What happened to the FD ID request thread?

Archi_Bald

masonic wrote: »

Maybe I can't see the wood for the trees, but I can't see that post. However, I did read in the thread posted by grumbler that taking them into an HSBC branch was not an option a couple of years ago, but perhaps things have changed?

It was a post today, in the earlier thread that has vanished, from meer53.

ChiefGrasscutter

I was wondering if the original poster on the deleted thread now lives abroad.
That might account for both FD's sudden ID request and the clear reluctance and outrage by the OP at having to do anything about it (ie return to the UK to get the ID certified).

Anyway it looks like whatever was the reason for the original thread being deleted, it was all pretty pointless as we have continued discussing it on this one...

meer53

The first letters offered the HSBC option, looks like they've changed the letter now. If you want to take your stuff to HSBC i'd call and ask.

GingerBob_3

saintalan wrote: »

Yep it works fine, thank you for providing it.

Well as I said earlier we havent seen the words of the guys letter but would pretty much guess it was as above.

Which all sounds pretty reasonable, at most a tad annoying for the faffing about but I would imagine all institutions are trying to capture all missing data.

Cheers

Alan

I think you meant to say unreasonable?


It's completely over the top and unnecessary for long-standing active account holders. Why, if they insist on this stupidity, can't you just take something into an HSBC branch?

saintalan

GingerBob wrote: »

I think you meant to say unreasonable?


It's completely over the top and unnecessary for long-standing active account holders. Why, if they insist on this stupidity, can't you just take something into an HSBC branch?

I didn't actually just my view. I might raise it here but if I wanted the account I would just get on with it.

Cheers

Alan

Herbalus

I can't think of a more reasonable letter for a very awkward situation that's sure to irritate people. Sure, people won't like having to get documents certified, but as for how they've put the request across, it's a very nice letter compared to what they could've said.

xylophone

I hold accounts with both HSBC and FD and if FD send me such a letter, I shall certainly expect the same efficiency/joined up thinking as shown by Scottish Widows/Lloyds Bank.......

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68716540#Comment_68716540

Post 4.

GingerBob_3

Herbalus wrote: »

I can't think of a more reasonable letter for a very awkward situation that's sure to irritate people. Sure, people won't like having to get documents certified, but as for how they've put the request across, it's a very nice letter compared to what they could've said.

The letter is patronising in the extreme.

ColinB

I too have had one of these letters, or at least my wife has. We've had joint accounts (2 x Current Accounts, 1 x Savings, 1 x mortgage) with FD for nearly 15 years (living in the same house and on the electoral roll all that time), and now they've decided that they can't verify one of our identities. Apparently they've been able to verify me "from other sources" (whatever that means) but they need something for my wife. There are 3 ways you can do the verification (1) certified copies of docs (2) videolink (3) in person at a HSBC branch (this isn't mentioned in the letter, but I was told on the phone we could do this). The threat if we decide not to play is "restrictions on banking services", which means a cap on debit card use, unable to use internet banking, and similar. The only reason I've been given for this is that there's been a change in the rules, which they have decided to apply retrospectively.

The thing that hurts here is the breakdown of trust in the banking relationship. I can quite understand that a new customer, unknown to the provider, has to jump through lots of hoops that didn't use to exist. But FD have been intimate with our financial details for a long time, and should be capable of working out from our records that we're running our lives in a legal and respectable way. Apparently that history counts for nothing. I object to the implication that they can suddenly no longer trust us unless we wave a couple of pieces of paper in front of a webcam.

We'll probably knuckle under and do it, but frankly FD have just blotted their copy-book in a really annoying way.

Archi_Bald

ColinB wrote: »

The thing that hurts here is the breakdown of trust in the banking relationship.

It isn't anything personal, it is simply that FD have reviewed their records and have found their files don't contain the proof of ID they should be having for your wife. Why would you claim a breakdown of trust if the bank adheres to the T&Cs you agreed to? And if they ensure they adhere to the terms of their UK banking licence?

ColinB wrote: »

The only reason I've been given for this is that there's been a change in the rules, which they have decided to apply retrospectively.

They are not applying anything retrospectively.

Read your terms and conditions, they clearly state that you need to provide personal information. And even if they did not state that, there is the option that T&Cs can be modified by the bank (which, in this case, they have not done) and accepted or rejected by you.

You can find the T&Cs here: http://www1.firstdirect.com/content_static/pdf/account_terms_1114.pdf
Relevant clauses are 35.3.1 and 35.3.2.