Ever more difficult for foreigners to open bank accounts and savings accounts!

chiang_mai

masonic said:

The reasons seem clear enough. The OP's full name was too long to fit into the box on the application form so she abbreviated it. This led to variations that did not match her credit file and/or identity documents she possessed. She apparently now has accounts in different names other than her legal name and is unable to prove her pseudonym.

The example given was GB Bank, who initially appears to have accepted an application under a pseudonym, but was unwilling to register the OP's choice of nominated account because it was in a different name. To overcome this they asked for proof of identity and a bank statement showing the OP's actual name and full name on the bank account chosen as the nominated account. Which it appears was accepted. But having reviewed the non-UK passport, GB Bank also wanted proof of residency, which the OP refused to supply, citing unfair discrimination, whereas in reality this is likely the bank just trying to comply with its legal obligation to ensure it is not providing financial services to an EU resident.

I'm afraid I can't relate to the this, perhaps because the UK is not my every day home. I live in a place where English is not the first language. My name appears on various accounts and cards from different organisations as, first name, middle name and last name, when each company runs out of space for additional characters, they simply stop.......the name that appears on some cards and mailed communications is laughable. But all of them resolve back to the name as it appears in my passport. In my dealings with UK institutions I find that my NI number is the common denominator  and in the case of US companies, my Social Security number. 

chiang_mai

Section62 said:

Although polite and respectful challenge can sometimes work with banks, there is a line, and if someone were to 'get in their face' in a way the bank doesn't like then it won't make them more likely to accept you as a new customer, and may make them want to get rid of you as an existing customer.

Someone wanting to become a customer stands little chance if they adopt an aggressive or offensive approach in response to the bank saying 'no' - and ultimately most times the bank is entitled to say 'no' and the prospective customer just has to accept it.

Oh please! I am not suggesting aggression, only that the OP be persistent with a physical presence and be prepared to escalate matters through the chain of command. 

masonic

chiang_mai said:

masonic said:

The reasons seem clear enough. The OP's full name was too long to fit into the box on the application form so she abbreviated it. This led to variations that did not match her credit file and/or identity documents she possessed. She apparently now has accounts in different names other than her legal name and is unable to prove her pseudonym.

The example given was GB Bank, who initially appears to have accepted an application under a pseudonym, but was unwilling to register the OP's choice of nominated account because it was in a different name. To overcome this they asked for proof of identity and a bank statement showing the OP's actual name and full name on the bank account chosen as the nominated account. Which it appears was accepted. But having reviewed the non-UK passport, GB Bank also wanted proof of residency, which the OP refused to supply, citing unfair discrimination, whereas in reality this is likely the bank just trying to comply with its legal obligation to ensure it is not providing financial services to an EU resident.

I'm afraid I can't relate to the this, perhaps because the UK is not my every day home. I live in a place where English is not the first language. My name appears on various accounts and cards from different organisations as, first name, middle name and last name, when each company runs out of space for additional characters, they simply stop.......the name that appears on some cards and mailed communications is laughable. But all of them resolve back to the name as it appears in my passport. In my dealings with UK institutions I find that my NI number is the common denominator  and in the case of US companies, my Social Security number. 

This seems to be the most sensible way of dealing with the issue: use all of the available characters such that they can be matched to the name as it appears on the passport. In the UK, there are almost always separate fields for first name, middle name(s) - if asked for at all, and last name, so the result is likely to make a degree of sense. Confirmation of Payee will return a match for first name + last name or first name + middle name(s) + last name. It will also indicate a close match if an exact match isn't achieved. So there is flexibility in the system to deal with long names. Where a match cannot be achieved electronically, then one can fall back on physical documents, which is what happened to the OP. I suspect all would have been well if she was willing to provide the documentation requested, including the subsequent proof of residency (which is often asked of UK citizens failing electronic identity checks).

Due to several rounds of anti-money laundering legislation, and the loss of EU passporting rights for financial services post Brexit, there are a few more hoops to jump through for consumers, including UK citizens, but especially EU citizens residing in the UK. The latter is not because of xenophobia, it is a result of EU law intended to protect them from financial services that do not meet certain requirements, such as any firm providing financial services to EU residents having a registered office within the EU (which GB Bank does not).

Section62

chiang_mai said:

Section62 said:

Although polite and respectful challenge can sometimes work with banks, there is a line, and if someone were to 'get in their face' in a way the bank doesn't like then it won't make them more likely to accept you as a new customer, and may make them want to get rid of you as an existing customer.

Someone wanting to become a customer stands little chance if they adopt an aggressive or offensive approach in response to the bank saying 'no' - and ultimately most times the bank is entitled to say 'no' and the prospective customer just has to accept it.

Oh please! I am not suggesting aggression, only that the OP be persistent with a physical presence and be prepared to escalate matters through the chain of command. 

Using aggression and/or offensiveness is pretty much the definition of "get in their face", so it isn't clear what you were suggesting.

Also care needs to be taken with being "persistent with a physical presence" - as that can also be interpreted as threatening.

