the customer chooses either to agree to those terms or take their business elsewhere. Both sides can, at any time and for any reason, choose not to continue that relationship.

grumbler

masonic wrote: »

As has been pointed out several times now, they only messed up by leaving it until 2014/2015 to ask for this information from its customers, rather than several years earlier. It is totally unreasonable for anyone to expect to have had their ID and address verified when they opened their accounts in the 1990s when the anti-money laundering regulations only came into effect in around 2007. So yes, FD should have asked for this information around that time, rather than leaving it until now. Would that have made any difference to your feelings about providing the information?

If not, then your argument that FD messed up is irrelevant, because if they didn't mess up, this thread would still exist, just with an earlier start date. What you are really complaining about is AML regulations and FD's decision about what information it is willing to accept in order to comply with the law.

Red herring.
Nowhere does this law say that the ID has to be checked via notirised copies that are the main problem for all people 'moaning' in this thread. All banks and other financial institutions follow the same law, but FD is a unique institution insisting on notarisation. Besides numerous bank accounts I have dozens, if not hundreds, account with bookies and all were happy with electronic copies so far if they needed them.

If FD messed up in the past, they have to be more considerate now and offer realistic alternatives to notarised copies. What's wrong with certification by PO or a solicitor - if it's really needed?

masonic

grumbler wrote: »

Red herring.
Nowhere does this law say that the ID has to be checked via notirised copies that are the main problem for all people 'moaning' in this thread. All banks and other financial institutions follow the same law, but FD is a unique institution insisting on notarisation. Besides numerous bank accounts I have dozens, if not hundreds, account with bookies and all were happy with electronic copies so far if they needed them.

If FD messed up in the past, they have to be more considerate now and offer realistic alternatives to notarised copies. What's wrong with certification by PO or a solicitor - if it's really needed?

It's not really a red herring. You've just misinterpreted that sentence. I am only stating that the "what" of "what information it is willing to accept" is being asked for "in order to comply with the law", not that it is the only means of doing so. Indeed, as I have stated in the next paragraph, HSBC will accept originals brought into branch, so there are clearly alternatives which FD is free to offer, or not, but that is a decision for them. I agree with you that notarised copies are OTT and I would definitely not comply with such a request if asked.

Doc_N

masonic wrote: »

As has been pointed out several times now, they only messed up by leaving it until 2014/2015 to ask for this information from its customers, rather than several years earlier. It is totally unreasonable for anyone to expect to have had their ID and address verified when they opened their accounts in the 1990s when the anti-money laundering regulations only came into effect in around 2007. So yes, FD should have asked for this information around that time, rather than leaving it until now. Would that have made any difference to your feelings about providing the information?

If not, then your argument that FD messed up is irrelevant, because if they didn't mess up, this thread would still exist, just with an earlier start date. What you are really complaining about is AML regulations and FD's decision about what information it is willing to accept in order to comply with the law.

I am a FD customer, and as I have stated in earlier replies to this thread, I might be affected by this. If I am, I will decide to either comply with the request, or take my business elsewhere. For all accounts I have opened in the past few years (other than HSBC), I have been electronically verified with no need for further documents, and in the case of HSBC I had no problem bringing original documents into a branch for verification. So, it's really quite simple: the bank chooses the terms under which it is willing to do business and the customer chooses either to agree to those terms or take their business elsewhere. Both sides can, at any time and for any reason, choose not to continue that relationship.

The real basis of complaint was First Direct's demand for certified copies (by solicitors, doctors etc, most of whom would quite understandably charge a fee) instead of allowing customers to take the originals into a branch of HSBC for certification.

This can only have been to save time and effort by branch staff - and it's pretty shabby practice by First Direct to expect their customers to waste time and money like this.

masonic

Doc_N wrote: »

The real basis of complaint was First Direct's demand for certified copies (by solicitors, doctors etc, most of whom would quite understandably charge a fee) instead of allowing customers to take the originals into a branch of HSBC for certification.

This can only have been to save time and effort by branch staff - and it's pretty shabby practice by First Direct to expect their customers to waste time and money like this.

HSBC and First Direct are separate legal entities. FD does not have its own branch network, so the situation is slightly different for FD than other banks - you cannot go to a branch and have your document copied by a FD employee like you could at HSBC. However, this all comes back to the fact that FD is free to choose the terms under which it is willing to do business and the customer chooses either to agree to those terms or take their business elsewhere. I really don't see the point in making such a fuss. There are plenty of banks to choose from.

xylophone

HSBC and First Direct are separate legal entities.

"First Direct is a division of HSBC Bank plc" from FD information "Give me the Facts".

Parent and child are also separate entities but I'd say the relationship is more than passing.....

FD customers are advised that

"You can pay cash or cheques in free of charge at HSBC branches"

and deaf customers that "there are hearing loops in HSBC branches to assist hearing aid users".

If verification is required, then it should be possible to have the originals verified at the local HSBC branch?

I have accounts with both HSBC and FD and would certainly expect to be able to do this.

I recently needed to surrender a policy with Scottish Widows and was specifically advised to take identification to Lloyds Bank - this I did and it was all dealt with at the enquiry counter with speed and efficiency.

Surely FD (so proud of its service levels) should want to put its customers to as little inconvenience as possible?