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

masonic

xylophone wrote: »

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?

The first question can only really be answered by FD's legal team. If the answer is yes, then that is an option that FD really ought to offer. I can only go by my own conversations with the HSBC complaints team. HSBC made a complete mess of opening an Advance account for me as a new customer and somehow the application was progressed as if I was an existing customer. I proffered the possible explanation that I was an existing FD customer and a long discussion ensued in which it was explained that FD and HSBC are completely separate legal entities and while a limited number of services are available to FD customers via HSBC branches, and FD piggybacks on the back-end banking services, legal and compliance matters are totally different.

You could make the analogy with M&S bank. Would HSBC or FD accept original documents brought to an M&S bank branch? I don't know, but I wouldn't assume the answer is yes.

At the end of the day, anyone who receives a request for information, and cannot or will not comply with the request, should contact the bank to see if an alternative option is available. Most letters making such a request state that quite clearly. If original documents taken into an HSBC branch and verified by an HSBC employee are satisfactory for FD, then I'm sure they would extend that option to those struggling to comply with the preferred options stated in the letter. What possible reason would they have not to do so?

EarthBoy

masonic wrote: »

HSBC and First Direct are separate legal entities.

No they're not. They are separate operating identities, i.e. First Direct is operated separately from HSBC, but legally they are the same bank. First Direct is just a division/trading name of HSBC.

masonic

EarthBoy wrote: »

No they're not. They are separate operating identities, i.e. First Direct is operated separately from HSBC, but legally they are the same bank. First Direct is just a division/trading name of HSBC.

My statement is quoted verbatim from the HSBC employee who reviewed the formal complaint I made as described above. The First Direct "division/trading name", as you call it, has legal capacity to enter into agreements with customers completely independently of the HSBC division of the group. First Direct customers who have not previously held an account with HSBC, will be treated as completely new customers and be subject to full AML checks regardless of their dealings with the FD division.

Doc_N

I think the bit in bold (taken from the FD website) might help resolve this. Legally, the position looks clear, but it seems that they decide how to play this depending on circumstances. If it suits them, they're separate, but if it suits them to be combined, then they're combined.

Trying to open an HSBC account recently has proved a nightmare - had to take evidence of income, along with other details, to a branch. 25 years of banking with First Direct counted for nothing - their line on this occasion was that HSBC can't access First Direct details. I have no reason to disbelieve that.

We're covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The FSCS can pay compensation to depositors if a bank is unable to meet its financial obligations. Most depositors are covered by the scheme.

In respect of deposits, an eligible depositor is entitled to claim up to the current FSCS limit for deposits. For joint accounts each account holder is treated as having a claim in respect of their share so, for a joint account held by two eligible depositors, each depositor would have a claim up to the FSCS deposit limit and so the maximum amount that could be claimed would be twice the current FSCS deposit limit. The FSCS deposit limit relates to the combined amount in all the eligible depositor's accounts with the bank, including their share of any joint account, and not to each separate account. first direct and HSBC are both trading names of HSBC Bank plc and customers who hold deposits with both trading names of HSBC Bank plc will only be eligible to one claim, up to the FSCS deposit limit.

MoneySavingNovice

masonic wrote: »

My statement is quoted verbatim from the HSBC employee who reviewed the formal complaint I made as described above. The First Direct "division/trading name", as you call it, has legal capacity to enter into agreements with customers completely independently of the HSBC division of the group. First Direct customers who have not previously held an account with HSBC, will be treated as completely new customers and be subject to full AML checks regardless of their dealings with the FD division.

How First Direct and HSBC operate is down to internal operating practices within HSBC Bank plc.

I’ve just checked, there is no First Direct with a banking licence (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/reporters/institutions/default.aspx).

First Direct is (as has been said by other posters above) is part of HSBC Bank Plc and as such in the eyes of the law First Direct and HSBC and First Direct are not separate legal entities, both being HSBC Bank plc (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumerinformation/uk_groups). There is a First Direct Limited, however its dormant (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails).

