Helping the Unbanked Discussion - Should Banking become a Human Right?

[Jays6]

@ndrw

suspect banks can (and do) still issue CIFAS markers irrespective of an NCA report or it’s outcome, and that’s my main issue. A CIFAS marker should only be given upon conviction

Staff at your car insurance can give you a CIFA bro. System is mashed

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

Car parking financial crime

I don’t know what you mean by this?

[Jays6]

I mean ignoring financial crime and looking at other reasons for people being bankless

[Jays6]

@ndrw

All it takes is a trigger-happy employee

This is the problem

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@ndrw

I think that’s the biggest flaw of the current system. CIFAS/NH entries are what effectively bar people from banking access and they can be handed out without any proof or due process. All it takes is a trigger-happy employee

AFAIK banks are required to review the marker before uploading to CIFAS and they’re required to have a review process in place.

I don’t disagree that it can be a punitive measure though. I think the problem is much higher than the banking system - and please this is most definitely my own opinion and doesn’t come from working at Monzo, but it feels like some of the measures employed by umbrella organisations are blunt instruments and that rather than looking to solve the real problems we just use a giant hammer and often across the system/industry there’s a complete lack of discretion.

[Jays6]

@Dan5 Why don’t banks try to change this (from your personal perspective)?

[Jays6]

@Dan5

AFAIK banks are required to review the marker before uploading to CIFAS and they’re required to have a review process in place.

The marker does more harm than good in most cases. Imagine being turned down for a current account because you made a mistake on a application and put the wrong income and ended up being loaded onto National Hunter. (By lost sale I mean refused mortgage at end of process)

Not really fair. I’ve heard of people who have lost a house sale due to CIFA and NH and they were non the wiser they were loaded onto it.

Consumers should be notified in their credit file if they are on National Hunter and CIFA

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

I mean ignoring financial crime and looking at other reasons for people being bankless

I think any private institution should be able to choose whether to accept a customer or not. They’re a private enterprise.

I’d argue that there is a role for a state owned bank - see Kiwi Bank for an example of that, but that’s not because I think it should be for the unbanked although it could certainly help play a role in that.

There are lots of different reasons somebody might be unbanked. They all require different solutions which often within the legislation as it is just isn’t possible.

[Jays6]

@Dan5

There are lots of different reasons somebody might be unbanked. They all require different solutions which often within the legislation as it is just isn’t possible.

It’s not possible because the poor sod doesn’t know why they can’t get an account anywhere.

Maybe banks should not be allowed to be “private” and should be required by law to behave like a public service?

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

@Dan5 Why don’t banks try to change this (from your personal perspective)?

Banks do, but they don’t wield some massive power which will persuade the government to change things and it’s very, very rare that all banks agree on the same things so the status quo remains.

In some industries it might be easier to find ways around the rules or to bend them, but the penalties which can be applied to both the institution and the employee mean that’s not just possible in banking.

[Jays6]

@Dan5

Banks do, but they don’t wield some massive power which will persuade the government to change things and it’s very, very rare that all banks agree on the same things so the status quo remains.

It all boils down to the big suits at the end of the day. The systematic problems always start with politics.

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

It’s not possible because the poor sod doesn’t know why they can’t get an account anywhere.

That information isn’t usually hidden. I don’t know about NH but anybody can write to CIFAS and request to see if there’s a marker against their name, what the marker is for and when it was applied. It should be easier, but a bank can’t write to a customer to say they’ve had a marker put on them because that would be tipping off.

But that only applies to a really small section of the population, other people are unbanked because they’re homeless, or have no fixed address, or no ID.

Maybe banks should not be allowed to be “private” and should be required by law to behave like a public service?

You can’t be private and be required to behave like a public service. You either are a public service, or you’re private.

[Jays6]

See I see the politics a bit of an excuse. Banks can decide what they want to do and don’t want to do. They are their own entity.

I think it’s the banks that are in the wrong. They are the ones refusing customers for “uNdIsClOsEd ReASoNs”

[Jays6]

@Dan5

unbanked because they’re homeless, or have no fixed address, or no ID

HSBC have put a stop to that with their new Homeless Account. Again change made without the need of parliament.

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

I think it’s the banks that are in the wrong. They are the ones refusing customers for “uNdIsClOsEd ReASoNs”

See my post above - if Bank Y gives a customer a CIFAS marker and tells them, then they’ve committed a tipping off offence. For somebody like me who works in a regulated sector, personally that could lead to up to a five year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine.

Would you take that risk?

[Jays6]

No but if the customer can go to CIFAS straight away and see it then is it really tipping them off?

[Jays6]

Also most CIFAS are unfairly applied. I remember searching CIFAS on the Ombudsman and they ruled alot of upheld complaints involving asking a bank to withdraw the marker.

[Dan5 (Dan)]

@Jays6

HSBC have put a stop to that with their new Homeless Account. Again change made without the need of parliament.

You have literally no idea how much work HSBC have put in to make that happen though. They needed approval from UK Finance, the FCA and other industry bodies. It’s been a long time in the planning and still isn’t available for everybody.

I agree with your broad points, and I admire your conviction but there’s a lot more complexity than you realise.

[Dan5 (Dan)]

Yes, because it isn’t the institution that applied the marker.

I imagine, but don’t know, that in every case where a CIFAS marker has been applied the person who it’s been applied to has been referred to the national crime agency. That’s what makes it a tipping off offence because CIFAS = SAR.

[Jays6]

@Dan5

agree with your broad points, and I admire your conviction but there’s a lot more complexity than you realise.

I just think there’s a bit of change that can be considered. There’s very minimal transparency in banking and there’s definitely cases where accounts are closed or refused for reasons beyond crime.

(Low earner. Benefits not profitable etc)
This defo happens behind closed doors. That’s where the system needs to change