And people wonder why banks ask questions...

[didds]

Please guys, what the hell is a NINO???

Steve

I wondered that Steve, and THINK it means

National
Insurance
Number ("No.")

[stevensfo]

Please guys, what the hell is a NINO???

Steve

I wondered that Steve, and THINK it means

National
Insurance
Number ("No.")

So for the last million years, we've all known it it as the N.I. number, yet now, someone is trying to introduce yet another incomprehensible abbreviation or acronym into our language?

Sorry, but Nino is already taken. Temp rises around the world.

Let's stick to N.I.

Steve

[doolally]

Sorry, but Nino is already taken. Temp rises around the world.
Steve

No, that's El Niño. Subtle difference
doolally

[GoSeigen]

So in my example of Jim Smith at 33 Acacia Avenue the father and Jim Smith at 33 Acacia Avenue the son there would be a potential fraud report.

And who (and how) do they sort that out.

Father and son born on the same day????


GS

[AF62]

So in my example of Jim Smith at 33 Acacia Avenue the father and Jim Smith at 33 Acacia Avenue the son there would be a potential fraud report.

And who (and how) do they sort that out. Start demanding people come into the bank with multiple forms of ID to prove there isn’t a fraud?

That will go down even worse than the ID card solution.

Yes, in that case, more ID would be required by the bank offering the new account. In most cases that would fix the problem. If not, more ID would be required by the holder of the established account. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Identity fraud should rapidly disappear, and our payments should go straight through. No more frozen accounts or endless security quizzes.

Have you ever tried to do a ‘proof of identity’ for an elderly person who no longer has a current passport or driving licence - I can tell you it is far from simple.

And so you would get a large number of accounts where the customer has been using it for many decades but as they cannot pass the bank ID check there would invariably be adverse repercussions.

The only workable solution is a government issued ID number and card that is required to be used to open / validate accounts, as anything else is a kludgy mess.

[GeoffF100]

Yes, in that case, more ID would be required by the bank offering the new account. In most cases that would fix the problem. If not, more ID would be required by the holder of the established account. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Identity fraud should rapidly disappear, and our payments should go straight through. No more frozen accounts or endless security quizzes.

Have you ever tried to do a ‘proof of identity’ for an elderly person who no longer has a current passport or driving licence - I can tell you it is far from simple.

And so you would get a large number of accounts where the customer has been using it for many decades but as they cannot pass the bank ID check there would invariably be adverse repercussions.

The only workable solution is a government issued ID number and card that is required to be used to open / validate accounts, as anything else is a kludgy mess.

With my suggestion, an existing bank account holder would not be required to prove their identity unless:

(1). Another account was opened with another financial institution using their name, address and DOB.
(2). The existing account holder said that the account was not opened by them.
(3). The person who opened the new account produced further proof that they had that name, address and DOB.

That is a very unlikely indeed.

[AF62]

With my suggestion, an existing bank account holder would not be required to prove their identity unless:

(1). Another account was opened with another financial institution using their name, address and DOB.
(2). The existing account holder said that the account was not opened by them.
(3). The person who opened the new account produced further proof that they had that name, address and DOB.

That is a very unlikely indeed.

A bank account opened decades ago won’t have DOB details, and thus as you don’t have DOB details on decades old accounts, exactly those accounts held by elderly people, then you will be asking those elderly people for impossibly difficult to provide documentation to prove the different DOBs.

[GeoffF100]

With my suggestion, an existing bank account holder would not be required to prove their identity unless:

(1). Another account was opened with another financial institution using their name, address and DOB.
(2). The existing account holder said that the account was not opened by them.
(3). The person who opened the new account produced further proof that they had that name, address and DOB.

That is a very unlikely indeed.

A bank account opened decades ago won’t have DOB details, and thus as you don’t have DOB details on decades old accounts, exactly those accounts held by elderly people, then you will be asking those elderly people for impossibly difficult to provide documentation to prove the different DOBs.

That is not a problem. If the existing account does not have a DOB, the holder will not be required to produce further ID unless the imposter proves that they have the same name and address. That is also very unlikely. Indeed, perhaps we should leave the DOB out of the comparison, but present it for confirmation.

[AF62]

A bank account opened decades ago won’t have DOB details, and thus as you don’t have DOB details on decades old accounts, exactly those accounts held by elderly people, then you will be asking those elderly people for impossibly difficult to provide documentation to prove the different DOBs.

That is not a problem. If the existing account does not have a DOB, the holder will not be required to produce further ID unless the imposter proves that they have the same name and address. That is also very unlikely. Indeed, perhaps we should leave the DOB out of the comparison, but present it for confirmation.

Anyone opening an account needs to provide proof of name and address currently, the suggestion you made was -

“If someone applies for an account in my name, I should get a notification and have to confirm that it is me.”

But the problem is the bank doesn’t know that the GeoffF100 opening an account and who has proved they are GeoffF100 is you, because on a decades old account they may not have sufficient details to know for certain that that person is trying to create a fake GeoffF100 account, rather than they are actually another GeoffF100.

With my mother’s account that had been opened 70 years earlier at a branch that has vanished they couldn’t even find a specimen signature, let alone other details.

And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.

If another GeoffF100 tried to open an account then the bank could call you in to prove that you are a different GeoffF100, but then we get back to the issue of people having the necessary ID documents.

[GeoffF100]

But the problem is the bank doesn’t know that the GeoffF100 opening an account and who has proved they are GeoffF100 is you, because on a decades old account they may not have sufficient details to know for certain that that person is trying to create a fake GeoffF100 account, rather than they are actually another GeoffF100.

They will know if I confirm it. If I deny it, I am either not called GeoffF100 as their records say, or I do not live where their records say I live. That should be easy to resolve.

And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.

The legislation would need changing so that other banks holding accounts with the same name and address can be informed when a new account is opened.

If another GeoffF100 tried to open an account then the bank could call you in to prove that you are a different GeoffF100, but then we get back to the issue of people having the necessary ID documents.

Only if they could prove that they are GeoffF100 and live at my address, which should be impossible unless it is me.

[AF62]

But the problem is the bank doesn’t know that the GeoffF100 opening an account and who has proved they are GeoffF100 is you, because on a decades old account they may not have sufficient details to know for certain that that person is trying to create a fake GeoffF100 account, rather than they are actually another GeoffF100.

They will know if I confirm it. If I deny it, I am either not called GeoffF100 as their records say, or I do not live where their records say I live. That should be easy to resolve.

Easy to resolve, as I have said multiple times, proving identity for elderly people is not easy.

And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.

The legislation would need changing so that other banks holding accounts with the same name and address can be informed when a new account is opened.

So you want the law changed so others are given details of stranger's data - not going to happen.

If another GeoffF100 tried to open an account then the bank could call you in to prove that you are a different GeoffF100, but then we get back to the issue of people having the necessary ID documents.

Only if they could prove that they are GeoffF100 and live at my address, which should be impossible unless it is me.

But you need to prove that you are not them, maybe easy for you but not for others.

Your solution just causes incredible difficulties for a small but important and vulnerable group.

I have had the experience of trying to prove the identity of an elderly relative with no current passport, driving licence or any other form of photo ID. Have you?

[mc2fool]

The legislation would need changing so that other banks holding accounts with the same name and address can be informed when a new account is opened.

So you want the law changed so others are given details of stranger's data - not going to happen.

Someone with the same name and address as me isn't a stranger, it's either me or a fraudster (or me junior).

Knowing about accounts under the same name & address as you is in part already happening. If you sign up to the credit report checking sites they show all the current accounts, credit cards, etc under your name & address and will flag any new ones since the last report, and in the case of ClearScore (and maybe others) they email you when a new one is detected.

Doesn't include savings accounts and could be more instant, but I don't see any privacy issues with being notified of new accounts under the same name and address as you (no, I don't know how the CRAs handle father & son with the same name at the same address...)

[Gersemi]

Someone with the same name and address as me isn't a stranger, it's either me or a fraudster (or me junior).

Knowing about accounts under the same name & address as you is in part already happening. If you sign up to the credit report checking sites they show all the current accounts, credit cards, etc under your name & address and will flag any new ones since the last report, and in the case of ClearScore (and maybe others) they email you when a new one is detected.

Doesn't include savings accounts and could be more instant, but I don't see any privacy issues with being notified of new accounts under the same name and address as you (no, I don't know how the CRAs handle father & son with the same name at the same address...)

My credit report (with Trans Union) includes my date of birth. So I think it is quite usual for this to be included in most cases. If there are two people with the same name at the same address and one of them opens a new account, then they would need to be asked for their date of birth so it can be linked to the correct person, that should be easy for everybody to provide. I'm not asking them to prove it, just supply it. If the original account holder confirms that it is them opening the new account then no problem. It only becomes an issue if the new account has been opened by someone else. If that has happened wouldn't you want to be aware? I suggest that the original account holder should be presumed to be the genuine one (assuming, say, that it has been open for more than a year) and that the new account holder is the one that has to prove their identity and only if they are able to do so should the original account holder be required to provide further evidence.

[scrumpyjack]

And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.

That didn't seem to be a problem in telling a BBC journalist why they had closed a politician's account (and lying about it into the bargain!)

[AF62]

and that the new account holder is the one that has to prove their identity

??? If you want to open a new bank account then you already have to prove your identity, e.g. https://www.natwest.com/current-account ... count.html

The issue is matching that information to *existing* account holders who opened their accounts decades before the regulations required such checks and where the bank likely holds damn all information on the account holder other than name and address.

[mc2fool]

and that the new account holder is the one that has to prove their identity

??? If you want to open a new bank account then you already have to prove your identity, e.g. https://www.natwest.com/current-account ... count.html

Yes, but what kind of "proof" is needed varies by bank and by type of account. Often, esp. with savings a/cs, it is just an instant electronic check which, in effect, verifies that a mc2fool does indeed live at 3 Acacia Avenue but not necessarily that the person applying for the account is actually mc2fool.

The issue is matching that information to *existing* account holders who opened their accounts decades before the regulations required such checks and where the bank likely holds damn all information on the account holder other than name and address.

And that's all that's needed to flag up that a new a/c has been opened under that name and address. Yeah, sure, some people might have to go through some, maybe even quite a bit of, faff to prove that they are the original and genuine article, but surely that's better than not notifying them at all and letting some fraudster run up debts, etc, in their name? So I'm not really sure what your objection is, other than sounding like the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[AF62]

??? If you want to open a new bank account then you already have to prove your identity, e.g. https://www.natwest.com/current-account ... count.html

Yes, but what kind of "proof" is needed varies by bank and by type of account. Often, esp. with savings a/cs, it is just an instant electronic check which, in effect, verifies that a mc2fool does indeed live at 3 Acacia Avenue but not necessarily that the person applying for the account is actually mc2fool.

Well the solution there is to make sure all banks do proper checks when opening all new accounts, whatever the type.

The issue is matching that information to *existing* account holders who opened their accounts decades before the regulations required such checks and where the bank likely holds damn all information on the account holder other than name and address.

And that's all that's needed to flag up that a new a/c has been opened under that name and address. Yeah, sure, some people might have to go through some, maybe even quite a bit of, faff to prove that they are the original and genuine article, but surely that's better than not notifying them at all and letting some fraudster run up debts, etc, in their name? So I'm not really sure what your objection is, other than sounding like the perfect being the enemy of the good.

My objection is the hassle caused to a section of the population that could do without it from the introduction of a scheme which would have known failings from the start.

If you know a system won't work then you don't introduce it on the basis of 'might have some sort of benefit for a few, but will have disastrous consequences for others' if there is a better ways to overcome the issue - which are -

a. Get the banks to opening account checks properly.
b. If (as already suggested) you are going to change the law, then do so to make it worthwhile such as with ID numbers.

[mc2fool]

And that's all that's needed to flag up that a new a/c has been opened under that name and address. Yeah, sure, some people might have to go through some, maybe even quite a bit of, faff to prove that they are the original and genuine article, but surely that's better than not notifying them at all and letting some fraudster run up debts, etc, in their name? So I'm not really sure what your objection is, other than sounding like the perfect being the enemy of the good.

My objection is the hassle caused to a section of the population that could do without it from the introduction of a scheme which would have known failings from the start.

If you know a system won't work then you don't introduce it on the basis of 'might have some sort of benefit for a few, but will have disastrous consequences for others' if there is a better ways to overcome the issue - which are -

a. Get the banks to opening account checks properly.
b. If (as already suggested) you are going to change the law, then do so to make it worthwhile such as with ID numbers.

But there would be no hassle until and unless someone tried to fraudulently open an account in their name (and address), and the "disastrous consequences" would come from not informing the original person of it.

And for the accounts that count, i.e. current accounts, loans, etc (you can't rack up debt with a savings a/c, which is why the checks aren't so strict), they do already do checks "properly" (i.e. want sight of passports or the like) and in the cases where an account has been opened fraudulently it's almost certainly 'cos those checks have been defeated, with forged passports or the like, and which notification to the original person would catch.

Re your (2), as I said previously, I don't see any change in legislation is needed as banks already inform the CRAs when current accounts, credit cards and loans are opened and the CRAs (can) already inform you if there's new ones under your name & address. So the mechanism, at least the basis for it, is already there. Maybe if any legislation is needed it's that the CRAs must inform the original person (by whatever means possible) if a new a/c is opened under their name & address.

I don't see how ID numbers helps with your objection: indeed, it sounds like it exacerbates it in spades. What, you want to give everybody in the country an ID number? In order for that not to have failings from the start it'd require having everybody providing "proper" proof of who they are, if they haven't already, which means causing hassle to the entire section of the population where the bank holds damn all information other than name and address

[XFool]

??? If you want to open a new bank account then you already have to prove your identity, e.g. https://www.natwest.com/current-account ... count.html

Yes, but what kind of "proof" is needed varies by bank and by type of account. Often, esp. with savings a/cs, it is just an instant electronic check which, in effect, verifies that a mc2fool does indeed live at 3 Acacia Avenue but not necessarily that the person applying for the account is actually mc2fool.

The thing is... this all seems to be highly variable and non predictable.

I recently opened an account with a bank and transferred a six figure sum in cash to them from my existing bank account - all done online (with leading £10 account transfer verifier), without any problems (apart from having to ring up the receiving bank to poke them into doing something useful with the cash).

Yet I still remember, a few years ago now (as described on TMF at the time and later here on TLF) the travails I once had simply trying to open a cash ISA at my local branch of Halifax, where at one time I had had most of my savings. They wanted "ID" and I had no passport or plastic driving licence and they wouldn't even accept my (entirely original) birth certificate... Even after it was opened (took seven goes*) I received a follow up nagging letter about "ID" from HBoS to my home address. That's when I wanted out.

* Even more farcical is how 'authentication', acceptable to the local branch, was obtained.

[AF62]

But there would be no hassle until and unless someone tried to fraudulently open an account in their name (and address), and the "disastrous consequences" would come from not informing the original person of it.

You can't see the possibility of the banks mistakenly identifying matches that are not fraudulent applications and all the issues that would flow from that?

And for the accounts that count, i.e. current accounts, loans, etc (you can't rack up debt with a savings a/c, which is why the checks aren't so strict), they do already do checks "properly" (i.e. want sight of passports or the like) and in the cases where an account has been opened fraudulently it's almost certainly 'cos those checks have been defeated, with forged passports or the like, and which notification to the original person would catch.

So the solution is make the banks do checks on all accounts and make them do the checks properly, before venturing down off this suggested route that will only lead to issues.

I don't see how ID numbers helps with your objection: indeed, it sounds like it exacerbates it in spades.

With a database (as was originally suggested) you need a key, and unique identifying number for every person in the UK provides that key.

At the moment there is no key so the banks would have to guess that James Bond was Jim Bond and was J Bond but was not J Bond that was Joan Bond, and a key based on a variety of pieces of data is never completely reliable.

What, you want to give everybody in the country an ID number? In order for that not to have failings from the start it'd require having everybody providing "proper" proof of who they are, if they haven't already, which means causing hassle to the entire section of the population where the bank holds damn all information other than name and address

I don't want it, because I don't think the proposed database solution is a sensible idea. But if you were going to mess around with that, then you would need to do it properly and that would mean all the issues you suggest.