First Direct awful account opening experience

Fryy

Has anybody else struggled to actually open an account with First Direct? In particular with regards to their so-called "security procedure" where you need to provide proof of identity and address.

They gave me a letter with a list of professions of people who could sign a copy of my passport and other bank statement with my address on. The professions of "verifiable people" are totally arbitrary: accountant, lawyer, pharmacist... It doesn't matter if they don't actually know you, as long as they sign the documents for you. It's not clear to me why it's these professions, and these professions only, and why it provides any security at all if they don't actually know where I live, but fine.

I work with professors every day, so I call them and ask if I can get a professor to sign them for me. Over the phone the man says that's fine. So I waste a professor's time and they kindly sign it for me. (This actually takes awhile as they have to write a long statement on two documents and provide contact details and a signature.) A week later FD call me and say that isn't allowed as they're not verifiable (even though they have a website, an office, and a reputation in their field), so send the documents back. So I approach a random pharmacist I've never met before and ask them to do it for me. Again, wasting a lot of their time. They kindly do it for me. And a week later FD send the documents back AGAIN because the signature is on the BACK of the document, not on the same side my photo is on, and the signature for my address is on the letter of my bank (which has my address), but not on the page with actual bank transactions.

Just what? Why these pointless rules? What do they achieve? I just hate this robotic mentality. Why can't they use a bit of common sense? These arbitrary security rules don't add security at all. They're just inconvenient for customers.

Has anyone else had trouble with this? It just seems absurd. There's no point taking it personally and closing the account in anger, but I'm getting so tired of sending documents back and forth that I might find alternatives that are just as good.

TheShape

I was fortunate enough to not be required to provide any documentation. All identity checks were performed online/digitally.

notafan

Yes i banked with hsbc and when opening with fd they asked for a bank statement to confirm my address but advised they wouldn't accept one from hsbc. After a couple of weeks they finally agreed it was a stupid not accepting me when they had for hsbc and agreed to hsbc confirming internally. They put some money in the opened account as a sorry.

They screwed up the account bonus too and then took months to sort that.

I've no idea why everyone raves about them, they were pretty rubbish. The app is backwards, the security measures so complex (because the app is different to online etc and if you get it wrong you change them separately so you end up with different details) and online banking is poor - i thought it would be like hsbc but it isn't its a lot worse. It hasn't changed since i remember my parents signing up. The whole experience and their mentality is dated.

The only positive thing was the UK call centre and usually getting right through, but even then you wouldn't need to if online/app was better. They were also slow to resolve two really simple errors (we're talking months). They are very average and its not a step up from hsbc. I wouldn't recommend them and i ditched them.

bobobski

It's not arbitrary. The accepted professions are those that are regulated by the sounds of it, so in theory more likely that the signatory can be trusted to verify the authenticity of the document. To be honest I'm surprised they don't require it to be a solicitor. As for your signatory signing incorrectly, what's to say you didn't ask them to sign a blank piece of paper then print a fake passport picture on the back?

Look at the bright side: they're obviously interested in protecting the integrity of their procedures; even if it's mildly annoying for you right now, it may protect you in the future.

GingerBob_3

bobobski wrote: »

It's not arbitrary. The accepted professions are those that are regulated by the sounds of it, so in theory more likely that the signatory can be trusted to verify the authenticity of the document. To be honest I'm surprised they don't require it to be a solicitor. As for your signatory signing incorrectly, what's to say you didn't ask them to sign a blank piece of paper then print a fake passport picture on the back?

Look at the bright side: they're obviously interested in protecting the integrity of their procedures; even if it's mildly annoying for you right now, it may protect you in the future.

They are only interested in protecting themselves from further punitive action by various governments, following their money laundering activities. Their documentation requirements are completely over the top and a prime example of corporate buffoonery. OP, I'd be inclined to tell them where to go!

mt99

It's a bit of a two-edged sword. What none of us want is someone fraudulently opening an account in a false identity and then persuading some poor pensioner to switch their life savings into it. But I agree, some of the problems do seem petty.


I also had a poor experience opening their account - and didn't get the switching bonus until I complained. I don't really rate their service much.

Fryy

bobobski wrote: »

It's not arbitrary. The accepted professions are those that are regulated by the sounds of it, so in theory more likely that the signatory can be trusted to verify the authenticity of the document.

But it is arbitrary. Why not a professor who is a public figure, who lectures, who had a departmental webpage and public email and office number? They allow professors (and many other professions) for passports, but not opening a First Direct account? (And whether or not FD allow it depends on who you talk to on the phone apparently.) The pharmacist didn't have a clue what I was asking him about to begin with (rightly so, it's very weird).

bobobski wrote: »

To be honest I'm surprised they don't require it to be a solicitor. As for your signatory signing incorrectly, what's to say you didn't ask them to sign a blank piece of paper then print a fake passport picture on the back?

If I asked a pharmacist, "Hey, would you mind signing this random blank sheet of paper with First Direct stuff on it for me?" and they did it, surely that shows the pharmacist isn't at all trustworthy? So why on Earth do they trust the pharmacist to verify my documents anyway? This is the same argument one of them gave over the phone to me. It doesn't make sense.

And after all of this nonsense back and forth, why don't they just call the pharmacist who left his details on the back of my passport photo to check? It doesn't make any sense at all. I just get the feeling that they're blindly following the rules they made without really thinking about it anymore.

bobobski wrote: »

Look at the bright side: they're obviously interested in protecting the integrity of their procedures; even if it's mildly annoying for you right now, it may protect you in the future.

My point is that these policies don't actually add any security whatsoever. It's security theater: it looks like extra security but in reality it doesn't do anything useful. I don't know any other banks that do it for example. There are much less inconvenient policies that other banks use that achieve the same results.

Fryy

mt99 wrote: »

It's a bit of a two-edged sword. What none of us want is someone fraudulently opening an account in a false identity and then persuading some poor pensioner to switch their life savings into it. But I agree, some of the problems do seem petty.

I'm not making a case against verifying someone's address or identity. I'm saying that First Direct's method for doing so is security theater: it looks like a lot of security but in reality it is not that helpful and just annoying for people.

GingerBob_3

Fryy wrote: »

I'm not making a case against verifying someone's address or identity. I'm saying that First Direct's method for doing so is security theater: it looks like a lot of security but in reality it is not that helpful and just annoying for people.

It's worse that that. You lose control of your identity documents when you let the likes of HSBC/FD copy them. They will then lose them, have them hacked or stolen. You are increasing your chances of identity theft every time you are forced to allow someone to copy your passport. The practice should be banned.

Shakin_Steve

So....why does anyone bother with them? As others have said, it's not as if they are brilliant at what they do. Banks are subject to customers voting with their feet the same as any other business and I wouldn't have even got as far as attempting to gain the signatures they asked for. I'd have told them to shove their antiquated practices where the sun don't shine.

badger09

Shakin_Steve wrote: »

So....why does anyone bother with them? As others have said, it's not as if they are brilliant at what they do. Banks are subject to customers voting with their feet the same as any other business and I wouldn't have even got as far as attempting to gain the signatures they asked for. I'd have told them to shove their antiquated practices where the sun don't shine.

6% regular saver;)

(5% for new accounts)