KENT RELIANCE - not reliable enough

eskbanker

adindas wrote: »

No one is saying this rule have to be followed by the private sector. I am just pointing out the UK government which deal with ultimate security could accept a range of professionals to certify the documents on its list.

I'm saying that (a) it isn't a rule and (b) even if it was, the government doesn't follow it itself anyway, regardless of what it could do in some unspecified hypothetical circumstances!

colsten

adindas wrote: »

People have registered in Electoral role, have already few bank accounts with other banks, so thus many of their records are already in CRA but still be asked a draconian proof of address, ID. The copy could only be certified by a handful of professionals e.g doctors, lawyers, accountnats, bank officials, post office officials.

This might apply to a small number of people but there is no evidence I am aware of that this is a regular occurrence. Do you have evidence that it happens to many people?

Even if anyone needs to provide ID certified by a recognised official, it's not an issue for those who have nothing to hide. What's your issue with having your ID verified by a certified professional?

PS: It's Electoral Roll, not role.

bowlhead99

colsten wrote: »

Even if anyone needs to provide ID certified by a recognised official, it's not an issue for those who have nothing to hide. What's your issue with having your ID verified by a certified professional?

Presumably that it's a hassle (it can be a pain to go and find one of these professionals during working hours when you have a day job) and if you don't know the professional they might charge you for it (£8 a pop was mentioned above).

Still, in most cases the bank or financial service provider is giving you the account for free and not charging you to set it up, so the idea that you do some of the legwork or bear some of the direct costs of this part of the process isn't outrageous.

You can sometimes skip the cost or effort by (for example) just giving them your original utility bill instead of a copy. And as you're unlikely to be important enough for the bank to change the policy for you, you can simply vote with your feet and not go ahead if you can't be bothered with it - the "I chucked it up and binned it" strategy.

adindas wrote: »

People have registered in Electoral role, have already few bank accounts with other banks, so thus many of their records are already in CRA but still be asked a draconian proof of address, ID..

The electoral roll and a credit report is simply a database that shows that an Adindas Smith lives or has lived at 100, High Street.

If a person wanting a new account with the bank is in possession of a certified copy of Adindas Smith's passport and a recent utility bill showing that gas or electricity services are being delivered to Adindas Smith at 100 High Street, it perhaps gives the bank more comfort that the person wanting the account is actually the Adindas Smith from 100 High Street and (s)he's currently living there.

At the end of the day, banks need to have customer ID policies which help to reduce financial crime risk by identifying their customers, but the regulator does not tell them exactly how they should do it, because they are free to come up with their own risk-based approach. In doing so, they might may prefer to go down the 'draconian' route to do that, even if other methods have developed over time which some banks prefer to try first for low risk business.

If the 'draconian' route results in them getting 95% of the customer volume of another route, but with what they perceive to be a marginally better risk profile, or without the cost of implementing automated checks, they may prefer that outcome. They can afford for the 5% of other potential good customers, and the casual terrorists and criminals who don't want to prove who they are, to go off in a huff to the next bank instead.

AbbieCadabra

colsten wrote: »

Reality check time.

The vast majority of people pass the identity checks based on their data on the electoral roll and their credit history.

Those few that have to supply additional proof of ID might have to go through additional checks, and they will no doubt individually know why they have to go through those checks.

over the past few years i've opened various accounts with a few banks & building societies & not once has further id/verification been required. i've just applied for a nationwide account & been told 'application successful', however, i have to go to a branch with photo id before it's opened.

bowlhead99

Maybe I'll have one more go at commenting before giving up the lost cause

adindas wrote: »

I do not have to provide this link as people could also search it by themselves.
Not a small number of people if it is particularly referring to AA credit card and BOI. This is just the tips of the iceberg

Blah...
Blah...
Blah...

You never see the monumental complaint like this in a very short duration of time with other banks in this forum.

Well, you are making it sound like a monumental complaint yes. In the last link, Chris2015 had hassle with his application and Superscrooge said his was fine and had gone very smoothly. Some time later, gingerbob, biscuitmuncher and nelly said it was a hassle and chris1998 and Kendall said they were up and running quite quickly. Kendall noted that the vast majority of people who don't have anything negative to say, don't post. So finding a 50/50 split between people for and against it, doesn't really sound like a monumental level of complaints in a short space of time.

