Absolutely FUMING with Abbey

KiKi

I've been asked plenty of times. I have no problem with it at all.

Everyone has the option to say "it's none of your business".

As others have said, it's usually the *way* the question is asked. If someone is bright and cheerful, and says something like "are you treating yourself to something nice?" then it's fine. I might offer up what I want the money for. If someone very formally says "and now tell me what you're spending the money on" I'd tell them it's none of their business - which I've done before.

They noted it down, and I got on with my day.

No point spending the rest of my weeks being upset over it; I've got better things to do in life than hold a grudge against an employee who asked me a question I didn't like in an unfriendly manner.

KiKi

LittleVoice

reformedEffortMaker wrote: »

. . . . Funnily, none of the bank employees were able to answer why you dont get the same line of questioning when you make transfers over the internet/phone??

For information -

I've just arranged a withdrawal from my Northern Rock account. Though it was on the internet (and in fact for less than £100), the withdrawal process included a standard question of asking the "reason for the withdrawal". (Now that of course is not exactly the same as "what are you going to do with the money?"). There is then a drop-down list of 4 options: home improvement, account rate, not disclosed, holiday.

It seems to me that the reason there is to see what effect their rate reductions have on depositors actions and to flag up where they might be able to sell other products (foreign exchange, for example).

noh

LittleVoice wrote: »

For information -

I've just arranged a withdrawal from my Northern Rock account. Though it was on the internet (and in fact for less than £100), the withdrawal process included a standard question of asking the "reason for the withdrawal". (Now that of course is not exactly the same as "what are you going to do with the money?"). There is then a drop-down list of 4 options: home improvement, account rate, not disclosed, holiday.

It seems to me that the reason there is to see what effect their rate reductions have on depositors actions and to flag up where they might be able to sell other products (foreign exchange, for example).

Same here, except I withdrew all bar £1, as you say its more likely being done for marketing reasons.
I was quite happy to inform them that the reason for withdrawal was "account rate".

Nigel

shellylovesshopping

gatita wrote: »

I notice the bank don't bother to ask me the same question when I make a deposit! I have asked many of my friends who live in various countries within the EU, and they ALL said it was OUTRAGEOUS to be asked what I wanted MY money for.
Not that it really makes much difference, but I am a 70 year old woman so unlikely to be a drugs dealer:rolleyes:
I have worked abroad most of my life travelling extensively, and have NEVER EVER been put through the interrogation I was put through today, and all for a poxy £2.500! Lord help me when I leave here for good, (can't come quick enough:p ) just WHAT information will I have to give then.
By the way, not all banks are like that at all, as yesterday I went to Lloyd's TSB and did a similar transaction with NO PROBLEMS at all.

I work for a bank and they wouldn't question you for a deposit as it could be classed as tipping off if money laundering is suspected - if it were an unusual transaction you would have probably been investigated for money laundering!

Retired_I.F.A.

lets get real here folks. They ask what your gonna do with the money in the hope of selling you something.

Tell them you going to put it in an xyz account abc bond. donate it even to the KKK funds and they'll have their tied advisor jump over the counter with an alternative proposal form already filled in and the pen will be in you hand to sign quicker than the clerk can open her cash draw let alone count it.

overlander

Retired I.F.A

Exactly, that is the only reason. All this rubbish about security and money laundering is just rubbish. Banks will have profiles for different groups of customers and they will know their banking habits. The computers and staff will be aware when activity on accounts does not follow a rough pattern. Only this will initiate a suspicion and they will dig further.

Meltdown_2

reformedEffortMaker wrote: »

overlander-couldnt agree more with your last comment. Funnily, none of the bank employees were able to answer why you dont get the same line of questioning when you make transfers over the internet/phone??

Perhaps because that doesn't involve them personally?

Also, I think if I was a financial investigator, the best thing I would want someone to do is withdraw the cash

In theory, this was one part of why the SAR procedures came about - so that SOCA could tell the banks to go ahead and pay the money over (even if the bank was dubious about doing so) - with SOCA investigators following the process. Of course it doesn't work like that - any decision on the transaction is done by the cashier there and then. Whether or not any SAR follow-up takes place is entirely a post-transaction decision.

I think the bank staff have been conned into thinking they would be in trouble if they didnt ask, they may well be breeching their employers policy, but DEFINITELY would not be breaking the law.

Yes, "conned" seems to be the appropriate word.
Cashiers (or any other bank staff - though it is clearly cashiers who are involved in over-the-counter transactions) are required by the legislation to take certain action IF THEY ARE SUSPICIOUS. (I felt that needed highlighting.)
If they are not suspicious (and who is anyone else to determine whether or not they are), then they are in the clear regarding the legislation. Some banks seem to have turned their counter staff into people who see ANY hesitation in answering a question AS suspicious. (or anyone in a tracksuit? or with a scouse accent??)
One wonders what training enables counter staff to determine 'suspicious characters' on no evidence whatsoever.
As I have said before, it is bank management who are at fault (and they aren't the ones at the sharp end).

If more people had answered 'none of your business', perhaps the question wouldn't be asked anymore!

Presumably in the short term SOCA would get deluged with more Suspicious Activity Reports ('refusal to answer a security question' :rolleyes:). These would go on their database, so the police would have records on perfectly honest people going about perfectly honest (private) business. But of course there would be no SOCA follow-up because there would be nothing further to go on. Pointless?

dunstonh

I think the bank staff have been conned into thinking they would be in trouble if they didnt ask, they may well be breeching their employers policy, but DEFINITELY would not be breaking the law.

There is certainly a lot of pressure put on the staff but you are wrong. Failure to report a suspicion would break the law and see them face prosecution and up to 15 years imprisonment.

Retired_I.F.A.

I can only think of one possible reason a staff member could be suspicious and that involves the customer answering the question or overhearing the customer saying the money was to be used for some illegal activity and the latter is the only justifyable reason for asking the question.

wymondham

Are conversations at the counter recorded does anyone know as this would be an aid.....