I've personally found wise to be more than helpful and I've changed addresses across continents, to far more red flag jurisdictions than my native Australia
So while I feel for the person they seem very unwilling to meet a provider in the middle, is it not fair to question why this business pays no electricity or either owns/rent the property?
This is very basic stuff for a business to have. Nothing more than a phone bill at that address is bit iffy.
From a pure risk perspective buying a $2 sim card and putting whatever address you want in online then sending someone the PDF saying that's where we are is not hard to do, so maybe not worth having your business if you can't provide anything else to satisfy their worries?
There's plenty of banks that have to service you by law, go to them, and pay the far higher costs.
> is it not fair to question why this business pays no electricity or either owns/rent the property?
It's fair to question, and it is addressed in the article. They're a subsidiary, and the utilities and rent are in the parent company's name. Other relevant documents are in this company's name, but have a PO Box address because their street address does not have a mail service.
> There's plenty of banks that have to service you by law, go to them, and pay the far higher costs.
I think the "we don't want to service you" angle can be addressed by using alternative bank. However, "we've restricted all your abilities to contact us" is an unreasonable step, and prevents actually refunding the former customer the money they're owed. So that latter action is still an unreasonable step on Wise's part.