HSBC does not allow me access to my money

Skag

I opened an foreign currency account (EUR) in 3 names (parent & sibling) about 10 years ago with HSBC. The amount was in the tens of thousands of Euro.

One fine Saturday of Jan-18 I called them to transfer my funds to another account. They said that they can't see my money and that my account has been closed. I asked them why they can't see and where my money is, and they said they don't know, and that I need to call back on weekdays 9-5. So I did. The person on the phone said, that they don't know where my money is and that they will launch an investigation, which will take up to 8 weeks to fulfill.

Eventually after about 7 weeks, and many phone calls, they sent me cheque with the amount converted in sterling, on their own rate (spot rate was about 1.15, their was about 1.18, so I lost some thousands there). They also sent me 2 papers, one saying that I can take my complain to the Financial Ombudsman, and the second that they are sorry, but they don't think they've done anything wrong, since they had let me know that they would convert my money into sterling (I never received such mail).

I filed a claim with the FO at this point.
Next Saturday, I deposited the sterling check into my account. Next Thursday, the money still wasn't paid into my account, and I called them to ask why. They said that the check should be paid into an account owned by the same 3 people, but because 2 of them are not residents in the UK, I cannot deposit my check. "Would you like to file a claim for it?". Of course I did, for which I will have to wait another up to 8 weeks for a resolution.

Now, I don't have access to my money and I need them like yesterday. This money has been deposited, and HSBC is unable to either transfer it to an account, or give it back to me. I informed the manager of premiere banking on the phone that this is illegal and fraudulent, and he decided not to comment on it.

Should I also seek legal action apart from FO?

MarcoM

where you asked about the source of funds?
it may be stupid aml cheques holding the cheque up.

Skag

No, but the funds were there for many years now (4-5), and were transferred from an account in my and my parent's name.

agrinnall

Highly unlikely to be either illegal or fraudulent so you should be careful about making libellous comments, especially as I'd guess it'll be pretty easy for HSBC to identify you.

Skag

It was ranked 9 our of 11 consumer banks. That makes it pretty low in consumer banking. That's written in MSE. The rest is just facts.

Skag

Skag wrote: »

No, but the funds were there for many years now (4-5), and were transferred from an account in my and my parent's name.

So keeping my money and not being able to give it back to be is neither illegal nor fraudulent. How would you call it? How would you call someone who you trusted with your money, and when you requested it back he said I can't give it to you?

WestonDave

I think you have two issues here.


One is that you've left money untouched (seemingly from your description) for ten years so it has fallen into a dormant state. Records aren't generally kept beyond 6 years as there is normally no reason to do so - most UK banks have a dormant account system (I believe at one point there was a proposal for such funds to be used for public purposes!). So HSBC possibly now don't have easy access to important details like where the funds came from, who has permission to withdraw etc. It will be around somewhere but possibly in an archive system rather than on their day to day live systems.


That makes the second part harder - the funds came from three people, sat in an account in the names of three people (which they now may not have full access to the history of) and you are asking for it to be paid out to just one of those three people. Bear in mind that money laundering regulations make institutions wary of being the conduit for changes of ownership. Where I work for example if someone pays money in, and then for some reason it has to be returned, our policy is that it goes back to the person and preferably the account it came from. That way we aren't involved in moving money around in a way that could be designed to hide fraudulent or criminal behaviour. (Obviously 99% of the time its innocent stuff like someone wanting to give their kids some money out of their house sale proceeds etc - we just insist that they have the money and they pass it over, rather than us doing it!). So my guess is that this relates to your situation. At the very least they'd need authority from all three of the original money owners to transfer it into just one name (i.e. to change ownership) - in practice they'd rather you'd either drawn a cheque signed in accordance with the mandate to just yourself, or that you transferred it somewhere in joint ownership and then that was done. HSBC got hauled over the coals a while back for breaches of money laundering regs which tends now to make them stricter on compliance than other places.


So what they are doing possibly isn't as customer friendly as they could be but its almost certainly not strictly incorrect.

gt94sss2

Skag wrote: »

It was ranked 9 our of 11 consumer banks. That makes it pretty low in consumer banking. That's written in MSE. The rest is just facts.

An MSE poll would still not save you should HSBC decide to take legal action for your comments - just because it's on this site it doesn't mean anything legally - HSBC also come first in those polls as First Direct is part of them for instance.

What seems to have happened is as you did not use your account for many years, it was marked dormant and removed from their 'live' systems, hence them needing to trace your account.

https://www.mylostaccount.org.uk/ten.htm provides some background. They would have written to the account holders before marking your account dormant.

Ideally, you should have reinstated your account and then transferred the money yourself. I don't think you have a case over HSBC using their f/x rate or issuing a cheque in the name of all 3 account holders.

Skag

Let me demystify some things:
1. The account wasn't dormant. I have deposited some money about a year ago. It had been in the past, but I "re-enabled" it.
2. What does it mean when an account has 3 joint holders? Does it not mean that any one of them has access to the account wholly?

The issue is simple: you sir, deposit 1000 Euro into an account. You then want them back. The bank tells you that you can't have it back and they don't know where it is. You want it now though (maybe you need to pay the doctor or a surgery?). How is this even remotely right?

Skag

gt94sss2 wrote: »

HSBC also come first in those polls as First Direct is part of them for instance.

First Direct may have completely different customer handling to HSBC. It's a different legal entity and a bank. HSBC being at the bottom doesn't make First Direct bad, nor the reverse. That's false logic.

PeacefulWaters

Skag wrote: »

First Direct may have completely different customer handling to HSBC. It's a different legal entity and a bank. HSBC being at the bottom doesn't make First Direct bad, nor the reverse. That's false logic.

Same banking licence. Same bank.