Bank Lied to Prevent Me Closing Account - What Rules or Legislation Does This Breach?

Sailtheworld

It's not against any regulation for a bank to require ID for the opening of an account. If they said you didn't need any and you did then that's the basis of your complaint. Even if you go to the ombudsman it doesn't seem likely that they'll demand an account is setup without ID.

It's possible to help people with their financial affairs but without a more formal arrangement in place (like a PoA) issues like this will keep cropping up. 

colsten

peskydaisydoodle said:

wmb194 said:

Is your son on the electoral roll? Has he tried opening an account online? It could be that he'll pass the electronic ID and address checks. Anything you do in-branch will require physical documents.

Yes he's on the electoral roll and yes he has now applied for an account online which may pass the id cheques if what he has in the way of DWP correspondence is enough, The issue isn't about his ID though - it's about the way the bank went about the closure of the account. I was happy to close the account but they effectively prevented me from doing so - I don't understand why they seem to have felt they had a duty to protect the remaining money in the account when they had permitted me to transact on the account for years. If this was an issue they should have asked me to close the account years ago.

The issue is absolutely about his ID, or lack of it, to be precise.

Your / his problem with this particular bank account is just one of potentially many problems your son will encounter if he has no proof of ID. It has been, and still is, in your hands to get this resolved.

Speedbird676

Using Santander's ID requirements as an example, it looks as though he has enough ID to open an account anyway:


https://www.santander.co.uk/assets/s3fs-public/documents/customer_identification_requirements_do-ec-368.pdf

You need one item from List 1 which could be a Notification of entitlement to state/local benefit less than 12-months old and one item from List 2 which could be a Bank statement less than 3-months old.

Assuming your/his bank have the same requirements, can you not open an account with them as a short term measure to solve the problem of cashing the cheque and once you've then moved the funds wherever you want them then close the account?

If you still want to pursue a complaint with the bank then do that in parallel.

peskydaisydoodle

OK - I accept that and will take steps to ensure he has ID despite that fact that he, himself has no inclination to have any. But I will substitute the word issue with grievance - ie. the  grievance is not about his ID. There is no legal requirement for a person to have ID although of course it is beneficial for them to have some.  DWP will pay benefit into any 3rd party account the benefit claimant stipulates. It is then the 3rd party's responsibility to withdraw the money and give it to the claimant. There would be no problem whatsoever in me withdrawing the money from my own personal account if the DWP funds were going in there. Why then would the Bank be reluctant about me just closing the ITF account? A person does not have to have ID in order to claim benefits - so regardless of whether he has or has not got ID, it seems to me the Bank have gone beyond their duty by blocking me from closing an account I was authorised to transact on. The grievance is with regard to the actions of the Bank.

elsien

peskydaisydoodle said:

OK - I accept that and will take steps to ensure he has ID despite that fact that he, himself has no inclination to have any. But I will substitute the word issue with grievance - ie. the  grievance is not about his ID. There is no legal requirement for a person to have ID although of course it is beneficial for them to have some.  DWP will pay benefit into any 3rd party account the benefit claimant stipulates. It is then the 3rd party's responsibility to withdraw the money and give it to the claimant. There would be no problem whatsoever in me withdrawing the money from my own personal account if the DWP funds were going in there. Why then would the Bank be reluctant about me just closing the ITF account? A person does not have to have ID in order to claim benefits - so regardless of whether he has or has not got ID, it seems to me the Bank have gone beyond their duty by blocking me from closing an account I was authorised to transact on. The grievance is with regard to the actions of the Bank.

You do indeed need ID to claim benefits, just different requirements to those of banks. Without those checks, the number of fraudulent benefit claims would go through the roof. 
https://www.pkc.gov.uk/media/42084/Identification-needed-for-UC-claim/pdf/Identification_Needed_For_Universal_Credit_Claim.pdf?m=636640703667270000

peskydaisydoodle

Sailtheworld said:

It's not against any regulation for a bank to require ID for the opening of an account. If they said you didn't need any and you did then that's the basis of your complaint. Even if you go to the ombudsman it doesn't seem likely that they'll demand an account is setup without ID.

It's possible to help people with their financial affairs but without a more formal arrangement in place (like a PoA) issues like this will keep cropping up. 

There is no reason to assume this particular issue would crop up again: as I have previously pointed out, many people do not have ID and it is commonplace for DWP benefits to be paid into a 3rd party account. That is a private matter for the benefit claimant and the owner of the bank account to agree on. The Bank has no involvement in how or when the 3rd party withdraws the funds on behalf of the benefit claimant - and there is no legal requirement for the benefit claimant to open their own bank account or obtain ID. I do not want Power of Attorney - as that to me would be like saying to him he has my permission to give up and allow people around him to act on his behalf. The Bank will argue that there is no basis for my complaint because they are saying the conversation regarding the ID did not take place. I don't want the Ombudsman to "demand an account is setup without ID" - I want the Bank to admit they deliberately prevented me from closing the account by persuading me that they had found an alternative when they hadn't. There is a cheque for almost £3000 which cannot be banked - that would have been avoided if I had simply closed the account - because I would have either transferred the funds prior to closing or withdrawn them. The Bank did not want me to do so and what I am trying to establish is why they acted in a way that prevented me from closing the account and whether the way they went about it could ever be deemed ethical.

