Need advice , llyods have closed my account

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

...If it's suspected fraud including money laundering you will get to know about it because there will be an investigation into it.

"Will get to know" - how?

In practice as soon as "money laundering" is suspected, customers are kept in the dark and will get to know nothing - unless law enforcement agencies get involved (typically they don't).

GingerBob_3

grumbler wrote: »

"Will get to know" - how?

In practice as soon as "money laundering" is suspected, customers are kept in the dark and will get to know nothing - unless law enforcement agencies get involved (typically they don't).

Which speaks volumes for the process!

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

"Will get to know" - how?

In practice as soon as "money laundering" is suspected, customers are kept in the dark and will get to know nothing - unless law enforcement agencies get involved (typically they don't).

I think they send smoke signals. Think about it. Where is your evidence to support what you say?

Fraud including money laundering investigations usually come under the province of Privacy. In order to commence an investigation the bank should first of all ask the customer to confirm or reconfirm identity and in so doing should provide a reason for doing that.
https://www.lloydsbank.com/privacy.asp#collapse17-1424165610473

On the other hand if a bank undertakes an investigation that investigation can only be internal or otherwise involve a body allowed by law to do it such as the Police. Otherwise as soon as a customers name is used externally it becomes a Privacy issue and could involve legal action by the customer which is why such an event should be included in a privacy policy - c.f. above link.

Or to put it into a few simple words you can understand, if they do that to me I'm going to sue the b'tards

Anthorn

Doctor_Duke wrote: »

As you say there are lots of advice on here about similar situations. It may be that you have breached their terms and conditions for the account. Have you contacted them? Suggest you need to establish whether they have placed a CIFAS marker on your credit file. This will have an impact potentially for other lenders. Must posts on here have suggested you can't get anywhere without complaining but do try and establish the position asap. Also do you have any other banking facilities part of the LBG that is Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Lloyds? These potentially could be affected. This seems to be a recent trend by Lloyds.

Sorry, need clarification here. In this case which possibly involves fraud or money laundering why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?
https://www.cifas.org.uk/

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

I think they send smoke signals. Think about it. Where is your evidence to support what you say?

This board is full of such evidence. Just search for 'blocked' or 'suspended'. Yes, the reason of blocking being kept a top secret is a sort of 'smoke signal', typically the only one.

Fraud including money laundering investigations usually come under the province of Privacy. In order to commence an investigation the bank should first of all ask the customer to confirm or reconfirm identity and in so doing should provide a reason for doing that.
https://www.lloydsbank.com/privacy.asp#collapse17-1424165610473

And for this there is no evidence whatsoever. What it says is: "there are times when we need to confirm (or reconfirm) the name and address of our customers" that isn't the same as your "should". They do want to get proofs sometimes, but usually it's just routine KYC procedure, unrelated to any suspicions or investigations.

On the other hand if a bank undertakes an investigation that investigation can only be internal or otherwise involve a body allowed by law to do it such as the Police. Otherwise as soon as a customers name is used externally it becomes a Privacy issue and could involve legal action by the customer.

I am pretty sure AML regulation overcome any privacy issues. The fact that they give banks carte blanche to block customers access to their money, thus leaving them without means of subsistence for indefinite time, speaks for itself.

Or to put it into a few simple words you can understand, if they do that to me I'm going to sue the b'tards

To sue them you need some facts in the first place, but normally the only fact a customer has is a blocked/suspended/disabled account. And yes, as typically banks can't prove their suspicions, they don't get any law enforcement agencies involved and prefer simply to close the account without giving the customer any reason.

Anthorn wrote: »

Sorry, need clarification here. In this case which possibly involves fraud or money laundering why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?
https://www.cifas.org.uk/

I am possibly missing something, but I don't see 'identity fraud' mentioned in the part you quoted.

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

This board is full of such evidence. Just search for 'blocked' or 'suspended'. Yes, the reason of blocking being kept a top secret is a sort of 'smoke signal', typically the only one.And for this there is no evidence whatsoever. What it says is: "there are times when we need to confirm (or reconfirm) the name and address of our customers" that isn't the same as your "should".
I am pretty sure AML regulation overcome any privacy issues.
To sue them you need some facts in the first place, but normally the only fact a customer has is a blocked/suspended/disabled account.

So you yet again fill your post with pedantic claims which are completely unqualified and unsubstantiated while at the same time attacking the link to Lloyds Bank privacy policy I posted in which you quote only a few lines from the whole quite substantial document of which not even a single word supports what you say.

I don't believe I need to comment further except to say put up or shut up!

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

I am possibly missing something, but I don't see 'identity fraud' mentioned in the part you quoted.

This is confusing. You edit your post and quote a completely different post in which I asked for clarification but you didn't clarify. In addition I didn't even quote anything at all in that post. I believe that you are indeed missing something.

grumbler

OK, quote the relevant part yourself that confirms your statement that "If it's suspected fraud including money laundering you will get to know"
And, if you are that lazy to search yourself, I can do it for you:

pastysupper wrote: »

....despite many calls to numerous departments nobody will provide her with any information whatsoever.

dranzer01 wrote: »

...today my bank has put a block on my card/account
...
I said how long will the block be on my account - They said they do not know... When this issue has been resolved... -_-
...
haven't even given me a timeframe of when it will be sorted... so im supposed to just sit back, and twiddle my thumbs with no money? my weekend plans I had, what about those...? They havent even said anything about other ways I can help/support myself in the meantime - just a straight block

clutters wrote: »

...
Called Barclays straight away and they couldnt tell me what had happened.

Today 7th Oct they have still not sorted this issue, still dont know what has happened and from how they have gone about this they dont care about this issue and the fall out it is causing me.
...
The latest story I have is its "operational issues at HQ", which i think is another fob off story.

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

OK, quote the relevant part yourself that confirms your statement that "If it's suspected fraud including money laundering you will get to know"
And, if you are that lazy to search yourself, I can do it for you:

You still do not provide any proof at all that what you say is true. Just because someone else says the same thing similarly without proof doesn't make it true.

Ok here's something: The moon is made of mouldy green cheese. By your own standards that must be true.

My position was and still is that an investigation relating to fraud and money laundering is a privacy issue and my link to Lloyds own privacy policy proves that. Or do you not see that in their privacy policy? For the rest of my position you only need to reread my posts.

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

This is confusing. You edit your post and quote a completely different post in which I asked for clarification but you didn't clarify. In addition I didn't even quote anything at all in that post. I believe that you are indeed missing something.

I don't see anything confusing.

• You did quote another post and said: "need clarification here".
• My understanding was that "here" referred to what you quoted.
• Then you asked: "why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?".
• However, in what you quoted there was no anything about "identity fraud".

But again, I still possibly am missing something...