Frustration

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Is there a quiet corner in the tea room where the grumpy old gits congregate? I'll take up permanent residence there, if there is one…

Although in New Zealand, I retain a UK bank account, which I opened about 50 years ago. The bank has now decided I have to 'prove' or 'confirm' my identity. It has devolved this process to a third party firm. The only way offered is for me to send a photo of some photo-ID document, but I don't have any of the stipulated documents. The photo has to be 'live', so I can't upload a scanned image file. Then, I'm also supposed to send a live 'selfie' – again, I can't upload a file. 'Sending' seems to have to be done real-time, direct into the security firm's web site.

How would this 'confirm' my ID? Surely a school-kid could spoof the process.

I'm moderately aware of the risks of the internet and the difficulty of ensuring security. Identity information is surely some of the most sensitive, warranting strong security measures. I don't use a computer with a web-cam, and neither possess nor use a smartphone. So I can't do what I'm being asked to do.

The help desk suggests I 'pop into [my] branch'. Realization dawns that this might be difficult, so the suggestion is made that I get a friend or family member to use their 'phone for me. This is ridiculous! How can I know whether the 'phone is secure, or has been compromised?

I'm being asked to abandon all attempts at internet security, just so the bank can go through some bureaucratic exercise. UK law accepts several methods of identity confirmation. I'm happy to co-operate with the bank, to confirm my identity, provided it can be done securely, but I won't use a method which seems ridiculous. The bank has made no other method available.

As things stand, I will lose access to the account, and so will my wife, because it's a joint account. She has not been involved in the process at all. So she suffers because of my inability to complete an impossible task.

It's one of the main UK banks – they're coming to get you too!

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Grumpy old men are grumpy for a reason

[vic neweyParticipant @vicnewey60017]

Is not a scan of your passport good enough for them/

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

As I said, a scan is no good, and a passport is one of the documents I don't have!

[NealebParticipant @nealeb]

Kiwi Bloke – they might be coming to get you, too! There was a report in the UK press recently that a number of UK banks are closing the accounts of ex-pats without a permanent residence in the UK. It may be that this is more relevant for those living in Europe due to the Brexit business which means the banks are no longer able to do business there and NZ operates under different rules.

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

Posted by Nealeb on 16/09/2022 10:35:39:

Kiwi Bloke – they might be coming to get you, too! There was a report in the UK press recently that a number of UK banks are closing the accounts of ex-pats without a permanent residence in the UK. It may be that this is more relevant for those living in Europe due to the Brexit business which means the banks are no longer able to do business there and NZ operates under different rules.

Yes, Brexit has tripped it, all those expats living in Europe who have been claiming their full index linked Government pensions while still appearing to live in the UK, when they should be only getting a fixed one based on the payment when they left the UK.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

It's anti-money laundering stuff and it's got quite strict for the little people here in the UK

I got a passport a couple of years ago because you basically need a national ID to do useful stuff, even though they still pretend that we don't have a national ID system in the UK

Checking your pension

bank account stuff

Black cab licence

etc

They even pulled me in for an interview and I had to take a day to go to Glasgow

Question1-"So why do you want a passport?"

Answer1-"I don't want a passport. YOU want a passport."

[Bob Unitt 1Participant @bobunitt1]

Posted by Ady1 on 16/09/2022 11:06:25:

It's anti-money laundering stuff and it's got quite strict for the little people here in the UK

Whereas the big people carry on as before with offshore tax-havens and the like – it's all (damned annoying) window-dressing really.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

More to do with anti-Money Laundering than Brexit, though leaving the EU has made proving identity more difficult in Europe. Borders aren't always a good thing!

The relevant bit of the UK Money Laundering / Anti-terrorism legislation is:

28.—(1) This regulation applies when a relevant person is required by regulation 27 to apply customer due diligence measures.

(2) The relevant person must—

(a)identify the customer unless the identity of that customer is known to, and has been verified by, the relevant person;

(b)verify the customer’s identity unless the customer’s identity has already been verified by the relevant person; and

(c)assess, and where appropriate obtain information on, the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.