colsten

peskydaisydoodle said:

OK - I accept that and will take steps to ensure he has ID despite that fact that he, himself has no inclination to have any. But I will substitute the word issue with grievance - ie. the  grievance is not about his ID. There is no legal requirement for a person to have ID although of course it is beneficial for them to have some.  DWP will pay benefit into any 3rd party account the benefit claimant stipulates. It is then the 3rd party's responsibility to withdraw the money and give it to the claimant. There would be no problem whatsoever in me withdrawing the money from my own personal account if the DWP funds were going in there. Why then would the Bank be reluctant about me just closing the ITF account? A person does not have to have ID in order to claim benefits - so regardless of whether he has or has not got ID, it seems to me the Bank have gone beyond their duty by blocking me from closing an account I was authorised to transact on. The grievance is with regard to the actions of the Bank.

Excellent that you will get the ID issue sorted, as it really is critical that a person is able to prove their ID. Whilst you have not said how old your son is and why he is not interested in getting ID for himself, it does not seem plausibel to continue indefinitely with arrangements where you act on his behalf. Even if your son were to need a permanent representation through a third party, there must be a simple way for him to proof his ID.

peskydaisydoodle

MaxiRobriguez said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Aren’t phone calls routinely recorded?

Having migrated the IT infrastructure of a large financial services company from one provider to mine, I can tell you for certain every single call is recorded and easily accessible. 

I will look into this and find out if the bank have a recording of the call - I think it's doubtful as she would have perfectly aware that what she was telling me was a complete fabrication. It's worth a try though - thanks for that.

Sailtheworld

peskydaisydoodle said:

Sailtheworld said:

It's not against any regulation for a bank to require ID for the opening of an account. If they said you didn't need any and you did then that's the basis of your complaint. Even if you go to the ombudsman it doesn't seem likely that they'll demand an account is setup without ID.

It's possible to help people with their financial affairs but without a more formal arrangement in place (like a PoA) issues like this will keep cropping up. 

There is no reason to assume this particular issue would crop up again: as I have previously pointed out, many people do not have ID and it is commonplace for DWP benefits to be paid into a 3rd party account. That is a private matter for the benefit claimant and the owner of the bank account to agree on. The Bank has no involvement in how or when the 3rd party withdraws the funds on behalf of the benefit claimant - and there is no legal requirement for the benefit claimant to open their own bank account or obtain ID. I do not want Power of Attorney - as that to me would be like saying to him he has my permission to give up and allow people around him to act on his behalf. The Bank will argue that there is no basis for my complaint because they are saying the conversation regarding the ID did not take place. I don't want the Ombudsman to "demand an account is setup without ID" - I want the Bank to admit they deliberately prevented me from closing the account by persuading me that they had found an alternative when they hadn't. There is a cheque for almost £3000 which cannot be banked - that would have been avoided if I had simply closed the account - because I would have either transferred the funds prior to closing or withdrawn them. The Bank did not want me to do so and what I am trying to establish is why they acted in a way that prevented me from closing the account and whether the way they went about it could ever be deemed ethical.

The complaint is a side issue. Just make the complaint and see what happens. They've got better things to do than set out to deliberately mislead you so don't hold your breath waiting for an admission. 

I'm not saying other people don't have ID but it's quite unusual and, as you're finding, it makes life quite difficult. You might think this issue might not come up again but it would seem unlikely this is the first and last time your son will ever need to be able to prove who is is.

You don't want to take on a PoA because you don't want to give him permission to hand his responsibilities to you. That ship has sailed - you are taking on his responsibilities. Your son doesn't have the inclination and/ or capability to sort this out himself. Something has to give.

The something is probably getting some ID (not that onerous really), getting a bank account, depositing the cheque and taking it from there.

Malthusian

peskydaisydoodle said:

Sailtheworld said:

It's not against any regulation for a bank to require ID for the opening of an account. If they said you didn't need any and you did then that's the basis of your complaint. Even if you go to the ombudsman it doesn't seem likely that they'll demand an account is setup without ID.

It's possible to help people with their financial affairs but without a more formal arrangement in place (like a PoA) issues like this will keep cropping up. 

I do not want Power of Attorney - as that to me would be like saying to him he has my permission to give up and allow people around him to act on his behalf.

As Sailtheworld says, that ship has sailed. If he doesn't have your permission to allow other people to handle his affairs you need to wind up your handling of his affairs and then leave him to it.

Handling his affairs and voluntarily making it more difficult for both of you by not completing a Power of Attorney is the worst of both worlds. 

There is no legal requirement for a person to have ID although of course it is beneficial for them to have some.

To get really philosophical, if somebody has no proof of identity then they don't legally exist.

Getting a passport is not acquiring proof of identity, it's just converting the proof of identity you already have (the documents that you give the Passport Office) into a form that more people will accept without further checks.

The practical point I'm making is that it's fine to have no passport or other commonly accepted proof of ID, you just don't get to complain it makes your life more difficult. It's like refusing to own a tin-opener.