Alliance & Leicester - Faster Payment

kerri_gt

I have had issues before - the gripe I have is that the amounts you can send aren't clear on the website. I rang CS about this some time ago (when they decided to hold on to, sorrry, send by BACS £300 I was trans) saying why can't they just show the values you can transfer per day and make it clear for people. The reply from CS was 'no, that's not possible, the amount changes as we're testing the system' (goodness, space lanches have had shorter test periods) .....Santander....the unhelpful bank

spicysomtam

The problem with Alliance and Leicester is that they have been taken over by Sandander and there are lots of migration issues over to Sandander (I have experience quite a few). Thus they seem to not want to loose any control, hence why this restriction remains in place.

There seems to be some paranoia with FPs in that alot of money can be transfered quickly. However the UK has really lagged behind in this regard (for example I was able to instantly transfer funds in Japan via an ATM 10 years ago). If the money gets transferrred in error, it can be transferred back?

spicysomtam

I do a faster payment of 249 pounds, it then rejects it several hours later (why?). I then repeat the payment and it does it by the snail bacs process. You can't do a faster payment if using a 'new' computer; that is one that prompts you for additional information before you sign on. I use another computer, which A&L know about to send a pound, and that goes by faster payment.

Why can't they tell you the payment method that will be used BEFORE you submit the payment!!! You end up sending the same amount twice because one method goes the snail bacs route. Then you end up sending the payment back again when it eventually arrives. grr. Incidently, NatWest doesn't have all these problems and I have not hit any limit when it goes via snail bacs.

spicysomtam

Fricked off with A&L. Send 1 pound via faster payments. looks good. Then send 220 quid and it goes via bacs. I don't know what algorithm they use. Only 1 pound sent in the day via faster payments.

Sceptic001

spicysomtam wrote: »

I don't know what algorithm they use.

They work out what will annoy/inconvenience/cost you most and then do that.:mad:

Viper_7

spicysomtam wrote: »

Fricked off with A&L. Send 1 pound via faster payments. looks good. Then send 220 quid and it goes via bacs. I don't know what algorithm they use. Only 1 pound sent in the day via faster payments.

Some banks have various security/fraud prevention measures.
Quick successive transfers like this can trigger them.

They see the £1 as being a test, and then a higher some goes through after can look dubious.

That's why some have kept their limits low, nothing to do with testing, it's to do with fraud prevention
BACS takes several days to allow additional checks to take place - and the payment can be stopped. When the payments happen within seconds, it reduces the time available to perform fraud checks.

Sceptic001

Viper_7 wrote: »

They see the £1 as being a test, and then a higher some goes through after can look dubious.

If that is true it is ridiculous, since it makes perfect sense to test a legitimate payment mandate with a small amount before sending a larger payment.

In any case it can't apply to Santander/A&L because, annoyingly, they always send the first payment to a new payee by BACS.

agrinnall

Viper_7 wrote: »

Some banks have various security/fraud prevention measures.
Quick successive transfers like this can trigger them.

They see the £1 as being a test, and then a higher some goes through after can look dubious.

That's why some have kept their limits low, nothing to do with testing, it's to do with fraud prevention
BACS takes several days to allow additional checks to take place - and the payment can be stopped. When the payments happen within seconds, it reduces the time available to perform fraud checks.

You could well be right about successive transactions triggering a fraud check. But I very much doubt if fraud prevention is the reason why limits are kept low (or testing, you're right about that), it's inertia, incompetence and a total disregard for their customer. If some banks can adequately risk assess payments up to £20,000 why can't the others?

I also doubt whether any additional checks are done on BACS payments, unless having been flagged as a potential issue in FP causes those transactions to be looked at manually during the BACS cycle.

Viper_7

agrinnall wrote: »

You could well be right about successive transactions triggering a fraud check. But I very much doubt if fraud prevention is the reason why limits are kept low (or testing, you're right about that), it's inertia, incompetence and a total disregard for their customer. If some banks can adequately risk assess payments up to £20,000 why can't the others?

I also doubt whether any additional checks are done on BACS payments, unless having been flagged as a potential issue in FP causes those transactions to be looked at manually during the BACS cycle.

There are many checks with BACS. Banks didn't just take 3 days to skim the money off the top - sure they did make money off it, but the aim was so additional checks can be performed, and pattern recognition.

Also the value of payments between instituion by volume is known.

Many People tend to make smaller payments than the limits, so the vast majority of the customer base is satisfied.

Higher the limit - higher your liability. high values of cash can be moved quickly and the receiving account emptied before you can blink.
However yes some institutions are indeed dragging their heels.

Mixture of reasons at the end of the day.

spicysomtam

I have sent 1 pound before and then a larger amount. This time only two transactions.

I think the BIG improvement would be to advise you what transfer method will be used BEFORE you submit the transfer. Then if its going to go via bacs then you can choose not to send it.

For me its a big inconvenience, I only wanted to send 250 quid. I now have two transfers of about 250 quid stuck in bacs. Thats my money in limbo for 3 days. This isn't right.

Absoluteness no problems with Natwest, unfortunately my main current account is A&L.

As I said 10 years ago I was able to transfer money bank to bank instantly in Japan. We have had it in Thailand for as long as I can remember (15 years?). Its only the UK that is backward with a bank transfer system that takes 3 days. You can try and justify this by saying its secure, but the rest of the world doesn't think you need this. Its a big inconvenience having your money stuck in limbo for 3 days. Guess UK people don't know any better?