In one of your other links you basically had a couple of dissatisfied customers, plus you going round trying to find as many "problems" with BOI services as you could from all different threads and crossposting them, and some other more level-headed members suggesting you take it to the rants board. A representative came on and offered to discuss the specifics of any complaints via email but you didn't want to do that because they were only anecdotes anyway and you only wanted a public argument about them, and didn't want their services anyway.

I don't think that this adds up to a "monumental" level of complaints but of course if a bank introduces a market-leading product in terms of value for money with some strict qualification/application criteria, and it gets promoted by MSE who claim ten million people read the weekly tips email, you might expect it to cause some effervescent forum posts if a few people are aggrieved, even though others are very happy.

Nothing to do with hiding. The above link give you a clue.
I know a person personally, who has multiple current accounts and credit cards with other UK banks. Almost never fail electronic verification, but he was still asked to produce draconian paper work.

But others who sometimes do need to provide ID have said they were waved through on the electronic check with BOI, post office or AA cards, so it's clearly not universal.

So the fact you "know a person personally" (maybe even yourself) who had a problem is not exactly indicative of a major global epidemic of problems.

Anyway, presumably you only wanted to use the AA card for a free balance transfer and cut it up to chuck in the bin once it stops being free or market leading, so they or Kent Reliance have not really lost out on any genuine business by making the application process more rigorous. If they are not going to be able to make money out of you as a customer, no problem making you jump through a few hoops to see if you actually want a long term mutually beneficial relationship.

Clearly you don't want any kind of long term relationship that it's worth putting some effort in to get accepted, so you got on your high horse and chucked it in the bin, and went with a rival which ended up being quicker (selection bias).

Unlike other banks and UK government, AA credit card, Post office, BOI will only accept a handful of professionals e.g. Bank officials, Lawyers, Accountants, doctors.

You should probably stop banging on about how the UK government will let any old Tom, Rick or Harry certify documents as true copies for their purposes. As explained to you, the govt does not accept certified copies for driving licence or passports, and only deals in originals of your relevant UK ID.

All you have found on your link is a dot gov page explaining in simple terms what it means to have a document certified by "...having it signed and dated by a professional person, like a solicitor", and then a list of examples of people who might be able to do it with a note that you must check with the organisation that wants the certification because they might have specific rules. Many do.

It is about the cost. The cost per page is £8 at least per page if you want to do it in the post office. With the Lawyers, Chartered Accountants, They will ask you at least £15 per page. Ask your GP to do that they will tell you they never do that.

If the organization accepts post office officials as certification agents, the document checking service is £8.75 for "up to a maximum of three documents". You get up to 3 photocopies for the £8.75 so that would easily do a passport and utility bill ; it is factually incorrect to say it is £8 a page. If you needed 5 pages they would charge you two fees but that is still under £18 rather than the £40 you imply.

Other people have their own fee rates. It could cost money because people don't do things for free. If Kent or AA want to properly "document" their customers before giving them market-leading rates for saving or borrowing, that's up to them. The terms and conditions warn they might do this, when you apply. If you don't like it because you think it could be a hassle or more expensive than the value of the product, don't apply.

At least, don't apply, then receive a calm explanatory phone call, and react by angrily ripping up documentation and starting an internet crusade about how you chucked it up and in the bin.

Androcles

We are long term savers with Kent Reliance . We each had an identical 2 year ISA maturing on Consecutive days. They were originally taken out at the same time. They sent out two letters asking if we wanted to roll over the accounts to an identical pair of ISAs. Between the time it printed the letter to myOH and the one to me, they reduced the interest rate, so our letters arrived in the same post with the same product but hers has a higher rate of interest than mine. Pointed this out and was told to get lost. Some customer service! Admittedly the rates of interest are pathetic (interesting if you read the compensation report for the Directors - no skinflint packages there)' but it seems to me pretty poor to do that to a pair of customers.