Bank Switching - How Blatant?

jim1999

Slinky said:

Picking up on the comment about Chase, is it correct that you can use a Chase pot as a donor account without Chase closing your main account? I've read somewhere about Chase never allowing you to open an account with them if you've closed one previously.

I've used secondary Chase accounts as "donors".  I imagine closing all of them would put you at risk.

flaneurs_lobster

Slinky said:

Picking up on the comment about Chase, is it correct that you can use a Chase pot as a donor account without Chase closing your main account? I've read somewhere about Chase never allowing you to open an account with them if you've closed one previously.

Not a "pot", Chase allow you to open one or more current accounts (each has its own account number). These can be switched away without consequence to the original current account.

IAmRobbo

Zanderman said:

By whom? An actual real example, or just hearsay? Opening bank accounts requires proof of identity. As a minimum that requires name, DOB, and address information.

It's hearsay in the sense that I've read about this on a rather famous website.  I have no idea whether this is true or whether people succeed in doing this.  Elsewhere on this site people have opened more Regular Savers than they are entitled to so I suspect banks are a combination of lax in their checking and a little incompetent, though it's probably just not worth the effort for them, in a financial sense, to perform thorough checks.  I must stress that I would never do this and I do not endorse this sort of dishonesty.

born_again

IAmRobbo said:

But I'm wondering if the banks actually talk to each other and maintain lists of people who switch accounts purely for bonuses.

Defiantly not.
Although banks internal systems will still have you as a previous customer for however long they feel they want to.

Marketing teams always good for a laugh.
We going to do a bribe to boost customer base, 6 months later look how well we did with extra customers, year end customer base, same as start of year....
So all that money thrown away, marketing budget down drain as well as their wages. All for a short term gain & long term stalemate 🤣

Zanderman

IAmRobbo said:

Zanderman said:

By whom? An actual real example, or just hearsay? Opening bank accounts requires proof of identity. As a minimum that requires name, DOB, and address information.

It's hearsay in the sense that I've read about this on a rather famous website.  I have no idea whether this is true or whether people succeed in doing this.  Elsewhere on this site people have opened more Regular Savers than they are entitled to so I suspect banks are a combination of lax in their checking and a little incompetent, though it's probably just not worth the effort for them, in a financial sense, to perform thorough checks.  I must stress that I would never do this and I do not endorse this sort of dishonesty.

Opening multiple regular savers is a completely different issue. That's just the bank not checking its own T&C are complied with or not - i.e it's the bank's internal affair. 

ID is a rigorously checked issue because that's a legal requirement - i.e not the bank's internal affair but a legally binding obligation by the bank to the law.

Different ballgames - internal T&C compliance versus external legal compliance - don't confuse them.

(Which famous website suggests that multiple addresses can be used?)

flaneurs_lobster

IAmRobbo said:

  I must stress that I would never do this and I do not endorse this sort of dishonesty.

Quite right too. There's a considerable difference between opening an extra savings account against bank's terms, and making false declarations in order to gain financial advantage. The latter is the very definition of fraud.

Unlikely to get you prosecuted (the sums involved are trivial), might well get you blacklisted from opening any kind of bank account.

IAmRobbo

Zanderman said:

Opening multiple regular savers is a completely different issue. That's just the bank not checking its own T&C are complied with or not - i.e it's the bank's internal affair. 

ID is a rigorously checked issue because that's a legal requirement - i.e not the bank's internal affair but a legally binding obligation by the bank to the law.

Different ballgames - internal T&C compliance versus external legal compliance - don't confuse them.

(Which famous website suggests that multiple addresses can be used?)

I'm not confusing anything!  I thought I'd made my stance on honesty quite clear?
I'm not going to name the website and the website itself doesn't suggest that multiple addresses can be used, but there are people on the website who happily admit to using multiple addresses.

Zanderman

IAmRobbo said:

Zanderman said:

Opening multiple regular savers is a completely different issue. That's just the bank not checking its own T&C are complied with or not - i.e it's the bank's internal affair. 

ID is a rigorously checked issue because that's a legal requirement - i.e not the bank's internal affair but a legally binding obligation by the bank to the law.

Different ballgames - internal T&C compliance versus external legal compliance - don't confuse them.

(Which famous website suggests that multiple addresses can be used?)

I'm not confusing anything!  I thought I'd made my stance on honesty quite clear?
I'm not going to name the website and the website itself doesn't suggest that multiple addresses can be used, but there are people on the website who happily admit to using multiple addresses.

I'm not suggesting that you're dishonest! Where did I suggest that?

I'm merely pointing out that your remark (in response to mine about banks not allowing differing addresses) referencing banks being rather careless with regular saver rules, is comparing apples to oranges. Regular saver rules are bank rules. ID checking by the bank is governmental rules. Banks ignoring their own rules now and then can't be seen to suggest they will similarly ignore government rules. 

As for naming the website, why not?   If the suggestions are from forum uses on it there's no harm in mentioning the website.

HedgehogRulez

IAmRobbo said:

Zanderman said:

Opening multiple regular savers is a completely different issue. That's just the bank not checking its own T&C are complied with or not - i.e it's the bank's internal affair. 

ID is a rigorously checked issue because that's a legal requirement - i.e not the bank's internal affair but a legally binding obligation by the bank to the law.

Different ballgames - internal T&C compliance versus external legal compliance - don't confuse them.

(Which famous website suggests that multiple addresses can be used?)

I'm not confusing anything!  I thought I'd made my stance on honesty quite clear?
I'm not going to name the website and the website itself doesn't suggest that multiple addresses can be used, but there are people on the website who happily admit to using multiple addresses.

Any particular reason why not mention the website name? 😆

flaneurs_lobster

Zanderman said:

As for naming the website, why not?   If the suggestions are from forum uses on it there's no harm in mentioning the website.

I wouldn't mention the site (but I bet a good few here could probably guess). Already stated here that second address use is unwise at best, illegal possibly. Don't want to link to a site where step-by-step directions on how to "game" the system are given, might give the mods here a problem & they always err on the side of caution.