Most banks and building societies have some form of zero tolerance behaviour policy - which in effect can be a trump card over even legal requirements placed on them to offer services on a non-discriminatory basis.  If they don't want you as a customer and you then give them justification to invoke their behaviour policy you can forget about doing business with them.  So as a strategy what you suggest would probably be self-defeating.

chiang_mai

Section62 said:

Using aggression and/or offensiveness is pretty much the definition of "get in their face", so it isn't clear what you were suggesting.

Also care needs to be taken with being "persistent with a physical presence" - as that can also be interpreted as threatening.

Most banks and building societies have some form of zero tolerance behaviour policy - which in effect can be a trump card over even legal requirements placed on them to offer services on a non-discriminatory basis.  If they don't want you as a customer and you then give them justification to invoke their behaviour policy you can forget about doing business with them.  So as a strategy what you suggest would probably be self-defeating.

Well, what I'm not suggesting is to take no for an answer and give up, the first or even second time it's presented to them. You seem to equate tenacity and persistence with aggression and threatening behaviour, those things don't necessarily go hand in hand.  Sometimes, tenacity and persistence are required, in order to achieve positive results but that requires ability and will. If however individuals are unable to determine how to deliver that in a palatable and acceptable manner, they shouldn't even bother trying. As I wrote earlier, I've been successful in convincing the Registrar to change their mind regarding my ability to sell UK shares, if I'd taken their initial "no, cannot" and walked away, it would never have happened. 

Emmia

I have to say I agree with @section62 's interpretation of the effect of acting as @chiang_mai is suggesting.  

"Getting in their face" "physical presence" "not taking no for an answer" all suggest the actions of a fairly aggressive person who if they acted in this way is  likely to be escorted off the premises by security, and may find that a bank (or any business) would refuse their custom.

chiang_mai

Emmia said:

I have to say I agree with @section62 's interpretation of the effect of acting as @chiang_mai is suggesting.  

"Getting in their face" "physical presence" "not taken no for an answer" all suggest the actions of a fairly aggressive person who if they acted in this way is  likely to be escorted off the premises by security, and may find that a bank (or any business) would refuse their custom.

Oh dear, I despair for the UK.

Section62

chiang_mai said:

Section62 said:

Using aggression and/or offensiveness is pretty much the definition of "get in their face", so it isn't clear what you were suggesting.

Also care needs to be taken with being "persistent with a physical presence" - as that can also be interpreted as threatening.

Most banks and building societies have some form of zero tolerance behaviour policy - which in effect can be a trump card over even legal requirements placed on them to offer services on a non-discriminatory basis.  If they don't want you as a customer and you then give them justification to invoke their behaviour policy you can forget about doing business with them.  So as a strategy what you suggest would probably be self-defeating.

Well, what I'm not suggesting is to take no for an answer and give up, the first or even second time it's presented to them. You seem to equate tenacity and persistence with aggression and threatening behaviour, those things don't necessarily go hand in hand.  Sometimes, tenacity and persistence are required, in order to achieve positive results but that requires ability and will. If however individuals are unable to determine how to deliver that in a palatable and acceptable manner, they shouldn't even bother trying. As I wrote earlier, I've been successful in convincing the Registrar to change their mind regarding my ability to sell UK shares, if I'd taken their initial "no, cannot" and walked away, it would never have happened. 

No, it is "get in their face" which I would equate with 'aggression and threatening behaviour'.

Tenacity and persistence are very different, and - in the right situation - can get the result you want.  But they need to be used with care, and an awareness of where the limits are.  Cross the line and you've lost.

Your situation with the Registrar was somewhat different.  Perhaps someone ultimately decided it was Ok to go ahead because it meant a step towards offloading you as a customer.  The OP's position is different - they want to become a customer.  In that situation behaving in an inappropriate way is not likely to reverse a 'no' decision, quite the opposite.

QrizB

It might (or might not) be worth remembering that the UK doesn't have such a thing as a "legal name". You can call yourself whatever you like, as long as it's not for fraudulent reasons.

So if eg. I was Elizabeth Tudor-Pole, I could choose to call myself:

- Elizabeth Tudor-Pole 

- Liz Tudor-Pole (a common contraction of Elizabeth)

- Betty Tudor-Pole (also a contraction of Elizabeth)

- Beth Pole (a contraction of Elizabeth and dropping half my surname)

- James Stuart (an entirely different name)

In principle I could get bank accounts in any of those names, although James Stuart might need a little more effort.

clairec666

I'm white British, with a British name, no hyphens or anything, yet both my first name and surname are easy to mis-spell and sometimes this means having to jump through unnecessary hoops. I always have to spell out my surname, and yet often they still get it wrong. Once I had to show photo ID when booking into a hotel, and it didn't match the surname they'd made the booking for, because they'd put it into their system incorrectly despite me spelling it out 3 times on the phone. 15 minutes of standing around waiting for the manager to come and sort it out.

Bottom line - the more unusual your name is, the more trouble it causes you. It isn't racism or xenophobia, although a name of foreign origin is more likely to cause difficulties.