'Relevant Person' is a financial organisation of any kind – Banks, Trusts, Casinos etc.

Not a problem for most UK accounts held by UK residents, but tricky for anyone living abroad, and especially awkward for persons of ill-intent wanting to anonymously open an account for nefarious purposes. In that sense Kiwi Bloke is a victim of crime – cracking down on criminals requires everyone to prove who they are, whenever that isn't already clearly established.

No idea what the UK bank is asking for online, but there must be some way for legitimate foreigners to prove their identity. I'd ask my local bank for advice: it's possible their assurance of Kiwi's identity is good enough for the UK bank. (Unless of course New Zealand banks don't have an acceptable record of proving customer identity! In the not so distant past British banks were very remiss.) Or a solicitor could probably sort it out.

A friend living in Thailand had this problem a few years ago. He fixed it by presenting himself plus documents in the UK; he was lucky enough to do this on a scheduled visit to relatives before he became too ill for international travel. Also has trouble with pensions and tax, because they write to him and the Thai postal service fails to deliver about half of his mail! This leads to difficult phone calls. So far all been sorted out in the end, but it's always bothersome.

My sympathy entirely!

Dave

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Your local bank should be able to verify your ID and pass this fact to the third party?

Tony

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

By the way have you looked at your passport where it says place of birth? I hadn't noticed before last week that it gives the city but not the country of my birth, which happens not to be in the UK though it is, I thought, the well known capital of a not too obscure country. On entering Italy the passport official had to ask me where it was, and on exiting my sister got asked where her town of birth was (slightly less well known as their civil war did not result in independence).

Since lots of place names get duplicated round the world for a variety of reasons a passport is not so definitive as one might think.

[An OtherParticipant @another21905]

Hi, Kiwi – we have had the same problems as you (we live in Eastern Europe), and I have a UK bank account because one of my pensions will not pay overseas (wonderful, ain't it)?. I have accounts in Germany as well, and have never (more than 30 years) had problems from them, but the British bank? – I actually begin to feel quite ill when I have to deal with them.

They asked us (wife as well) to prove our identity, and it included a picture signed by (one of) a lawyer, a priest or a doctor (possibly three of the most unreliable referees I could think of), a copy of our UK passports, and copies of the residence permits for the country we live in. This is actually quite difficult to get – you have to produce passports, signed affidavits from the local police that you have no criminal record, and a signed statement showing your assets from the bank, plus a copy of the contract for your house – and each of these needs wadges of supporting documents – it took us about 10 days to get it all together – and a signed affidavit stamped by a notary that these documents referred to us. All this had to be accompanied by certified translations.

Of it all went, silent for a month. Then a second letter – the documents we sent were unacceptable, please follow their instructions in the earlier letter, or our account would be frozen.

So we did it all again, but duplicated some of the stuff "just in case' – needless to say, back it came – no use, and no explanation why.

I eventually got on the phone to their customer representatives, (never an easy thing to do) and demanded what was wrong with them. Of course, the twerp on the phone had nothing to deal with it in her standard script, so I asked to speak to the Customer Relations Manager. Not possible at the time, but she did say she would put in a request from me for him to call.

Three weeks later he did. I explained the problem, and that I had had an account for years, and was very annoyed that I was getting refusals, but no explanations. He said he would call me back (I thought I wouldn't hear again), but he did a few days later – it turned out that checking the "evidence' was left to another company contracted to the bank, and they were interpreting 'the rules' incorrectly – the material we sent was acceptable.

So I would recommend calling them, and don't get off the phone until you have a solution – I know, it cost me a bomb on the phone as well, but at least it worked.

I had an interesting sideline to all this – my bank in the country where I lived asked why I needed so many statements, so I explained. Their manager (a very pleasant lady), told me they hated having to deal with the bureaucracy and obstruction put up by British banks – about sums it up for me.

An.

