Can I do this?

[Deleted User]

mgdavid wrote: »

Completely disagree: I would defend to the bitter end any business's right to choose who they do business with, unless it was one of the few situations specifically in the discrimination legislation (colour, race, gender, age, as you mention).
It is not illegal to choose not to serve people wearing trainers, or people wearing hats, or people that don't say please, or people that don't speak the country's native language etc etc.
Or people that claim an unjustified entitlement, for that matter.

But why should you be allowed to reject somebody without giving a reason? A sign saying we don't serve people who wear trainers would be fine. Giving no reason and being allowed to do so leaves the door wide open for discrimination.

[Deleted User]

I wouldn't actually care if HSBC said we've turned you down because we've discovered you are an habitual switcher. At least that would be a reason.

ValiantSon

Deleted_User wrote: »

If a shop offered a product at £200 off and you went through its door they said "bur not for you" there would be an outcry.

That analogy is not comparable to what is happening with banks. Banks are not retailers. They are making a decision on your potential profitability, which is entirely reasonable for a business to do. No business that hopes to survive does business with customers that they expect to be unprofitable.

Deleted_User wrote: »

It would probably be illegal. HSBC have terms and conditions for this account, if you fill that criteria then they should not be allowed to turn you down, its discrimination, simple as.

Yes, it is discrimination, but not all discrimination is necessarily wrong. They are not discriminating because of your skin colour, religion, sex, political views etc, but rather because you don't fit the kind of customer they wish to do business with because of your financial situation. That is entirely legitimate.

We've been down this road before with a different forum member in a different thread. He was unhappy because a particular bank had refused him an account. He decided that this was because of his age. There was no evidence to support this, but he would not accept that he simply wasn't considered to be a potentially profitable customer in the round.

They are a business and are entitled to make business decisions. We live in a capitalist society, not one with a state controlled economy. that means that businesses are free (with certain limitations) to pursue their business objectives, i.e. to make money; they are not charities, nor government agencies.

Deleted_User wrote: »

If the offer just added the caveat that if you do not meet the terms & conditions once the account is opened then you will not receive the bonus then fine, that's easy enough to understand.

HSBC are not required to do business with anyone who they don't want to, unless their reason for not doing so is due to a person's protected characteristics.

They do say that not everyone will be approved for the account. The issue isn't whether or not they want to pay you the switching bonus, but rather whether they want to give you the account.

Deleted_User wrote: »

HSBC are just cherry picking

Of course they are, and they have every right to do so! If I were a shareholder in HSBC and they let anyone have whatever account they wanted, paying out bonuses, irrespective of whether there was any chance of those customers helping us make a profit, then I would be extremely angry at the board for failing in their fiduciary duty.

Deleted_User wrote: »

and there advert of switch to us, meet the criteria and get £200 is fraudulent.

No it isn't! Anyone who does meet their criteria gets the account and receives the bonus, anyone who doesn't, doesn't.

Taken from their offer terms: "The above offer applies to successful applications received by us and is subject to availability." They don't say anyone who applies.

Deleted_User wrote: »

In my opinion if you're turned down for anything then a reason should be forthcoming, otherwise how do you know you're not being discriminated against through colour, gender, age, etc? (all illegal by the way)

There, I might agree, but it would only amount to, "Your application was not successful because we do not believe that you are a potentially profitable customer to us." This is because the decision making process is based on a holistic analysis (via algorithm) of all the data they have. In this instance, therefore, it would not be of any use to know that.

ValiantSon

tenchy wrote: »

Not true. Cifas records are time-limited; five or six years - can't remember which.

The Cifas marker may only last for six years, but the credit file blackhole resulting from it is almost insurmountable, which is what I was actually talking about.

[Deleted User]

ValiantSon wrote: »

There, I might agree, but it would only amount to, "Your application was not successful because we do not believe that you are a potentially profitable customer to us." This is because the decision making process is based on a holistic analysis (via algorithm) of all the data they have. In this instance, therefore, it would not be of any use to know that.

Well that's good because that is the only point I'm making. It is wrong you can be turned down for something without being informed what those grounds are. It opens the door to discrimination.

I have accounts, some multiple, with Santander, TSB, Nationwide, Tesco, NatWest, M&S, even HSBC sister company First Direct, all thought me "a potentially profitable customer," not HSBC though. All I would have liked was a reason, even if it had been the claptrap you came up with. Was that too much to ask or expect?

tenchy

ValiantSon wrote: »

The Cifas marker may only last for six years, but the credit file blackhole resulting from it is almost insurmountable, which is what I was actually talking about.

And what, precisely, is a 'credit file blackhole'? Remember, credit file records disappear after six years as well.

ValiantSon

tenchy wrote: »

And what, precisely, is a 'credit file blackhole'? Remember, credit file records disappear after six years as well.

I wasn't using the phrase as a precise legal term, but rather as shorthand for the near insurmountable problems having no credit history as an adult can create.

You are missing the point. Because of the Cifas marker you would not be able to get access to mainstream financial products for six years. This period therefore would give you no credit history for six years, so when you came to apply for a mainstream financial product after six years you would be very likely to be rejected because you have no credit history, and so the cycle would continue.

ValiantSon

Deleted_User wrote: »

Well that's good because that is the only point I'm making. It is wrong you can be turned down for something without being informed what those grounds are. It opens the door to discrimination.

I have accounts, some multiple, with Santander, TSB, Nationwide, Tesco, NatWest, M&S, even HSBC sister company First Direct, all thought me "a potentially profitable customer," not HSBC though. All I would have liked was a reason, even if it had been the claptrap you came up with. Was that too much to ask or expect?

But what would such a statement tell you that you don't already know? I have no problem with them being required to say that, but it is virtually meaningless and of no value to you, the rejected customer.

First Direct are looking for a different type of customer with their 1st Account from HSBC with their Advance account. Being accepted by other banks for different accounts does not mean that you fit the profile of customer that HSBC are looking for with their Advance account. One of the reasons you may have been rejected is that you hold too many other current accounts, but even that would be unique to your circumstances, because there are others of us who also hold numerous accounts and have been accepted.

I don't know what your personal finances look like, but the Advance account is clearly aimed at higher income earners, unlike many of the other accounts on the market. It may be that they didn't consider you profitable because of your income versus your outgoings and/or your credit utilisation.

They aren't doing anything wrong by not telling you what the exact mix of circumstances were that resulted in you being rejected. This is no different from if you are rejected for a loan, including interest free credit deals; they don't tell you why you have been rejected, just that you have. It may be frustrating, but it isn't wrong.

tenchy

ValiantSon wrote: »

You are missing the point. Because of the Cifas marker you would not be able to get access to mainstream financial products for six years. This period therefore would give you no credit history for six years, so when you came to apply for a mainstream financial product after six years you would be very likely to be rejected because you have no credit history, and so the cycle would continue.

So according to that premise, the finance company will come round to repossess the car, and the sofa. The leccy and gas company will disconnect me, I'll lose my mobile phone connection, and they'll turn off the water as well. All of these services are potentially reported to the credit bureaus and help build a history. Yes, some bank accounts and some credit cards may be closed, but it's a long way from Armageddon.

[Deleted User]

ValiantSon wrote: »

It may be frustrating, but it isn't wrong.

Then it should be.