NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY

dunstonh

I was asked my income, this I considered to be an unnecessary intrusive request and refused, 

it is not unnecessary.   The 5th AML directive requires information to be obtained on a risk based approach.    Income is a key question that many will ask as part for their Know-your-client requirements.  The level of information will be risk based and can include any electronic checks made.

I was informed this was a regulatory requirement.

The actual question isnt a regulatory requirement directly but compliance with the AML requirements is.

I again refused as I had not had this request from another building society. 

I use many providers.  Some look at income.  Some look at occupation.   All require some degree of information but it will vary depending on what stage they are at moving to the latest standards and any extra requirements that that FCA have put on them over the years.   i.e. if the FCA were not happy with the level of documentation on file it often results in the outcome that provider goes above and beyond the typical for a period.

I wrote to the Nationwide CEO and expected that I would be informed that this was a mistake but was informed that it is a regulatory requirement.

What part of the AML directives did you think Nationwide were incorrectly applying?

I also wrote to my MP who informed me that “It is incorrect to say that this is a Government regulatory requirement in the circumstances as you have described them”.

The MP is correct but its a unhelpful response as it lacks the reasoning they would ask for it, which is a regulatory requirement.

I also asked Nationwide and my MP how Nationwide could check this information, if they had access to Inland Revenue records, neither replied to that question.

I am not sure why you think the US inland revenue would have anything to do it with it.  Perhaps you made another mistake and meant HMRC.

t also concerns me how secure their system is with continual news reports of information being hacked.

If you have evidence that the Nationwide are not complying with data protection regs and FCA rules/guidelines then you can raise them with the FCA.   

Who is correct Nationwide or my MP, is there regulation requiring them to request income for a minor transaction?

Both of them are correct.

Should Nationwide be allowed to harvest unnecessary data or are they abusing their position?

They are doing neither.

How can they check my income?

They don't at this stage.  Only if you give them reason to can they do so.

You are being totally unreasonable and creating costs unnecessarily.  Increased costs mean lower returns.

newatc

I get this often when I open an account , I just put in a round number which seems appropriate . Similarly when asked where the money is coming from I put in other savings.  Never had any comeback so just play along.

eskbanker

Middle_of_the_Road said:

eskbanker said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

If it's just a question which requires a number without proof provided, why not just humour them with any figure you see fit. It's really not worth making a big fuss over. My income varies from month to month, year to year, so any figures I provide is pretty meaningless.

It's important to be consistent though - anyone using different figures for declared income across multiple applications runs the risk of discrepancies being flagged in anti-fraud databases such as National Hunter, which can have painful consequences if deemed to be outside reasonable tolerances....

I'm sure many peoples income declarations will be variable over time, due to promotions, change of jobs, redundancy or retirement etc.
If these declarations are monitored to determine fraud, they would need to apply more parameters to define 'reasonable tolerances'..... 

Unsurprisingly, the tolerances in such algorithms won't be published but yes, as you say, there are many reasons why income will vary over time so it certainly isn't as simple as variations automatically raising suspicion!  However, it's still unlikely to be a good idea to "just humour them with any figure you see fit"....

Angelica123

There are plenty of 2 year ISA fixes that are higher than your NW one, so why not just switch banks if it bothers you so much.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask income - they already have access to data about the amount of money coming in and out of your account. I certainly wouldn't spend any more time fighting this. Either accept it or move to another bank. 

PixelPound

mebu60 said:

You can provide an incorrect figure if it would make you feel better.

Say £1M per annum see if you get special treatment.

mebu60

nic_c said:

mebu60 said:

You can provide an incorrect figure if it would make you feel better.

Say £1M per annum see if you get special treatment.

Inundated with marketing for paid-for 'premium' services probably. 

Exodi

I often think some posters on here can be pretty out to lunch on the lengths they will go to for the most trivial things (the classic phrase people love using to try justify this - 'it's the principle').