[An OtherParticipant @another21905]

Having just read this again, some common misunderstandings have once again been trotted out. While it is true 'some' banks said they would close ex-pats accounts, I have been searching for an alternative place to get my pension paid in the UK (another bank) because of their lousy service – as far as I can find out, none of the many banks I contacted in the UK are doing this.

This also showed that it is virtually impossible to find a UK bank which does any business outside the UK – I have been trying on and off for about 40 years now – even during the great years of Brexit this did not happen.

Dave(S.O.D) While your information is relevant, when something like this happens to you, the last thing you either have the inclination to do, or the time, is to sort through obscure regulations so you understand them – its enough of a worry anyway. I would suggest that since this is down to the banks, they should do the work and provide the advice – if you want to believe it.

As for claiming a full-indexed pension whilst living abroad – my experience is that this is virtually impossible – there is so much paperwork from various places (Pension provider, bank, Her Majesties Robbers and Crooks), that you would be very lucky to get away with it for long – I have to provide a signed stamped affidavit from my local townhall every year, amongst other things.

Another thing I would like to make clear, although its not mentioned here – I get a pension from the UK because I paid for it (RAF and Civil Service, amongst others). I also pay tax on it – I was informed by HMRC that people in receipt of a UK pension should pay tax in the UK – I suspect this is incorrect, but I'm sick of arguing – I have have paid for my pension, and am entitled to it no matter where I live – and we get no allowances, nor do we get the services enjoyed by taxpayers in the UK.

[Anonymous]

Although I live in Canada I have a small British pension paid to me. Originally I tried to set up a UK bank account for the pension to be paid in to – the idea being that I would let it accumulate and use it as a source of funds for visits to family.

I don't recall the details but the hurdles in doing that were ridiculous and completely killed the idea. So the pension is paid directly to me in Canada.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by An Other on 16/09/2022 17:29:24:

…

I had an interesting sideline to all this – my bank in the country where I lived asked why I needed so many statements, so I explained. Their manager (a very pleasant lady), told me they hated having to deal with the bureaucracy and obstruction put up by British banks – about sums it up for me.

An.

 

From a UK perspective crimes emanating from certain countries are a serious problem, Eastern Europe ahem!

Don't blame British Banks, they have to obey laws passed by the British government. (Teresa May, but started by David Cameron.) Why should a UK resident risk being conned into having his money transferred to Ruritania just so a small number of ex-pats can operate UK bank accounts without having to prove who they really are? If ex-pats don't have to prove identity, guess who the local mafia will pretend to be! And why should UK citizens put up with terrorists transferring money into the UK so they can set up an outrage?

This stuff is being tightened up world wide. The UK was an early adopter, law passed in 2017, and it's gradually been enforced over the last 5 years. The EU is only a couple of years behind so expect to be asked similar questions in due course by German Banks. May be easier for Brits living in a EU member country, because the EU is rolling out an electronic identity system that's accepted by all the member states, though I'm not sure UK citizens can use it now the UK has bailed out after Brexit. The US legislated similarly this year so from now on anyone with US account might also be asked to prove who they are. (New accounts and old ones if identity hasn't been satisfactorily proven.)

Not explaining what's wrong with an application is a typical security measure. Good guys are likely to understand and do what's needed whilst bad guys struggle because they don't understand the context. So it's not clever to help bad guys through a security process by patiently explaining what it is they're getting wrong! Obviously, this is really annoying to legitimate applicants who can't see where they went wrong. I suspect that something was adrift in the evidence provided, and the call to customer relations resulted in the bank checking the history of the account manually, and telling the contractor it was OK. Or just another incompetent cock-up!

The way proof of identity is scored is 'quite interesting' and absolutely not simple! We live in a complicated world, seems easy until a system goes wrong, and then sorting out the mess can be a right pain in the rear end!

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 16/09/2022 19:01:08

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Kiwi Bloke on 16/09/2022 10:21:54:

It's one of the main UK banks – they're coming to get you too!

And the paltry protection limit of £85,000 given to deposits in UK banks means savings-wise we've practically been living in the Wild West for some time now.

[DMBParticipant @dmb]

Look at my post 7th September title Officialdom – bah!

