open bank with CIFAS marker

colsten

In our day and age, people cannot lead a functional life without a bank account. Denying them access to the basic options of receiving their income and being able to pay their bills electronically just serves to force people into crime. This is in nobody's interest and would be totally counter-productive.

Of course, abuse of the banking facilities must not be tolerated and must be punished. We have existing laws that deal with fraud and other criminal offences. It must not be down to a bank to impose their own "laws", and just as other firms, banks have a social responsibility.

I still think you haven't read my entire post, though.

giblet10

There are some banks in the UK who do not use CIFAS, but they tend to be for higher net worth clients such as Harrods Bank. Or try Bank of Barroda, India's national bank - they have a branch in London (City Road)..they don't use CIFAS and offer full banking facilities.

Or, your best hope is a sympathetic bank such as Metro who in my experience did open me an account when all the others just laughed me away.

But, to offer my thoughts on the unbanked, as others have said, criminality cannot be condoned BUT not being able to get a bank account is crippling in this day and age.

James_B.

colsten wrote: »

In our day and age, people cannot lead a functional life without a bank account. Denying them access to the basic options of receiving their income and being able to pay their bills electronically just serves to force people into crime.

I don't agree, and it's slightly ridiculous to suggest that banks are implying their own "laws" by declining to deal with people.

Having a bank account is a privilege, not a right. If someone commits a crime against a bank, they lose that privilege. If they then choose to commit other crimes (which let's face it, they were likely to do anyway), then we'll just have to rely on the criminal justice system to deal with them.

Let me ask you this, if you had a babysitter, and they were convicted of assaulting the children next door, would you feel it fine if you were forced to keep employing them to look after your children?

You'll possibly claim that this analogy is ridiculous, but it really isn't. A bank should no more be forced to deal with a fraudster than you should be forced to leave your family with a criminal. After all, he may need that babysitting money to eat. If you don't leave him to tuck your little ones up in bed, he may turn to crime...

James_B.

giblet10 wrote: »

But, to offer my thoughts on the unbanked, as others have said, criminality cannot be condoned BUT not being able to get a bank account is crippling in this day and age.

Indeed it is. This is why it's not a great idea to commit fraud against banks.

I am surprised that people think that the right response is to force the banks to deal with fraudsters, but I probably should not be. This forum seems somewhat dominated by people who don't want adults to bear the results of their actions. It's a coherent view, I suppose, but not what I'd call a moral one, and not one that I think will lead to better outcomes for the rest of us.

giblet10

James_B. wrote: »

Indeed it is. This is why it's not a great idea to commit fraud against banks.

I am surprised that people think that the right response is to force the banks to deal with fraudsters, but I probably should not be. This forum seems somewhat dominated by people who don't want adults to bear the results of their actions. It's a coherent view, I suppose, but not what I'd call a moral one, and not one that I think will lead to better outcomes for the rest of us.

Totally. I have no time for fraudsters and look at it that those in prison don't need bank accounts - a criminal is a criminal.

My wider concern is CIFAS - one click of a button by a low grade bank clerk can financially exclude someone from the banking system for at least twelve months. With CIFAS there is no obvious route of appeal either - they just refer you back to the bank concerned.

We have seen cases recently where innocent individuals get caught up by banking mistakes and without warning they are removed entirely from having a bank account, anywhere. It then takes a lot of effort by the innocent person to clear their good name and in one case it was only resolved when said bank clerk owned up to her mistake.

It cannot be right that one organisation, without an appeals process, can pedal incorrect information that can ruin someone's ability to bank his or her salary.

James_B.

giblet10 wrote: »

It cannot be right that one organisation, without an appeals process, can pedal incorrect information that can ruin someone's ability to bank his or her salary.

I'd agree, so it does need to be accurate, open to appeal, and swiftly corrected. I'm certainly not against the principal, though.

Also, although I believe in redemption, I don't agree in forcing private enterprise to provide it. Maybe the state itself needs to step in and offer basic bank account, at a cost to the user which is more than enough to offset the running of it.

Armorica

Your best bet is to go back to the original bank and explain you were naive, if not entirely innocent, victim. (Unless you're not giving the full story and it was v. high value, or multiple cheques etc.)

Thrugelmir

giblet10 wrote: »

Totally. I have no time for fraudsters and look at it that those in prison don't need bank accounts - a criminal is a criminal.

My wider concern is CIFAS - one click of a button by a low grade bank clerk can financially exclude someone from the banking system for at least twelve months. With CIFAS there is no obvious route of appeal either - they just refer you back to the bank concerned.

We have seen cases recently where innocent individuals get caught up by banking mistakes and without warning they are removed entirely from having a bank account, anywhere. It then takes a lot of effort by the innocent person to clear their good name and in one case it was only resolved when said bank clerk owned up to her mistake.

It cannot be right that one organisation, without an appeals process, can pedal incorrect information that can ruin someone's ability to bank his or her salary.

Plenty of people are also out to deceive, defraud and generally have little respect for debts owing. So the whole matter needs to be kept in perspective. There are procedures for rectifying genuine errors.

Archi_Bald

johnny_squares wrote: »

Iv tried a few prepaid cards (orange cash, splash plastic...) but I need an account that doesn't use reference numbers to pay in, just account number and sort code.

Some on this list look as if they might do what you need: http://moneyfacts.co.uk/credit-cards/prepaid-credit-cards/

johnny_squares

..........