Re: getting bank account / debit card

In message , snipped-for-privacy@white-eagle.invalid.uk writes

What about the Insurance documentation, inland revenue etc.,

They do.

Thats your problem.,

I know that is strange, wh8ich is why I put the '!' after it.

Depends what you mean by 'store' card. Most are really 'credit cards' so they will suffice. What so called 'store' card are you referring to?

That isnt what I asked. Did you get correspondence elsewhere?

Good! That is the point isnt it? The address you used for correspondence is what they are after.

My point is that a tiny number of people cannot provide satisfactory address proof based on current requirements.

You have cited two cases, the first was students. I think we have shown that your assertion was incorrect. The second was your own temporary residency in digs. It was so temporary you didnt even know the postcode. For all intents and purposes you could have been in a hotel. You used another address for all your other correspondence so could quite easily have given the other address in the same way. This would not have contravened any law because you were living in short term temporary accommodation.

I have posted elsewhere how the young and the old suffer from lack of personal ID, but I think I have shown that most people, including yourself even in the circs you describe above, can provide proof of address, even if somewhat convoluted.

I dont attempt to justify these ridiculous rules, merely to point out that you assertions are incorrect.

My contention is that your view that 'It is nothing to do with proving identity.." is incorrect and that your example in which you start "Let us take a typical example... a student .." is also incorrect.

Myself. I can see the logic here. Ther other was from a firm of solicitors, very dodgy ;-)

I was under a misunderstanding about what constitutes suspicious. Someone who had had the lectures before working behing a bank counter seemed to think that moving "large" sums of money between accounts would raise concerns.

Quite! It the source of funds which made the two scenarios different. If the cheque is your own, an drawn on a UK bank account, then that is enough info for the. If it is drawn by somebody else, then they need to know the source of the dosh.

What insurance?

I could pop up to my local university librasry and get a library card - it would be very unlikely to have an address on it.

House of Fraser is one that I know was rejected.

But that is a somewhat circular argument... I could only prove that address by virtue of having bank statements delivered there... if I did not have a bank account, I could not have proved my correspondence address.

I think you will find it larger than a tiny number.

If you consider 3 years temporary.

As I pointed out... I did not have a problem. Someone else could well have done.

But do the banks accept that proof as sufficient?

Axel

Well presumably that will be obvious from the name on the cheque.

As I understand it, bank transfers between accounts in the EU are considered to be 'non-suspect' and not subject to any special checks. I certainly have no problems with the occasional transfer in excess of 10K which I believe is the limit at which things start to look very dodgy.

Axel

I would be interested to know whether the £350,000 sent Tessa Jowell's husband via seven offshore accounts was reported as suspicious.

In message , snipped-for-privacy@white-eagle.invalid.uk writes

That would be OK.

But you WOULD have some other proofs!

I am giving you facts. You can have opinions but you dont seem to have any evidence other than hearsay.

In that case I just do not believe that you werent on the voters roll and received no correspondence. You have already pointed out that in fact you DID have correspondence going to another address and that would have been good enough. Thats a bit like saying 'if I hadnt got the ID that I had, then I wodnt have had an ID'.

YES!

As it happens I had a letter from the solicitor with me so I showed them that . Being caught off guard I just complied. I wonder what would have happened in the following circumstances:

1. I reply to them that it is personal and none of their business! Would they have returned the cheque and refused to process it?
2. I just say "I sold something and this is the profit from the deal."
3. I took the cheque outside and paid it in via the cash machine.

Not that I really want to be difficult, it was not the cashier's fault that the government decided to make them personally responsible for the eradication of organised crime on penalty of incarceration.

As described - in 2002 (so, I admit that this was probably before the current ML regs, but may have been part of the KY(existing)C stuff), the InsCo wanted my driver's licence before opening a pension - despite already having another exec pension with them (for about 8 previous years, including a home visit).

It's not that exciting, but I don't make a habit of opening accounts and punting >10K GBP around, alas.

Conversely, we managed to avoid paying for a certified copy of our wedding certificate to change SOs name on joint current A/C & mortgage, by taking the original into a random branch and saying "Photocopy this yourself and send it internal post" ;-)

Interestingly, my SO recently opened a similar pension with the same InsCo - online, and with no physical ID check at all.

Last year a friend had to get the full witnessed legal-advice solicitor's letter (120 quid) to transfer his house into joint names with his new wife - I thought that was amusing given that *he* *is* on the FSA register with CF10 and CF11.

In other news, $BANK have sent me a new ATM/debit card, complete with my photo on the back - shame it's the photo I gave them in 1990, and I forgot to keep one in my attic...

rgds, Alan

I've forgotten, but ISTR that in the dim and distant past this thread was about AML being 'used as an excuse' - same applies to the DPA, IMO.

rgds, Alan

Usual practice is for a student to use their UCAS acceptance letter. If they are going to Uni then they will have one! Another option later on is for the University to write a letter confirming who the student is.

Ian

john boyle wrote:

Obviously not since it was *not* accepted.

What other proofs? Pray tell. I would be interested to know as I never received anything other than bank statements. And ltd company information which obviously showed nothing about me personally.

Perhaps you can give my friend some advice then... how should he get his wife on a joint account with him without changing a utility bill?

I was not on the voters' roll. I never had a single piece of correspondence at my digs (since I have done most of my correspondence by email for 15 years or so this is not quite as odd as it might seem).

Random correspondence in any case is not considered proof by banks.

I think if you were to try it, you might be surprised at a refusal.

And if the address was obviously not that of a private residence but an office or hotel I suspect there would be even less chance of success.

Axel

AFAIK, you do *not* have to be on the voters roll.

Yes you do.

It is an offence to not response (or to respond falsely) to the form they send out every October.

Thats not quite the same, since if the 'head of the household' doesnt respond, or responds falsely, then others who as a consequence wont be on the ER, arent liable.

In message , rob writes

They would continue with the transaction but report to their ML officer.

Also, not everyone *gets* a form every October.

And as I have frequently mentioned it is not illegal to use an assumed name for registering on the roll. Although there are signs the government intend to change this. Saw a mention in a discussion on the postal voting debate indicating the government would try to seek proof of identity in future.

Would that have made any difference to me, or the availability of my money?