What happened to the FD ID request thread?

Herbalus

GingerBob wrote: »

Can you point me in the direction of the legislation that says they must do this retrospectively - i.e. for accounts opened before the ludicrous money laundering requirements were imposed by the government.

The HMRC guidance from https://www.gov.uk/money-laundering-regulations-your-responsibilities includes that, including quotes such as:

"You must apply customer due diligence measures...when it’s necessary for existing customers - for example if their circumstances change"

or

"You need to keep up-to-date information on your customers".

It isn't so much of a retrospective issue. If they don't have the relevant ID now, then they are required to get it, regardless of whether it was ok without it before.

ColinB

Interesting link posted by Herbalus, the only reference to existing customers is "if their circumstances change", so I'm even more puzzled about why FD decided to send my wife a letter demanding supplementary ID verification. Her circumstances have not changed significantly for >15 years. Of course, the catch-all in the regs is if the bank suspects nefarious activity, and I'd be really interested in why they might think that, it's actually quite insulting if that's the reason. Nor can I see anything suggesting that banks now have to obtain copies of documents that they didn't have to keep when they saw them originally: the requirement seems to be that if they have copies they have to keep them, not that they have to act retroactively to obtain them (unless, as above, circumstances have changed or they have suspicions).

To the poster who draws the analogy between a bank asking for ID and going through airport security, the difference is that with FD we have a long history of them seeing absolutely everything that goes through two current accounts, several savings accounts, and a mortgage. So we are not walk-ins with no prior contact, as we would be at an airport.

The only real result of this is that FD's hard-won reputation for good customer service takes a knock because of what - to me - is unnecessarily clumsy action. Only reason we're with them is because of an offset mortgage capped at 1% above base rate, but we'll be paying that off soon and there are other banks paying better interest on their current accounts.

colsten

ColinB wrote: »

To the poster who draws the analogy between a bank asking for ID and going through airport security, the difference is that with FD we have a long history of them seeing absolutely everything that goes through two current accounts, several savings accounts, and a mortgage. So we are not walk-ins with no prior contact, as we would be at an airport.

The airport analogy is completely relevant. If you fly from the same airport every day, you will have to go through security every day. You'll even have to take your shoes off and open any bag at random intervals. Airport operators would love not to have to do this as it costs a fortune but because of a few terrorists, they have to it.

Similar with banks. Just because you, your wife, I and the vast majority of account holders would never commit any fraud doesn't mean there are no fraudsters about, and these fraudsters might attempt, and even succeed, to use our accounts for their criminal activities.

The letter somebody posted shows that FD have made a polite and reasonable request, with no implications whatsoever that your wife has done or is suspected of having done anything untoward. So I think you should untwist your knickers - they got nothing against you or your wife personally, they are just updating their records.

You are, of course, perfectly correct that there are banks who have current accounts with better interest rates than FD. As someone who has current accounts with just about all of the banks, I have never understood the almost cult-like following that FD have in some circles because in my experience, the customer service in all banks is much of a muchness. I would definitely recommend you move if you feel unhappy - - but don't expect other banks would be any less stringent about ID. Also, FD have a marvellous Regular Savings account that has paid the top rate for many years now, so it might be worth not burning your bridges entirely.

GingerBob_3

colsten wrote: »

The airport analogy is completely relevant. If you fly from the same airport every day, you will have to go through security every day. You'll even have to take your shoes off and open any bag at random intervals. Airport operators would love not to have to do this as it costs a fortune but because of a few terrorists, they have to it.

Similar with banks. Just because you, your wife, I and the vast majority of account holders would never commit any fraud doesn't mean there are no fraudsters about, and these fraudsters might attempt, and even succeed, to use our accounts for their criminal activities.

The letter somebody posted shows that FD have made a polite and reasonable request, with no implications whatsoever that your wife has done or is suspected of having done anything untoward. So I think you should untwist your knickers - they got nothing against you or your wife personally, they are just updating their records.

You are, of course, perfectly correct that there are banks who have current accounts with better interest rates than FD. As someone who has current accounts with just about all of the banks, I have never understood the almost cult-like following that FD have in some circles because in my experience, the customer service in all banks is much of a muchness. I would definitely recommend you move if you feel unhappy - - but don't expect other banks would be any less stringent about ID. Also, FD have a marvellous Regular Savings account that has paid the top rate for many years now, so it might be worth not burning your bridges entirely.

It's a patronising imbecilic request, placing an unnecessary burden on the account holder.

colsten

GingerBob wrote: »

It's a patronising imbecilic request, placing an unnecessary burden on the account holder.

Suppose you know all about patronising imbecilic writing and requests.

GingerBob_3

colsten wrote: »

Suppose you know all about patronising imbecilic writing and requests.

Yes, I've seen tons of it. That letter is a particularly good example.


BTW, comment on the content, not on the contributor.

mgdavid

the content is irrelevant; either comply or go elsewhere. No need to make a big fuss about it, people change banks all the time.

meer53

ColinB wrote: »

Interesting link posted by Herbalus, the only reference to existing customers is "if their circumstances change", so I'm even more puzzled about why FD decided to send my wife a letter demanding supplementary ID verification. Her circumstances have not changed significantly for >15 years. Of course, the catch-all in the regs is if the bank suspects nefarious activity, and I'd be really interested in why they might think that, it's actually quite insulting if that's the reason. Nor can I see anything suggesting that banks now have to obtain copies of documents that they didn't have to keep when they saw them originally: the requirement seems to be that if they have copies they have to keep them, not that they have to act retroactively to obtain them (unless, as above, circumstances have changed or they have suspicions).

To the poster who draws the analogy between a bank asking for ID and going through airport security, the difference is that with FD we have a long history of them seeing absolutely everything that goes through two current accounts, several savings accounts, and a mortgage. So we are not walk-ins with no prior contact, as we would be at an airport.

The only real result of this is that FD's hard-won reputation for good customer service takes a knock because of what - to me - is unnecessarily clumsy action. Only reason we're with them is because of an offset mortgage capped at 1% above base rate, but we'll be paying that off soon and there are other banks paying better interest on their current accounts.

Trouble is, some documents were never seen originally, hence the request for them now. It's simple, send the documents, or move banks, your decision.

GingerBob_3

mgdavid wrote: »

the content is irrelevant; either comply or go elsewhere. No need to make a big fuss about it, people change banks all the time.

I'm talking about the content of posts, not the letter.

Herbalus

GingerBob wrote: »

It's a patronising imbecilic request, placing an unnecessary burden on the account holder.

As for "unnecessary", the banks have to have ID for all account holders, which means asking for it if they don't have it/lost it/never saw it.

As for "patronising imbecillic", perhaps you could draft a letter that in your eyes is reasonable and suitable for the purpose of this request? I certainly couldn't.