Original letter from the club's bank dated 5th July headed in large black letters, Please confirm where your organisation is resident for tax purposes. They weren't satisfied with my response and sent another letter on 22nd August, "You need to complete another Tax Residency form. They say that all financial institutions have to collect the info by law. Also, report to the taxman any non compliance and any incomplete information held by them will be passed around the world! And comply within 90 days or we'll tell taxman.

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) tax regulations require us by law to collect information from customers for whom we are unable to confirm their tax residency or FATCA and CRS status.

The bank then enclosed a Tax Residency Self Certification Form for Entities. Then they say that they are not authorised or regulated to give advice on filling it in! Also asks for a TIN – Tax Identification Number. 6 Part form running to 13 pages.

1)Name and address of entity=club.

2)Entity Country of Tax Residency= UK

3)FATCA Classification.= No.

4)CRS Classification.= No.

5)Controlling persons=Club Chairman,Secretary and Treasurer.

6) Declaration= signed confirmation that the information is accurate.

One of the provisions is that "I am authorised to sign for the Entity and the Controlling Person in respect of all of the Financial Accounts to which the form relates. So as Treasurer, I cannot duck out!

Another provision, all statements made are to the best of my knowledge and belief are correct and accurate. A nice let out!

UK doesn't issue TIN s as HMRC already has a unique tax reference (UTR) for me and my NINO(National insurance number).

All this for a model makers club of around 55 members. We use a all portion of a local council park for the track and pay a 5 figure insurance premium! Council lease requires the grounds to be returned to original condition in the event of the club being wound up. Any excess of expenditure wouldn't cover the cost of that. One clause in the menu of answers to the questions is appropriate to our club- NPO = Non Profit Organisation.

Some of the wording makes it obvious that all this is of American origin and aimed at money laundering prevention. "If you are a US citizen………". "Postcode/Zipcode""County/State/Province"

[DMBParticipant @dmb]

Regarding my previous post about that form. I suspect that the USA has devised it setting out mandatory questions couched in a prescribed form to identify accounts around the world which may be / could be used at sometime for money laundering.

All a darned nuisance to small groups and clubs with bank accounts. Made all the worse by EDF and our bank apparently having a choice of either householder or a business account and we are classed as a business.

Bad enough now trying to get volunteers to do committee jobs without this sort of aggro. Every time there is a change of Controlling Person, a new form has to be completed. So this is not a one – off, seems like it could be permanent red tape.

Grrrrr!

Edited By DMB on 16/09/2022 21:57:47

[Anonymous]

Posted by DMB on 16/09/2022 21:57:04:

I suspect that the USA has devised it setting out mandatory questions couched in a prescribed form to identify accounts around the world which may be / could be used at sometime for money laundering.

All a darned nuisance to small groups and clubs with bank accounts.

Begs the question … which is worse, the cure or the disease?

[Chris MateParticipant @chrismate31303]

The 3rd party practice, is a concern.

[NimbleParticipant @nimble]

Hi Kiwi Bloke,

Is it possible for you to satisfy these requirements by either going to the British High Commission in Wellington or a British Consulate, possibly in Auckland Christchurch or Dunedin? They also could possibly take a statutory declaration. I think it would be worth a call to the nearest consular office to check out the possibilities.

At least now you wont have to do it in Te Reo!

Regards from another Kiwi.

Nimble Neil.

[Anonymous]

KB – it's not quite clear to me whether your objective is to retain the UK account per se or simply to ensure that you don't lose the funds it contains. If it's the latter, can you not have them transferred to your NZ bank account?

That might be as simple as going to your NZ bank and asking them to transfer the money. I did that (admittedly many moons ago) to transfer some money to Canada. probably new rules now but worth a shot.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Thanks for all the comments. I'll respond to a few.

The devolution of the ID verification to a third party is presumably so that, when (not if) things go wrong, the bank can shrug its shoulders, and dump all the blame on the third party.

As far as I can tell, this NYC (Know Your Customer) process is designed to bring the bank benefit, not the customer. Bureaucracy begets bureaucracy: the individual's interests are bottom in the priority list.

