![Google](http://www.google.com/images/poweredby_transparent/poweredby_FFFFFF.gif)
HSBC RUN FIRST DIRECT BANK REFUSES £10K WITHDRAWAL REQUEST
The Unhived Mind
‘First Direct refused our £10,000 withdrawal request’
First Direct – perennial favourite for customer satisfaction – refused to allow its customer of 22 years to withdraw funds from his account
Jessica Gorst-Williams By Jessica Gorst-Williams11:08AM GMT 06 Mar 2014CommentsComments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/jessicainvestigates/10679945/First-Direct-refused-our-10000-withdrawal-request.html
For the past 22 years my wife and I have operated exemplary joint cheque, credit card, savings and mortgage accounts with First Direct (HSBC) and have until recently enjoyed an excellent level of customer service.
However, our interests were potentially compromised when trying to withdraw cash over the counter at an HSBC branch. Following inquiries with First Direct of the notice period and identification required, the bank refused to allow us to withdraw cash to complete an important purchase transaction unless we could prove the reason for needing the funds. The amount concerned was a relatively modest £10,000 and our cheque account was more than adequately in credit.
Initially we challenged the bank’s position as it seemed no business of theirs what we wanted to do with our own money. Fortunately we were able to find one email to our solicitor covering the transaction and somewhat reluctantly sent this to First Direct as evidence. To our embarrassment they then telephoned the solicitor to ascertain whether the email was genuine, as if after maintaining impeccable accounts with them for over 20 years they did not have sufficient evidence of our integrity. Our solicitor confirmed the email was genuine and the funds were released.
Having spoken after that to junior members of staff, I asked for access to more senior management, or the legal department, to argue the case that the procedure implemented had not been valid in our case, only to be informed “they don’t talk to customers”.
JM, West of England
The person you were buying from wanted cash.
The issue of not allowing withdrawals of large cash sums has been causing controversy. This practice can arouse suspicions that such a measure is there to stop a run on the bank. There is also more than a whiff in all this of the “nanny state”. You say it should be your choice how you spend your money. If you want a wild trip to Monte Carlo spending all your money, that should be up to you.
Seen from a different perspective, some readers have blamed the bank or building society when fraudsters haven’t been prevented from tricking their relatives out of large cash sums. Also, cash is vulnerable to theft. One reader was mugged on her journey home after she had taken out her £8,000 life savings from a bank in cash. She blamed the bank for counting out the notes in public view.
Hanging in the air is the question of why anyone wants to withdraw large amounts of cash, barring, of course, the bank verging on collapse.
The draconian clause that caught you out read, “We, or any other member of the HSBC Group, may take whatever action we consider appropriate to meet any obligations, either in the UK or elsewhere in the world, relating to the prevention of fraud, money laundering, terrorist activity, bribery, corruption, tax evasion and the provision of financial and other services to people who may be subject to economic or trade sanctions. This may include, but is not limited to, investigating and intercepting payments into and out of your account(s) (particularly in the case of international transfers of funds), investigating the source of or intended receipt of funds, sharing information and documents with domestic and overseas tax authorities and withholding income from your account and transferring it to such tax authorities…”
You reported that during the discussion it was made clear that if, in future, you wanted access to cash for amounts above the daily cash machine withdrawal limit, you might be refused without proof of your intentions, and any regular use of cash machines to accumulate the required amount was likely to result in the suspension of the account. You asked for a transcript of this recorded telephone conversation. This was refused.
The terms and conditions also stated that neither First Direct nor any other member of the HSBC Group should be responsible to you or any third party for any loss incurred as a result of it or any other member of the HSBC Group taking the actions set out in its terms and conditions.
I spoke to both HSBC and First Direct. At first I was told that with regards to documentary evidence, First Direct’s procedures were followed correctly. First Direct asserted then that, as a responsible bank, it had an obligation to its customers to protect them and minimise the opportunity for financial crime.
First Direct’s chief executive then called you to apologise for the lack of customer concern.
Later, First Direct backtracked on the cash withdrawal issue. It now said that it was not mandatory after all for customers to provide documentary evidence regarding large cash withdrawals. There had been some confusion over its new internal cash-withdrawal procedure. It said that, partly as a result of this case and my intervention, it had now been made clear to customer-facing staff that nobody should be refused cash because of the absence of documentary evidence.
You came back saying there was an even worse clause that had just been added to the T&Cs in January. This clause 34.5 included the words, “intercepting, investigating, delaying, blocking or refusing any payment, service or application for a service, or use of credit…” At first the bank denied this to me but now it acknowledges this new clause. It said it did not have an impact on its cash-handling policy. It said the new clause, as part of its ongoing work to combat financial crime, not just in First Direct but across the HSBC Group, was primarily aimed at electronic transfers of funds, rather than cash withdrawals by its customers from their own accounts.
In a conversation you had with the bank, further to my involvement, it came up that there was a need for a defibrillator in your local village. It was agreed that First Direct would pay the £1,170 it would cost out of its charitable fund.
After all the hullabaloo there has been over this, you have said you are sufficiently reassured by the CEO’s comments to continue “sailing in the calm waters of First Direct”.
How to contact our consumer champion
Because of the volume of mail received, it is not possible to respond to every letter and correspondence cannot be entered into. Please do not send original documents or stamped and addressed envelopes. Responsibility, legal or otherwise, for answers given cannot be accepted. Cases currently with an ombudsman, going through a court of law or sent to other columns will not be considered.
In addition, Jessica cannot take up issues when the writer is a third party, other than in exceptional circumstances and cannot respond to emails. A full postal address, a signature and daytime telephone number are needed. Please address letters to: Jessica, Your Money, The Daily Telegraph, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT.
theunhivedmind says:
You should all remove your funds from banks and building societies immediately and leave only what is needed in there. The currency in your hand move over to tangible assets like Gold and Silver. Do not put any funds into bank accounts and if you can close down the bank accounts completely and put a stop to their fractional fiat banking once and for all. The bail-ins are coming next so be prepared..
-= The Unhived Mind