No Photo ID

masonic

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

Compulsory ID should be free (as my national ID is). Voluntary ID (e.g. passports) not necessarily so.

It can never be free, the cost can be hidden in general taxation, but such a scheme will always cost the public.

Free of individual out-of-pocket costs; such optics matter for anything compulsory. I didn't pay to register my national ID, and I don't have to pay to renew it either, either individually or through taxes. I'm obviously aware its overall administration is paid for by the public, but they complain about it as much as the British complain about having to pay for the NHS.

It doesn't need to be compulsory, and I don't agree that having others cross-subsidise those who are able to dodge the cost through changing tax domicile is ideal. The vast majority of the UK adult population already have acceptable government issued ID, so creating a completely new ID card and making that compulsory is an unnecessary expense for the taxpayer in my view. Far cheaper to target financial support at those who need such a document and don't have the means to afford one. Those who really don't want/need one would then still be free to opt out and not be any burden to the taxpayer.

AmityNeon

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

Compulsory ID should be free (as my national ID is). Voluntary ID (e.g. passports) not necessarily so.

It can never be free, the cost can be hidden in general taxation, but such a scheme will always cost the public.

Free of individual out-of-pocket costs; such optics matter for anything compulsory. I didn't pay to register my national ID, and I don't have to pay to renew it either, either individually or through taxes. I'm obviously aware its overall administration is paid for by the public, but they complain about it as much as the British complain about having to pay for the NHS.

It doesn't need to be compulsory, and I don't agree that having others cross-subsidise those who are able to dodge the cost through changing tax domicile is ideal. The vast majority of the UK adult population already have acceptable government issued ID, so creating a completely new ID card and making that compulsory is an unnecessary expense for the taxpayer in my view. Far cheaper to target financial support at those who need such a document and don't have the means to afford one. Those who really don't want/need one would then still be free to opt out and not be any burden to the taxpayer.

They had an opportunity with compulsory ID for voting, but alas, that became yet another single-purpose document that most organisations can ignore. I don't see the status quo changing any time soon so the current system is what we all must work with; it's hardly ideal, but we must accept it either way, whether it's paying for ID, or managing the consequences of going without. I personally prioritise the costs of a valid passport like any other essential bill, e.g. accommodation and utilities. More power to those who actively campaign for change, perhaps advocating for subsidies for those receiving forms of credit, but that's another fight in itself and doesn't help people right now.

TheBanker

Swipe said:

A passport is an accepted form of ID that doesn't contain your address. Go figure.

It's proving who you are, not where you live. That's why you sometimes have to supply a second document such as a bank statement or council tax bill to prove your address (sometimes your address can be confirmed via the voters roll).

TheBanker

Expotter said:

You're all assuming here that obtaining a new passport is a simple and relative cheap and painless process.
Spare a thought for foreign nationals residing in the UK, especially non EU citizens, it can involve booking an appointment months in advance in a Consulate or Embassy in London, paying way more than £90 plus the travelling expenses and  waiting for several months for it to be issued in the country of origin and eventually posted via recorded delivery to you at your own cost. And to top it all it may only last for 5 years. Plus if you're a married woman the name in it probably won't match the one you use in the UK, so you still can't use it for online ID.
Not exactly easy, is it? Considering that most, if not all accounts, are open to UK residents and not nationals, it could be seen as a form of discrimination, just saying.

Surely if you are a foreign national residing in the UK, you need a valid passport anyway? It's not something you'd apply for just to open a bank account. If a foreign national finds it difficult to obtain a passport while they're residing in the UK, that's a complaint that needs to be made to their government of nationality I think. 

TheBanker

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

Compulsory ID should be free (as my national ID is). Voluntary ID (e.g. passports) not necessarily so.

It can never be free, the cost can be hidden in general taxation, but such a scheme will always cost the public.

Free of individual out-of-pocket costs; such optics matter for anything compulsory. I didn't pay to register my national ID, and I don't have to pay to renew it either, either individually or through taxes. I'm obviously aware its overall administration is paid for by the public, but they complain about it as much as the British complain about having to pay for the NHS.

It doesn't need to be compulsory, and I don't agree that having others cross-subsidise those who are able to dodge the cost through changing tax domicile is ideal. The vast majority of the UK adult population already have acceptable government issued ID, so creating a completely new ID card and making that compulsory is an unnecessary expense for the taxpayer in my view. Far cheaper to target financial support at those who need such a document and don't have the means to afford one. Those who really don't want/need one would then still be free to opt out and not be any burden to the taxpayer.

A simple solution would be to have the DVLA issue a type of photocard license that's not valid for driving. Make it a different colour to avoid any confusion.

The applicant would pay the normal DVLA fee, and complete the normal DVLA identity checks. In return they'd receive a photo ID card, which would have the same acceptability as a driving license for ID purposes. This could be available to those who are not able to drive for medical reasons, have no interest in driving, or have been banned from driving. Perhaps if you surrender your license for medical reasons you could be given a replacement 'non driving license' free of charge. 

Expotter

TheBanker said:

Expotter said:

You're all assuming here that obtaining a new passport is a simple and relative cheap and painless process.
Spare a thought for foreign nationals residing in the UK, especially non EU citizens, it can involve booking an appointment months in advance in a Consulate or Embassy in London, paying way more than £90 plus the travelling expenses and  waiting for several months for it to be issued in the country of origin and eventually posted via recorded delivery to you at your own cost. And to top it all it may only last for 5 years. Plus if you're a married woman the name in it probably won't match the one you use in the UK, so you still can't use it for online ID.
Not exactly easy, is it? Considering that most, if not all accounts, are open to UK residents and not nationals, it could be seen as a form of discrimination, just saying.

