The Top Easy Access Savings Discussion Area

typistretired

Could cost up to £85 for a new passport so understand picks not wanting to buy one

Mr._H_2

typistretired said:

Could cost up to £85 for a new passport so under picks not wanting to buy one

It seems to me that the amount of time and energy picks has put in to whinging about this is worth more than £85. And as I said before, passport is useful for so many things, not just travelling. And given that they are valid for ten years, can they really be so sure they aren't going to want to travel abroad in all that time?

IanManc

Deleted_User said:

kaMelo said:

pthey were unwilling to accept the legal 11 month licence extension applied by DVLA last year. So Investec applied their modern version of Apartheid and told me to get lost.

As above, good to see you didn't over react then?
That has to be the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard in my life.

I consider that Investec ignored the UK law by refusing to recognise the government rule on validity of photocard driving licences:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/expired-driving-licences-automatically-extended-by-11-months

Their breach of regulation should be penalised by a court of law:

Investec didn't breach any regulation.

There is no regulation that says Investec have to accept driving licences of any sort as part of their identification process.

I-LOV-MONEY

I agree with  picks.     If an organisation wants you to produce a valid, legal document that proves your identity, then the extended driving license should be sufficient.  I presume thast Investec would have accepted it had it shown a 'normal' valid date.

If someone doesn't want a passport, then that should be their choice.   Obviously if someone didn't want to drive either (and therefore wouldn't have a driving license) they may have some problems.

Primrose

Perhaps this identity verification debate has occurred before on this forum but for the life of me I can't  understand why, if somebody has passed  the statutory relevant   identification checks for one financial institution, they can,t simply transfer funds to another requiring the same standards.

i thought the government was supposed to be reducing bureaucracy and red tape. Seems to me this is such a simple regulation change, which if enacted, would reduce hassle for thousands  of people who are continually and legitimately moving money around to make the best of their assets.

.  Can somebody please explain to me why the regulatory authorities or whoever haven,t worked to make this happen.

Because of age and disability I have given up my driving licence.  I now find myself having to pay a large  sum to renew a passport I will never be able to use because my travelling abroad days are over, simply to have some viable banking identification.

 As more babyboomers age they may find themselves in a similar situation. Surely it,s not beyond the remit of the regulatory authorities to find a workable solution to this problem?

Mr._H_2

Primrose said:

Perhaps this identity verification debate has occurred before on this forum but for the life of me I can't  understand why, if somebody has passed  the statutory relevant   identification checks for one financial institution, they can,t simply transfer funds to another requiring the same standards.

Because most of the time you can, and if you can't it's a sign that something may be up. The rules are in place to try to keep fraud and identity theft to a minimum, and as far as I'm concerned the regulations and the way they are implemented have struck the correct balance between convenience for the honest and prevention of nefarious acts. Yes, some innocent actions get caught up in the process, but that is the price to pay for security and trustworthiness of the system as a whole.

I've got a lot of financial products (bank accounts and credit cards) and I actually can't remember the last time I had to provide any ID documentation - it was all done electronically via credit-reference agencies etc. If people just make sure that they are on the electoral register and that their credit file is up-to-date they shouldn't have any of these problems.

eskbanker

Primrose said:

Perhaps this identity verification debate has occurred before on this forum but for the life of me I can't  understand why, if somebody has passed  the statutory relevant   identification checks for one financial institution, they can,t simply transfer funds to another requiring the same standards.

i thought the government was supposed to be reducing bureaucracy and red tape. Seems to me this is such a simple regulation change, which if enacted, would reduce hassle for thousands  of people who are continually and legitimately moving money around to make the best of their assets.

.  Can somebody please explain to me why the regulatory authorities or whoever haven,t worked to make this happen.

There's no standard "statutory relevant identification check" - all regulated financial institutions are required to conduct ID checks but it's not a statutory process and doesn't have a prescribed format, so different institutions apply different policies, although usually overlapping fairly significantly.

Having said that, I don't know if the FCA have considered a standardised check, but what seems conceptually simple to you doesn't necessarily translate into something practical to implement, so, for as long as each institution sets its own standards, there's no prospect of accepting new customers on the basis of having satisfied another institution's checks.  In particular, it's not uncommon to see threads on here from indignant posters objecting to the fact that they've had an account with a bank for 30-40 years and are now being expected to go through some sort of verification process, so the fact that someone has an account doesn't necessarily signify that it's been secured through contemporary controls....

uptdale

Mr._H_2 said:

 If people just make sure that they are on the electoral register and that their credit file is up-to-date they shouldn't have any of these problems.

Wouldn't that be nice?  We are both on the electoral register and our credit file is up to date.  But we have had problems with more than one bank, to the point where we gave up and moved the money elsewhere.  Sometimes it is a breeze, sometimes not, some banks can verify electronically some cannot.  It's the variation in requirements that is annoying - ID evidence that one bank is happy with others are not.

Mr._H_2

uptdale said:

Mr._H_2 said:

 If people just make sure that they are on the electoral register and that their credit file is up-to-date they shouldn't have any of these problems.

Wouldn't that be nice?  We are both on the electoral register and our credit file is up to date.  But we have had problems with more than one bank, to the point where we gave up and moved the money elsewhere.  Sometimes it is a breeze, sometimes not, some banks can verify electronically some cannot.  It's the variation in requirements that is annoying - ID evidence that one bank is happy with others are not.

That is strange. I think what would be really helpful is if banks could be more specific about exactly why an electronic ID verification has failed, as that would allow people to fix the issue.

murphydavid

Just a little more clutter - -
Is someone trying to say that if a fraudster can get verified as legit with one bank then all the others should accept them based on that ? (That's a rhetorical I don't think so).
Also; at some point; was it said that a bank should not be allowed to close dormant accounts? I have the opposite problem I have a few dormant zero balance 0.1% accounts that are too much effort to close. Like the unsubscribe button the close account button hidden somewhere I presume.
As for new ones; any hoops for another 0.1% will not be jumped through. As 0.1% more (for money I might need in a hurry) is 39 pence a week at most.    0.1% * £20,000/52 = 0.39.