stevensfo wrote:Please guys, what the hell is a NINO???
Steve
I wondered that Steve, and THINK it means
National
Insurance
Number ("No.")
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
stevensfo wrote:Please guys, what the hell is a NINO???
Steve
didds wrote:stevensfo wrote:Please guys, what the hell is a NINO???
Steve
I wondered that Steve, and THINK it means
National
Insurance
Number ("No.")
stevensfo wrote:Sorry, but Nino is already taken. Temp rises around the world.
Steve
AF62 wrote: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.
GeoffF100 wrote:AF62 wrote:
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.
AF62 wrote:GeoffF100 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:GeoffF100 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote: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.
AF62 wrote:And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.
AF62 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote: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.
GeoffF100 wrote:AF62 wrote: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.
GeoffF100 wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote:GeoffF100 wrote: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.
mc2fool wrote: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...)
AF62 wrote:And if they told you that a GeoffF100 was opening an account then that would breach the data protection of the other GeoffF100.
Gersemi wrote:and that the new account holder is the one that has to prove their identity
AF62 wrote:Gersemi wrote: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
AF62 wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote:??? 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.
mc2fool wrote:AF62 wrote: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 wrote:mc2fool wrote: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 wrote:AF62 wrote:??? 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.
mc2fool wrote: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.
mc2fool wrote: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.
mc2fool wrote:I don't see how ID numbers helps with your objection: indeed, it sounds like it exacerbates it in spades.
mc2fool wrote: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
Return to “Bank Accounts Savings & ISAs”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests