We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
HSBC - Requesting ID
Options
Comments
-
So you'd be happy with someone claiming to be you putting in a complain on your behalf even though the details they provided were incorrect? HSBC clearly need to verify the ID and validity of the complaint and whether OP is who they say they are and if they are entitled to complain. Refusing to provide such ID because of a tinfoil hat level of paranoia will not get them a refund of miss-sold premiums so would be a waste of time.
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
So you'd be happy with someone claiming to be you putting in a complain on your behalf even though the details they provided were incorrect? HSBC clearly need to verify the ID and validity of the complaint and whether OP is who they say they are and if they are entitled to complain. Refusing to provide such ID because of a tinfoil hat level of paranoia will not get them a refund of miss-sold premiums so would be a waste of time.
At no point have I said I am refusing to provide ID.0 -
At no point have I said I am refusing to provide ID.
I wasn't saying you were, I was replying to GingerBob hence quoting his post
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
So you'd be happy with someone claiming to be you putting in a complain on your behalf even though the details they provided were incorrect? HSBC clearly need to verify the ID and validity of the complaint and whether OP is who they say they are and if they are entitled to complain. Refusing to provide such ID because of a tinfoil hat level of paranoia will not get them a refund of miss-sold premiums so would be a waste of time.
No, I wouldn't be happy with it. The point I'm making is about copying the stuff. These financial institutions, and the ever growing list of other organisations that now insist on you proving who you are, copy the documents. There's no need for this - other than the government stupidly suggesting that they should. They only need to see the documents. They don't need to copy them.0 -
I'm expecting the refund to be sizeable given that they were who I borrowed the most from way back when.
The OP is expecting payment from what they said above.
I think the OP thought you (Nasqueron) were talking to them or me as you didn't quote GingerBob in post 12.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
No, I wouldn't be happy with it. The point I'm making is about copying the stuff. These financial institutions, and the ever growing list of other organisations that now insist on you proving who you are, copy the documents. There's no need for this - other than the government stupidly suggesting that they should. They only need to see the documents. They don't need to copy them.
I take your point. If wholly unnecessary it's annoying and could lead to ID fraud if lost. However, there is a need (counter fraud, immigration checks, AML Regs etc) to see the original passport and address confirmation or whatever. A copy is just proof it what seen (to cover the employer, bank, etc). After all, even the previous Immigration Minister was caught having employed an overstayer.
As long as the copies are shredded I don't have a problem with it.
In the case I alluded to, HSBC assured my relative that when they couldn't see her copied docs, it wasn't that they had lost the physical copies in transit, it was merely an IT system error, which meant she had to attend in branch for a second (unnecessary) time.
As I said, HSBC have huge backlogs at the moment as they've closed a lot of branches so fewer staff are dealing with customers and some such as my relative were ex-customers but the FOS had agreed that HSBC should re-pay CardGuard premiums plus 8% pa interest from 1997, so they're trying to get rid of all of these historic liabilities as well.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
-
I share the frustration of the OP having made my third visit to HSBC to confirm my identity this week. Admittedly first two were 6 weeks ago and unrelated to PPI and I was able to make the changes required as they had received the second one. In that space of time I have neither moved, changed my name or signature but they still claimed that they hold old address and signature information on the system when I submitted my PPI claim.
I expect to be asked again and this is all before they investigate my claim too. Unlike the OP I'm not expecting big payout though and if they ask again I have advised that I will make a complaint.I'm Ever hopeful!:j:j:j:j0 -
The OP is expecting payment from what they said above.
I think the OP thought you (Nasqueron) were talking to them or me as you didn't quote GingerBob in post 12.
I did quote him and the OP replied even though my quote was in the post. MSE mods have since deleted the quote as GingerBob deleted the post he made with some inane rant about banks keeping dataSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Discussion of moderator deletions is not allowed even weeks after the event.I did quote him and the OP replied even though my quote was in the post. MSE mods have since deleted the quote as GingerBob deleted the post he made with some inane rant about banks keeping data
Suffice to say that Ginger Bob did not delete his own post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards