Bank Insisting I tell them why I am making a Payment to my Daughter

[Gaggley]

I usually do my banking online but thought it would be easier to set up a standing order by calling First Direct today. After going through security, I was asked a number of questions about whether I had been forced to do this, had I been told to download software, was anyone watching me online etc. This is irritating, as it is incredibly unlikely that anyone who was being scammed would say yes, but I answered them none the less.

I was then asked how I had been given the bank details. I said that I had made the transfer before, but still had to give specific details as to how my daughter had given me the bank details, that I had successfully made manual transfers to multiple times over many years. After we'd got past this, I was then told I had to tell them why I was paying money to my daughter. I declined to answer, and was prevented from setting up a standing order. Complaints department confirmed that this was their procedure and they were knowingly preventing me from moving my own money around.

I asked them how much fraud they could quantify had been prevented by these arbitratry measures, they could not answer. But if I had done this myself online, then I would not have to justify my own decisions, could just do it at the drop of a hat. Bloody annoying. But a real problem for people who can't manage to use online services, who are forced to give up their privacy by rules like this.

Does anyone have a bank that will allow you to make transactions over the phone without justifying how they spend their own money, as I would like to switch to them?

HSBC may be the parent company but subsidiaries can have completely different procedures. To the best of my knowledge from over 20 years of banking with HSBC myself and my family haven't been grilled like that.

My mum, in her seventies, was getting some work done at her house. She went too the bank to withdraw money for the tradesmen (all legit).

The young man at the counter did as he is supposed to and asked her what the money was for. She replied

'would you believe me if I said I was having a boob job?'. Poor guy didn't know where to look!

This. 100%! If banks don't take steps to protect customers then they go sad faced to the Press and expect the bank, ie other customers, to repay them for their own stupidity.

That might be because you have yet to make significant payments. HSBC makes my Dad tell his lifestory every time he makes the same debit card payment every month (it’s to an investment company).

It was HSBC who grilled me about the scouts!

At least they are trying to protect their customers (from fraudster scouts)

verbal, physical, intimation, intimidation, hypnosis, gaslighting or whet have you are form of coercion so it doesn’t matter which form it is as otherwise everyone can stop scammers just like that. Relationship including with friends, strangers, relatives, sales people are complicated and complex, so bank doing its best to untangle that and prevent scamming.

As a safeguarding social worker I actually think the bank has done brilliantly in handling this. We have too many people who have abused by family/friends.

Fair enough hahaha I can safely say I don't make any significant payments the car finance and the rent is as big as it gets!!

To be fair I think the bank are just adhering to money laundering regs and I agree with the poster who said you could have replied "it's a gift" or just make something up just so the box is ticked.

A bank is not an arm of social services. They prevent fraud not abuse.

Totally agree these checks should be done. But I spoke to my bank explained I had made this payment before was happy to go ahead and have no comeback on the bank. They still wouldn’t let me use my own money for something I wanted. That is not right in my opinion.

Haha, bet you'd be the first to complain if you got scammed or fraudsters emptied your account. Probably would have taken less time to answer the questions and go about your day than argue with some poor call centre worker, and then write this long ranty post on Mumsnet.

I work in financial crime and read only a few pages of this thread and some of these comments are bonkers. Unless you work in the sector you have no idea, ive seen some of the worst cases so just answer the questions.

That is fucking patronizing (and typical of the sector).

Unless banks communicate what the issues are and how their policies will help us, we won’t have an idea. So start treating us like valued customers instead of people who are just getting in the way of you making money.

A nice anecdote but virtually nobody pays for a boob job in cash unless it’s extremely dodgy. I’m wary of paying tradesman in cash in case of tax fraud, it’s not really the done thing anymore.

Incorrect, there is also a duty of care to prevent financial abuse by unscrupulous means.

Thank you.

But they do. Put the name of any major bank and 'scam' into a news search and you'll see lots of press releases warning about the latest scams and cautionary tales about transferring money. E.g.

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1776297/hsbc-scam-warning-passcode-latest

It is partly to stop you being scammed, but mainly to protect the back from having to refund you if you are being scammed. If you complain later that your daughter coerced you into handing over the money, the bank can say ''tough, we asked if you were happy to hand the money over, so no compensation'

I recently had trouble with HSBC. They kept locking my account when I tried to send money from my personal account to my OWN business account. I rang several times and explained it was MY business so basically just sending money to myself and they'd unlock it (after asking me if the recipient (me) was pressuring me to send it 🙄) and then when I tried again it would lock it again. It was infuriating. In the end I had to send a large sum in drips and drabs to get around it. Absolutely stupid.

1. Customer due diligence requirement kicks in at €10k. This includes a requirement to identify the reason for the transfer. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-your-responsibilities. If your transfer to your daughter was so she could pay someone else, then that is a different beneficial owner who needs to be noted.
2. Consumer Duty Act enhanced requirements to protect vulnerable customers. Someone appearing anxious and evasive may give increased concern about their vulnerability, so suspicious transactions might be paused for more follow-up by the bank.

I'm one of the ones saying I'd rather not have these checks and take responsibility for my own actions.

I can categorically say if I were scammed, no, I would not want the bank to refund me.

I'd be too bloody embarrassed to admit I'd been so stupid in the first place. However, more seriously, I'm 47, a grown adult and capable of making my own decisions. If I want to withdraw my life savings to invest in a jelly bean farm, that should be down to me not the bank.

I had to jump through hoops of fire to pay for some expensive renovation work at my house. The bank picked it up as an unusual transaction and really questioned it.

So contact your MP to campaign for an opt out from the legislation

Financial abuse is not a crime. Banks have requirements to protect their customers from financial harm resulting from criminal acts of controlling a person’s money intended to result in financial/personal gain; they also have protocols to protect their customer’s best interests, but that’s it.

Dh was recently persistently questioned by the bank as to the reason for a substantial payment to friends.

In fact it was a bridging loan to help them with a property purchase and was fairly soon repaid, but to the bank, it could so easily have looked like a scam, so we didn’t blame them at all.

If it HAD been a scam, we couldn’t have said they hadn’t very explicitly warned us.