Can someone please suggest how the images in this process are supposed to 'prove' my identity? As far as I can see, all it does is show that a face on a document matches a face in front of a camera, and links both to a name on the document. Surely, these images are only of use if they can be compared with those already in an international database. Orwellian?

Nimble, good suggestion. I might try that, but the mechanism has been put in place by the British bank, which doesn't seem interested in offering alternative methods. I fear it's a case of 'Do it our way, or get lost.' Te Reo, what's that? Woke?

An Other: clearly you're further along the path than I am. Expensive 'phone calls just connect me to a script-reader, and end up at a stone wall. Insistence is met with obstinate refusal to deviate from the script.

Tony: yes, you'd think that if 'my' NZ bank 'knew' its customer, it could share its confidence in my identity with 'my' UK bank. But no, I explored that. Whilst banks move millions around the world at the touch of a button, they claim not to 'share' any information with any other bank. So it's 'Let's re-invent the wheel', and companies spring up which are only too happy to provide the service. Consensual identity theft?

Peter, I wish to retain the account. If I fail to 'prove' my identity, my funds will be transferred into some sort of holding account, which I won't be able to access. Goodness knows what obstacles will then be put in my way, should I want to withdraw my own money. I suppose I could withdraw all but one pound, whilst I still can, but the account receives a few, occasional, small pound deposits. These can't be paid into my NZ pound account (why the hell not?), so I'd be out of pocket because of currency exchange fees, etc. However, there's a certain malicious attraction to the idea of getting the deposits paid elsewhere and leaving the account to sleep with a one pound in it, just to annoy. (Yes, I'm that small-minded!) Grrr!

You might think that, by monitoring account activity, laundering might be detected. I suppose that didn't occurred to NatWest. The recent debacle, and their massive fine, has presumably raised banks' sensitivities. Perhaps the banks should first put their house in order, before suspecting us all of being crooks, terrorists and money-launderers.

It's not so much the principle of ID verification to which I object, but the method the UK bank (which I won't name, but you can hazard a guess at) has chosen.

Edited By Kiwi Bloke on 17/09/2022 07:43:14

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Unless I missed something, isn't the course of least resistance here just to buy a cheap webcam (under a fiver posted via UK Ebay, assume similar in NZ), go through whatever rigmarole they want, and have done?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Peter Greene 🇨🇦 on 16/09/2022 22:20:18:

Posted by DMB on 16/09/2022 21:57:04:

I suspect that the USA has devised it setting out mandatory questions couched in a prescribed form to identify accounts around the world which may be / could be used at sometime for money laundering.

All a darned nuisance to small groups and clubs with bank accounts.

Begs the question … which is worse, the cure or the disease?

The disease is serious! In the UK over half of all crime is fraud, and it is enabled by a negligent financial system. Root cause, banks didn't care where money comes from or where it is going! They profit by handling money, more the better.

Not checking identity properly means criminals in one part of the world can open an account in the country of the victim, collect money in it, and then transfer it abroad. Very difficult to recover the money. The system makes it hard to trace criminals because money can be transferred via several accounts in different jurisdictions, none of whom will talk to a foreign policeman without going through an expensive legal rigmarole.

Not having to confirm identity is exploited internationally on a large scale by tax evaders, drug dealers, terrorists, fraudsters, and a host of petty criminals.

The case for tightening up is rock solid, unless you're a criminal! It's not bureaucracy designed to annoy senior citizens, it's a crime-busting initiative! Unfortunately, proving identity can be quite difficult, and everyone hates work!

Although I sympathise, I think we have to ask DMB, Kiwi Bloke and AN Other to take one for the team. Not their fault, but for different reasons all three are operating suspicious bank accounts.

I agree with Chris Crew that a bank engaging third parties to do identity checks is wrong. The Bank is responsible, and using a third party is likely to cause mistakes – chopping off legitimate customers, and accepting wrong 'uns. It's an excellent way of shifting the blame though.

Dave

[Author]

Posts