RCI Enhanced due diligence

dont_use_vistaprint

ivormonee said:

I would imagine it's a source of funds check that they're wanting to carry out. For existing funds, usually going back two years would be sufficient, as that is the period normally associated with "existing". If you showed them where you had the funds deposited for this period, and the movements during the period, that should in theory be enough. If they need source of wealth information, then that might need a bit more work, but even then explanations that match your profile would usually be enough.

You said that: No issues explaining the sources but looks like the evidence they want is the actual transactions, amounts, dates, companies which would take a huge amount of effort to trace back to earnings and dozens of savings accounts over the last 20 years.

So, this is your assumption rather than something they've specified they want. I would probably be inclined to ask them to clarify what they require, as tracing back twenty years' worth of transactions would seem highly unlikely!

It does say they want the amounts, dates and company names showing source of funds but I’ve spoken to them now and they have said send two years of bank statements if everything has gone through the same bank in and out. Then they will write to me again if they need more than this. 

Felt like the person telling me this didn’t know what they needed & a case of submit this it might work…..

Kim_13

Username change to dont_use_rci? It could of course happen anywhere, but the larger than the usual customer transaction bit isn’t great. It should based on the usual transactions of that customer and other information held about them. 

poseidon1

dont_use_vistaprint said:

1spiral said:

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

Maybe an RCI specific and badly designed control then. The letter does say actually it’s been triggered because the amount is larger than the average customer transaction -  this itself tells me the control is badly designed. It would not pass a proper audit on fraud prevention and detection, the variables in the controls need much better justification

I would tend to agree, probably RCI specific and indicative of the relatively modest average of balances and movements they are accustomed to seeing. They only get modest 5 figures from me when i use them.

Has to speculation that it might be because you exceed the fscs compensation limit, I also agree that sounds like utter nonsense.

Like yourself I regularly move high 6 figures around  different savings institutions ( over the past 10 years) and have never triggered a red flag or enhanced  due diligence  from any of them.

However, appreciate your highlighting RCI's short comings in this regard, and will limit my offerings to what they are comfortable handling.

1spiral

poseidon1 said:

dont_use_vistaprint said:

1spiral said:

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

However, appreciate your highlighting RCI's short comings in this regard, and will limit my offerings to what they are comfortable handling.

I don't think I would be put off of easy access accounts because if you don't like what they ask, you can just remove the funds and go elsewhere (unless of course they block that).

In my instance the problem was it was a notice account so I couldn't risk them closing the account and returning the funds, potentially without interest.

poseidon1

1spiral said:

poseidon1 said:

dont_use_vistaprint said:

1spiral said:

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

However, appreciate your highlighting RCI's short comings in this regard, and will limit my offerings to what they are comfortable handling.

I don't think I would be put off of easy access accounts because if you don't like what they ask, you can just remove the funds and go elsewhere (unless of course they block that).

In my instance the problem was it was a notice account so I couldn't risk them closing the account and returning the funds, potentially without interest.

Fair point, although with RCI I have been using their 14 day notice evolve account, so would not want to trip wire a  due diligence enquiry,  albeit at a potential cost of only 14 days interest.

dont_use_vistaprint

1spiral said:

poseidon1 said:

dont_use_vistaprint said:

1spiral said:

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

However, appreciate your highlighting RCI's short comings in this regard, and will limit my offerings to what they are comfortable handling.

I don't think I would be put off of easy access accounts because if you don't like what they ask, you can just remove the funds and go elsewhere (unless of course they block that).

In my instance the problem was it was a notice account so I couldn't risk them closing the account and returning the funds, potentially without interest.

This is actually  what it is, the 95-day notice. 

dont_use_vistaprint

Kim_13 said:

Username change to dont_use_rci? It could of course happen anywhere, but the larger than the usual customer transaction bit isn’t great. It should based on the usual transactions of that customer and other information held about them. 

Yes, all they needed to do was look at the sort code where the funds came from me to realise they come from a company with the one of the best processes  in the world for this type of thing. 

No need for a user name change they haven’t stolen anything !