Skipton lol

ayvan

Funny story. I opened saving account with Skipton. Online verification is complete and account is opened. Then I received email they tell me they must see my passport. I ask what is this about for a saving account. Never anyone ask me ID for saving account. Customer service said to me it is for identity and customer check. I can send passport to them. Ha! Sure! Send passport in post! He said or I can bring to branch. I said I already have Skipton accounts why check now? Customer service said 'oh right'. I said I have mortgage with you. You give me MORTGAGE already and now you ask me for passport for basic saving account. Are you stupid Skipton? Customer service can not agree he is recorded on phone so he only say it must be computer rule. I tell him I don't want this saving account. I am not sending passport or going to branch. He said 'OK sir should I close it?' I said yes close it. Now I ask do you need my passport. He said no. So you don't need my passport for other saving accounts and mortgage but if I open new you need yes? He says maybe. I said very interesting system from Skipton, design by modern Einstein. We laughed and said bye.

fwor

Depending on when the other accounts were opened, this is probably not Skipton's fault at all.

The problem (for Skipton and other providers) is that the Know Your Customer rules change with time.

If you have older accounts before the current rules were brought in, the law does not require that they retrospectively identify you more rigorously. But if you want to open a *new* account, they have to apply the *current* rules on identification.

So yes, it may appear nonsensical, but that's not Skipton's fault.

Flugelhorn

the Know Your Customer stuff is irritating, particularly when you have had had an account with them for years.  I got fed  up on Skipton and closed the account - not for this reason though - after they reopened after the pandemic, I went in to pay in a cheque - was told I couldn't I had to go outside and write a paying in slip resting on the window ledge and then bring it back in for them to process - apparently they couldn't cope with real paper cheques

adindas

fwor said:

Depending on when the other accounts were opened, this is probably not Skipton's fault at all.

The problem (for Skipton and other providers) is that the Know Your Customer rules change with time.

If you have older accounts before the current rules were brought in, the law does not require that they retrospectively identify you more rigorously. But if you want to open a *new* account, they have to apply the *current* rules on identification.

So yes, it may appear nonsensical, but that's not Skipton's fault.

It could be yes, it could be no.

What about checking it from CRAs. They have access to CRA do not they ??

What about if during the same period (say within the same week/month), you could open another saving, current account and/or credit card with another bank, BS and they do not ask your certified ID to be sent as they could identify you online.

What about in few months you apply again with the same banks, BS and get accepted straight away without  them asking you the certified documents.

My conclusion to this is that:

They are several types of people working in the banks/BS, novice, lazy, incompetent. If they are novice it is forgivable as they will learn.

Of course if you need something it is easier to just ask people to send it to you rather than you spend time searching it. It is easy to say that if it is not your own passport, it is not your own money to ask lawyers, post office to certify that for you, to pay posting for the registered document.

eskbanker

adindas said:

My conclusion to this is that:

They are several types of people working in the banks, some are lazy, incompetent. Of course if you need something it is much easier to just ask people to send it to you rather than you searching it. It is easy to say that if it is not your passport, it is not your money to ask lawyers, post office to certify that for you.

Oh yes, that'll be it - any valid KYC requests made by financial institutions must be because of 'lazy incompetent' staff! 🙄

Band7

adindas said:

eskbanker said:

Eh?  I have no idea how or why you're trying to link horrific stories about a rapist police officer to banks making KYC checks, but would suggest that it's inappropriate to do so....

Police have the power, resources to do in depth investigation in vetting, bank do not. If it could happen in police force let alone in the banking industries.
In my previous post I mention in my conclusion. I am interested in knowing what other conclusion people or you might come up.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself with the KYC obligations banks and other financial institutions have under their Licence before you draw more embarrassing conclusions?

flaneurs_lobster

My conclusion, FWIW, is that I'd like this thread removed as it's irrelevant, inappropriate and insulting.

adindas

Band7 said:

adindas said:

eskbanker said:

Eh?  I have no idea how or why you're trying to link horrific stories about a rapist police officer to banks making KYC checks, but would suggest that it's inappropriate to do so....

Police have the power, resources to do in depth investigation in vetting, bank do not. If it could happen in police force let alone in the banking industries.
In my previous post I mention in my conclusion. I am interested in knowing what other conclusion people or you might come up.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself with the KYC obligations banks and other financial institutions have under their Licence before you draw more embarrassing conclusions?

And what are the other conclusions (refer to my post Today at 11:23AM? Mind to elaborate?

Did I ever say  "any valid KYC requests made by financial institutions must be because of 'lazy incompetent' staff! "

Do the other banks/BSs or even the same banks/BS but different person assessing it who approve that application do not comply with KYC ? If this was true that was a serious matter.

eskbanker

As you effectively accept, AML/KYC checks have been discussed on here many times over the years, and, in response to concerns about how intrusive the process can be, the threads usually cover the ground that the legislation isn't prescriptive in terms of exactly what customer data is fair game for checking, so institutions naturally differ in what they ask for.

Likewise the criteria for making such checks aren't publicised, so appear random (and may in fact be random, spot-checking is a perfectly valid technique) rather than people knowing why they've been asked to provide data.

Obviously institutions will use electronic ID verification where they can, as this is quicker and cheaper, but it isn't always an adequate substitute for more extensive manual checks.

In a heavily-regulated industry, the idea that KYC checks are initiated because staff don't know what they're doing is risible....

JB50MSE

I sometimes open new accounts with either my existing or other banks/building societies/financial institutions. They sometimes ask for ID of various kinds. If I think the new account will benefit me, and as long as I can post or securely upload (but not email) copies, or I can conveniently visit a branch, I comply with the requests.
It seems to me that some organisations check my ID via standard ways, and some require additional proof; I'm not sure why. Maybe some have random checks, like airport checks. It is mildly irritating but I don't object, mainly because I appreciate the organisation is checking I am not committing fraud. I do not take it as a personal insult, or evidence of their incompetence. Various friends have suffered because fraudsters have opened accounts in their name and even their address, so additional checks seem reasonable and are not uncommon. 

ForumUser7

Skipton Building Society unfortunately insisted on receiving ID in the post for me. I sent in the certified copies, and they were quickly reviewed and accepted - that said, it would be much better if they let me upload it online.

I understand the necessity to identify customers, and I'm happy to comply - I just find it more convenient when they can use a service like Hooyu or even just their own online portal to which I can upload documents. I've found some smaller building societies allow it to be sent via email, and I am fine with this too - but I tend to password protect the document and then call up to give them the password, just to have some level of protection.