There is a similar situation for other banks as well. Halifax, Birmingham Midshires, Capital Bank, Intelligent Finance, St James's Place Bank are all trading names of the Bank of Scotland plc. Again in the eyes of the law these are all one bank - Bank of Scotland plc which has only one banking licence.

See this link for more information on which legal entity owns which brand
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings#whatcounts.

Hope this is of some help.

masonic

MoneySavingNovice wrote: »

I’ve just checked, there is no First Direct with a banking licence (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/reporters/institutions/default.aspx).

First Direct is (as has been said by other posters above) is part of HSBC Bank Plc and as such in the eyes of the law First Direct and HSBC and First Direct are not separate legal entities, both being HSBC Bank plc (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumerinformation/uk_groups). There is a First Direct Limited, however its dormant (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails).

I am not stating that First Direct is a separate company. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of 'legal entity' is that it is a group which the law allows to act as if it were an individual unit for certain purposes, for example, in order to enter into a contract. Looking at my T&Cs for my FD account, in the definitions, I see...

In the Terms:
“HSBC Group” means HSBC Holdings plc, its subsidiaries, associated and affiliated companies;
“we”, “us” and “our” mean first direct, a division of HSBC Bank plc;
“you” and “your” mean the account-holder or if the account is in joint names, all account-holders;

It seems to me my contract is with the entity defined as "we", "us" and "our", namely First Direct itself and not the parent company within which it operates.

I suspect there is an element of splitting hairs going on in this discussion. In practice, what happens within the FD division appears to be opaque to the HSBC division, and one must assume the same is true in the other direction.

Archi_Bald

masonic wrote: »

I suspect there is an element of splitting hairs going on in this discussion. In practice, what happens within the FD division appears to be opaque to the HSBC division, and one must assume the same is true in the other direction.

I would agree with that view. As an example, in one of their current offers, HSBC are very specifically treating FD current account holders as not being an existing HSBC current account holder. Also, from my own experience, HSBC have no access to information about which accounts I hold with FD.

c) you are not (and have not within the previous 6 months been) an existing HSBC current account holder when you apply for your HSBC Advance Bank Account (you may however have held or hold a First Direct and/or M&S Bank current account and still qualify).

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-content/content/pws/content/personal/pdfs/GBP120_HSBC_Advance_Bank_Account_Switching_Offer_Terms.pdf

10pence

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I would agree with that view. As an example, in one of their current offers, HSBC are very specifically treating FD current account holders as not being an existing HSBC current account holder. Also, from my own experience, HSBC have no access to information about which accounts I hold with FD.

HSBC can view certain details on FD customers accounts but are told not to view them and/or use the information held, ie if an HSBC customer is required to supply ID for FD, then FD cannot access the HSBC account for that info.

That's a very basic overview, as with most things there are exceptions.

MoneySavingNovice

masonic wrote: »

.....It seems to me my contract is with the entity defined as "we", "us" and "our", namely First Direct itself and not the parent company within which it operates......

I would have to disagree with you on that one.

If there was a legal dispute with First Direct, as First Direct is not a limited company and it does not have a banking licence I think that they (i.e. First Direct/HSBC Bank plc) would have an almost impossible task in persuading a court that the legal entity is anything other than HSBC Bank plc.

While I fully agree that HSBC Bank plc are fully entitled to operate First Direct and HSBC as two divisions, this does not mean that in the eyes of the law they are in anyway separate.

.....I suspect there is an element of splitting hairs going on in this discussion. In practice, what happens within the FD division appears to be opaque to the HSBC division, and one must assume the same is true in the other direction.

I have to agree with you on both your points here. In practice this debate is only important when there is a legal or regulatory issue and for issues surrounding the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (i.e. Protection on money invested in both HSBC and First Direct combined is limited to £85k - soon £75k)

meer53

grumbler wrote: »

Not really as they want notarised copies.
Are you sure? IIRC they used to offer this option earlier and in some letters only, not all. It looked that they pulled it.

You can post certified copies ? The video call option is still available, a family member used it yesterday.