M&S BANK cardholder verification

GingerBob_3

As mentioned earlier, either ignore the stupid request from an obviously stupid bank, or better, roll up the letter tightly and send it back to them with an explanation as to why you've done so - and don't put a stamp on the letter.

meer53

loughlini wrote: »

47 years of joint bank account, 47 years of HMRC records, 47 years of electoral role, no criminal records (1 minor speeding offence in New York State excepted).
Seriously, we are all reduced to a number. The 'personality' has disappeared from our communities. As others asked in the similar post (sorry I didn't spot it before posting this thread) - why do store cards need all this information?
Given that M&S is a subsidiary of HSBC where we have held a joint account for 47 years, it shouldn't be too difficult for M&S to check us out.

They need up to date information. If you don't want to comply, you can always join GingerBobs gang. Or be sensible and send them what they ask for, the majority of people manage it quite easily.

GingerBob_3

meer53 wrote: »

They need up to date information. If you don't want to comply, you can always join GingerBobs gang. Or be sensible and send them what they ask for, the majority of people manage it quite easily.

It's an unreasonable request; pure and simple. And I would bet the majority of punters are not best pleased about it, and a substantial number will follow my advice - and good on them.

jonesMUFCforever

GingerBob wrote: »

It's an unreasonable request; pure and simple. And I would bet the majority of punters are not best pleased about it, and a substantial number will follow my advice - and good on them.

I'm sure its something that they have to do not want to do.

It must be costing them a lot but probably less than if they were fined for not 'knowing' their customers.

meer53

GingerBob wrote: »

It's an unreasonable request; pure and simple. And I would bet the majority of punters are not best pleased about it, and a substantial number will follow my advice - and good on them.

It's an unreasonable request in your opinion. I think you'll find the majority of customers will comply with the request, the rational ones will, who don't think all banks are the devil incarnate. I think you have delusions of grandeur as far as "your advice" goes. Most people are quite able to make up their own minds as to whether they think it's a reasonable request or not.

In my experience, most "punters" are happy to provide what is asked for, a small minority aren't, thats their choice. I don't think they've all taken your advice.

GingerBob_3

meer53 wrote: »

It's an unreasonable request in your opinion. I think you'll find the majority of customers will comply with the request, the rational ones will, who don't think all banks are the devil incarnate. I think you have delusions of grandeur as far as "your advice" goes. Most people are quite able to make up their own minds as to whether they think it's a reasonable request or not.

In my experience, most "punters" are happy to provide what is asked for, a small minority aren't, thats their choice. I don't think they've all taken your advice.

Not only is it an unreasonable request, it's a stupid request! Over the last week I've opened four new current accounts to invest some money in, and not one of them has required any form of identification. I assume they looked up some records on one of the big brother databases maintained by the CRAs. So why can't HSBC do this? We all know what this is about. It's about "your criminal bank" (HSBC) trying to make itself look good to the regulators, mainly in the US, and in doing so they've decided to b****er about their loyal customers. Well my advice stays the same; f*** em off! Sooner or later, if enough disgruntled customers vote with their cash, the clot-heads that are responsible for this absolute hogwash may get the message.

meer53

GingerBob wrote: »

Not only is it an unreasonable request, it's a stupid request! Over the last week I've opened four new current accounts to invest some money in, and not one of them has required any form of identification. I assume they looked up some records on one of the big brother databases maintained by the CRAs. So why can't HSBC do this? We all know what this is about. It's about "your criminal bank" (HSBC) trying to make itself look good to the regulators, mainly in the US, and in doing so they've decided to b****er about their loyal customers. Well my advice stays the same; f*** em off! Sooner or later, if enough disgruntled customers vote with their cash, the clot-heads that are responsible for this absolute hogwash may get the message.

If thats what they need to do then thats what they'll do. Your ranting isn't going to change things, it gets a bit boring really.. As you've already noticed, there are other banks. Although other banks are now beginning to follow suit. Where does that fit in with HSBC's criminal activities ?

GingerBob_3

meer53 wrote: »

If thats what they need to do then thats what they'll do. Your ranting isn't going to change things, it gets a bit boring really.. As you've already noticed, there are other banks. Although other banks are now beginning to follow suit. Where does that fit in with HSBC's criminal activities ?

Which other banks are asking long-standing credit card customers (not much chance of money laundering with a CC), and even secondary card holders (!), to suddenly provide certified copies of a passport? I've not heard of any.

jonesMUFCforever

20 years ago there was no electronic verification.
20 years ago there was no money laundering regulations.

Times have changed and will probably do so again in the future.

cranford

I rang them up when I received their letter (which I am ignoring) to complain. The person told me that you could go to a M&S bank, not one near me, or they would refund any copying charges as long as a receipt was sent in.
I suggested that they should have put that in their letter but I guess there are too many card holders that will just pay up.