But storming out of a branch after escalating to the branch manager, then writing to the CEO, and then writing to the MP over a totally insignificant question of which the answer, by your admission, is uninteresting, takes the cake. What a colossal waste of everyone's time.

I truly envy you having the time in your life to make such a mountain out of the smallest molehill (if you can call it that, I don't personally have any issue with being asked my income by a financial institution). My wife and I are unfortunately very time-poor so I think I'm probably more saddened by this than the typical person.

Albermarle

Exodi said:

I often think some posters on here can be pretty out to lunch on the lengths they will go to for the most trivial things (the classic phrase people love using to justify going to the ends of the Earth over - 'it's the principle').

But storming out of a branch after escalating to the branch manager, then writing to the CEO, and then writing to the MP over a totally insignificant question of which the answer, by your admission, is uninteresting, takes the cake. What a colossal waste of everyone's time.

I truly envy you having the time in your life to make such a mountain out of the smallest molehill (if you can call it that, I don't personally have any issue with being asked my income by a financial institution). My wife and I are unfortunately very time-poor so I think I'm probably more saddened by this than the typical person.

There was a similar thread recently where the poster was up in arms, because the savings provider wanted to record their conversation in branch.
The fact that this would probably protect them more than the provider in case of mistakes was lost on the poster, for whom it was also all about the Principle. 

TheWoodler

Different financial institutions will ask different questions as part of KYC checks - if they all followed a standard script, it would be easier for fraudsters to learn to circumvent! They might also or instead ask how you will fund your savings eg from inheritance, matured savings or income for example - how is that different?

Privacy over salary or income arises out of general societal expectations, and it serves no purpose to take offence at a perceived social transgression which takes place in an altogether different context, a business one.

It *is* generally expected that family, friends and acquaintances will not ask you what you earn - that’s regarded as rude and intrusive and could be blabbermouthed all over the place.

I wouldn’t be offended if someone I knew or a random man in the street asked me outright what I earned, but I would give a deflecting answer such as ‘a typical public sector employee at my grade’ which is truthful but gives nothing away. It isn’t their business. 

But it’s not a blanket ‘rule’. You are entitled to know what your spouse earns so that you can budget together for your bills, lifestyle, children, mortgage etc. It is your spouse’s business - and there should be no secrecy even if you have separate accounts, as we do. It may be your colleagues’ business if you work in an environment where you need to ensure you’re benchmarked and remunerated fairly (another area where societal disapprobation of discussing salary could work against you, but in which sharing information could work to everyone’s benefit).

In the same vein, a financial institution will want to know details of income on a mortgage application. It is *literally* their business and not a social transgression! You wouldn’t fuss in that instance, so why fuss over the other part of any financial institution’s business - current and savings accounts?

I remember being asked for details of income when being added to my now spouse’s savings account over 20 years ago (the only account we share to this day, incidentally!) so it’s nothing new either. 

When making a complaint, always ask yourself what has gone wrong. If it’s something mechanical - an error or glitch - to your detriment, or it breaks a law, or the bank has incorrectly applied or done such and such, then it’s worth complaining. Misapplying social rules to a business transaction won’t get you anywhere - and in the case of the OP, it clearly hasn’t! 

subjecttocontract

Exodi said:

I often think some posters on here can be pretty out to lunch on the lengths they will go to for the most trivial things (the classic phrase people love using to justify going to the ends of the Earth over - 'it's the principle').

But storming out of a branch after escalating to the branch manager, then writing to the CEO, and then writing to the MP over a totally insignificant question of which the answer, by your admission, is uninteresting, takes the cake. What a colossal waste of everyone's time.

I truly envy you having the time in your life to make such a mountain out of the smallest molehill (if you can call it that, I don't personally have any issue with being asked my income by a financial institution). My wife and I are unfortunately very time-poor so I think I'm probably more saddened by this than the typical person.

No you are definitely wrong.....I'm a typical person and I'm far more saddened by this than you are.
I get so annoyed with people who think they can tell me how saddened I should feel ! 😁😁