Aldemore and Identity farce

SallySunshine

My O.H. has just had a 1yr fixed bond mature from Aldemore , 2 weeks ago they contacted him with options, they offered another 1yr at 1.7% which he declined as another institution, which he was already banking with, was offering 2%.
Matured money was transferred to his account on !st February, then we saw Aldemore had now upped the rate to 2.1%.
He duly applied for this new account, took quite a while to fill in application form, then right at the end after numerous passwords etc set up, they informed him he needed to send them i.d.
Rang them to query this, after 26 mins got through.
Explained he had just closed one maturing account, but to no avail. Tried again with a joint application with me being applicant 1, both failed and needed i.d.
Gave up and went elsewhere.
:mad::mad::mad:

bowlhead99

SallySunshine wrote: »

He duly applied for this new account, took quite a while to fill in application form, then right at the end after numerous passwords etc set up, they informed him he needed to send them i.d.
Rang them to query this, after 26 mins got through.
Explained he had just closed one maturing account, but to no avail. Tried again with a joint application with me being applicant 1, both failed and needed i.d.
Gave up and went elsewhere.
:mad::mad::mad:

So he decided to jump ship and closed his account and stopped being their customer, but then quickly decided he would like to start being their customer again because they had better rates than the competition. When he applied for the account, they wanted ID to show who he was. Rather than just send them the ID, you decided to waste some time applying yourself alongside him, and they still wanted ID. You refused and are now mad mad mad about it.

At the end of the day, the extra 0.1% on the rate is a tenner a year for every £10,000 that you're considering depositing. Either a tenner per £10,000 per year is worth your time providing them documentation, or it isn't. For larger deposits it's relatively more worthwhile to hop between institutions.

It doesn't really sound like a 'farce' that they have a policy of obtaining proof of ID from people who are former customers but no longer have any relationship with the bank.



:mad::mad::mad: because

SallySunshine

When the I.D. check failed, it was explained it could have been the tiniest error in the application process, but as the ref. no. had been generated it was not possible to to go back and check, therefore it was recommended to try another one. I decided to try a joint application, again, this was suggested that it could pass if I tried as the first applicant.
Again this failed.
Yes, it was a waste of time at the end and very frustrating, especially after just closing the maturing account,
It was ironic that they upped their rates a couple of days later and no doubt will soon pull it, then back to the merry-go-round of others being top of the leader board.

MovingForwards

Every time I open a new savings account with a bank I've been with for years they ask for ID to comply with money laundering regs, only once have they been able to transfer / copy ID over as it was presented within 3 or 6 months, I forget which it was.

alanq

I have only once been asked for identity documents following an online application. That was with Close Brothers which was surprising as I had been saving for several years with them with accounts opened/reinvested by post. (Some were still open). They could not/would not explain why this was.

I then applied by post and an additional account was opened without requiring identity documents.

dunstonh

The "new" deposit is new money. So, AML guidelines indicate that checks should be carried out.

I have only once been asked for identity documents following an online application. That was with Close Brothers which was surprising as I had been saving for several years with them with accounts opened/reinvested by post. (Some were still open). They could not/would not explain why this was.

The guidelines don't stand still. Each release of the directive brings in new requirements. Things that were not included in previous directives get included with new ones.

Culture and processes at firms change as well. They may have been a bit lax previously and decided to step up. Or they may have been told to step up. When the FCA visit, if they feel a firm is not doing something in an area, they will often require the firm to not only improve but make them do things to a higher level than others.

A lot of the AML directive guidelines are open to interpretation. A change of compliance officer can change the way a firm views the risks. For example, the earlier compliance officer may have decided that as long as the ID was in date at the point of the relationship starting, they didn't need a new ID unless circumstances changed. However, a new compliance officer may take the view that as long as the ID is still valid and in date, they don't need one. But if it expires (such as DL or passport going out of date) then they need a new one when there is an AML event (such as a maturity/withdrawal/reinvestment).

Or it could be something simple like the old paper record cant be found on their new computer system.

badger09

I can see why someone might be mildy irritated if a financial institution with which they held an account a few days earlier, asked for proof of ID.

But to be :mad::mad::mad: that this happened to someone else:cool:

alanq

IanManc wrote: »

I have never understood why people find it so offensive to be asked to identify themselves to financial institutions. They seem to regard it as some sort of affront. It isn't. :huh:

Not necessarily offensive but it may create difficulties or expense. Not everyone has required documents. Some may require certified copies of required documents being obtained and posted.

In my case I did not see the advantage of avoiding applying by post by having to post identity documents before then applying online.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

A lot of the AML directive guidelines are open to interpretation.
.

And that is exactly what is wrong and unacceptable. What is the point of any organisation including government policies (I hasten to add)to set rules and regulations if they are going to be misinterpreted. So very often you see regulations being flouted because people take advantage of 'loopholes' or bending the rules within the guidelines.

Rules and regulations should be very carefully considered and set up succinctly and without any ambiguity to avoid any user misinterpretation. That way, perhaps we won't hear any spokesperson saying that annoying phrase (which I hate so much) when things go pear-shaped 'we are doing a full investigation and see what lessons we can learn'

The whole thing lacks accountability and perhaps misinterpretation would not happen if the people responsible did their job properly in the first place.

bowlhead99

[quote=[Deleted User];75427506]
Rules and regulations should be very carefully considered and set up succinctly and without any ambiguity to avoid any user misinterpretation. That way, perhaps we won't hear any spokesperson saying that annoying phrase (which I hate so much) when things go pear-shaped 'we are doing a full investigation and see what lessons we can learn'

The whole thing lacks accountability and perhaps misinterpretation would not happen if the people responsible did their job properly in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, financial institutions differ in the products they offer and the customer base they each have and the operating business model they run and the risk that an individual product or customer represents.

Financial businesses often operate internationally - and even where they don't, there needs to be some harmonisation of standards and requirements across international jurisdictions so that a German who wants to open an account doesn't just go 'regulations shopping' to a French or Swedish or UK or Jersey institution because the requirements for a specific type of account are more lax or more stringent in a particular jurisdiction making the customer experience (whether he is criminal or legit) universally better or worse for a particular financial product.

I imagine if you tried it, no matter how hard you invested your time to 'very carefully consider' different options... you would find it difficult to come up with a new approach to concisely and succinctly come up with one fantastic perfect rule with no scope for misinterpretation which mitigated and adequately covered off the specific financial crime risks of every transaction possible between every type of customer and every type of financial institution involving every type of financial product in every jurisdiction in the developed world, yet without being inefficient and overly expensive for some transactions nor too light-touch and ineffective for others.

So, we end up with regulation and guidance which meets certain standards agreed internationally but is principles-driven and requires a regulated business to implement a risk-based approach. However, you see that as unacceptable. But what we don't often hear from people who disapprove of a current set of laws, rules or guidelines, is exactly how they would do it themselves but better in every way with no disadvantages that would be a barrier to successful implementation.