Surely if you are a foreign national residing in the UK, you need a valid passport anyway? It's not something you'd apply for just to open a bank account. If a foreign national finds it difficult to obtain a passport while they're residing in the UK, that's a complaint that needs to be made to their government of nationality I think. 

If you've lived here for a long time, you wouldn't need a passport any more than a British national who doesn't travel abroad.

 As for the process, I was merely implying that is not always as straightforward as most seem to believe it is. And as I said before, sometimes even if you own a passport it's still not good enough to use for online ID.

 The real problem here is the inflexibility of some institutions to accommodate people without the standard forms of ID, and giving that there isn't a universally accepted and/or mandatory ID card, they exclude a portion of society from accessing their products.

TheBanker

Expotter said:

TheBanker said:

Expotter said:

You're all assuming here that obtaining a new passport is a simple and relative cheap and painless process.
Spare a thought for foreign nationals residing in the UK, especially non EU citizens, it can involve booking an appointment months in advance in a Consulate or Embassy in London, paying way more than £90 plus the travelling expenses and  waiting for several months for it to be issued in the country of origin and eventually posted via recorded delivery to you at your own cost. And to top it all it may only last for 5 years. Plus if you're a married woman the name in it probably won't match the one you use in the UK, so you still can't use it for online ID.
Not exactly easy, is it? Considering that most, if not all accounts, are open to UK residents and not nationals, it could be seen as a form of discrimination, just saying.

Surely if you are a foreign national residing in the UK, you need a valid passport anyway? It's not something you'd apply for just to open a bank account. If a foreign national finds it difficult to obtain a passport while they're residing in the UK, that's a complaint that needs to be made to their government of nationality I think. 

If you've lived here for a long time, you wouldn't need a passport any more than a British national who doesn't travel abroad.

 As for the process, I was merely implying that is not always as straightforward as most seem to believe it is. And as I said before, sometimes even if you own a passport it's still not good enough to use for online ID.
 The real problem here is the inflexibility of some institutions to accommodate people without the standard forms of ID, and giving that there isn't a universally accepted and/or mandatory ID card, they exclude a portion of society from accessing their products.

Individual organisations are entitled to set their own requirements. For an organisation such as Chase, which doesn't have a branch network, they are inevitably going to rely on digital solutions. It is not easy to see how they could meet the regulatory requirements for a current account given these constraints. I don't think they should invest in capabilities which will only benefit a few customers when they could invest in other services (such as enhancements to their app) which would benefit far more customers. 

It is important to recognise that nobody is being excluded from accessing financial services. The traditional high street banks have committed to opening Basic Bank Accounts for people who are financially excluded, and will apply 'exceptions' where standard ID cannot be provided, for example using documents from HMRC or the DWP, tenancy agreements, letters from doctors or social workers... HSBC I believe have a partnership with Shelter to support bank account opening for people who do not have a residential address. These accounts have some limitations, and it may be necessary to go to a branch to open one, but they are available. Ultimately if someone decides they do not want a passport, then they have to accept that they won't be able to do everything that someone who has a passport does.

I would like the government to provide a solution, hence my suggestion above that they use the DVLA infrastructure (which already exists and is able to issue nationally recognised ID). In my opinion asking the DVLA to issue ID cards (which would be similar to driving licenses, but don't allow the holder to drive) would not cost a substantial sum, and could be covered by charging a fee similar to the driving license fee. But I don't think the lack of a government solution means the banks are in the wrong.

There is a specific case in this thread where someone had the correct ID, but is now unable to use their Chase account as they need to re-identify themselves but no longer have ID. I think that's very unfortunate, but the solution Chase have offered (transfer the balance to a bank which is able to offer a more suitable account) is reasonable. 

WeeBawbee

TheBanker said:

I think that's very unfortunate, but the solution Chase have offered (transfer the balance to a bank which is able to offer a more suitable account) is reasonable. 

Unfortunate is an understatement. Especially when they were able to identify me over the phone with additional security questions. 

Reasonable would be reasonable if I wasn’t still waiting, 24 hours later, for the money to be transferred. I’ve questioned them twice today but am only be assured that it’s in hand. It’s hugely stressful, not to mention infuriating.

xylophone

whilst my immediate family galivanted around the world.

Couldn't bear to be parted from you while globe trotting?

GaleSF63

TheBanker said:

A simple solution would be to have the DVLA issue a type of photocard license that's not valid for driving. Make it a different colour to avoid any confusion.

The applicant would pay the normal DVLA fee, and complete the normal DVLA identity checks. In return they'd receive a photo ID card, which would have the same acceptability as a driving license for ID purposes. This could be available to those who are not able to drive for medical reasons, have no interest in driving, or have been banned from driving. Perhaps if you surrender your license for medical reasons you could be given a replacement 'non driving license' free of charge. 

This is along the lines of what I was thinking  - anyone who had had a driving licence but was no longer fit to drive could still renew their licence but it would come with something like a large unmissable cross on it and of course no driving categories on the back. I didn't think of a different colour - good idea.