Wages!!

Andystriker

Excuse me is this the correct thread for an argument?

I've told you once

No you haven't

Yes I have

Extant

Andystriker wrote: »

Excuse me is this the correct thread for an argument?

I've told you once

No you haven't

Yes I have

Forum (n)
1 a: the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b: a public meeting place for open discussion c: a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

crispy_chris

Heres an example for you.

Ms Smith is living with Mr Brown.

Ms Smith goes to her employer and gives Mr Brown's sort code/account number to them to pay her salary into. The employer pays the salary into Mr Browns account.

Mr Browns bank sees the payment, Mr Brown is already getting a salary into his account. Hmm is Mr Brown working 2 full time jobs? Or another example, Mr Brown is on income support and also appears to be receiving a salary? Lets look at the transaction, hmm its in the name of Ms Smith? Mr Brown's bank then blocks his account and requests verification of Ms Smith's salary payment. They both have to go into Mr Brown's local branch and speak to the fraud department. Its a general annoyance to everyone involved.

So you might be able to get away with it but it also might turn around and bite you in the butt.

BASFORDLAD

crispy_chris wrote: »

Heres an example for you.

Ms Smith is living with Mr Brown.

Ms Smith goes to her employer and gives Mr Brown's sort code/account number to them to pay her salary into. The employer pays the salary into Mr Browns account.

Mr Browns bank sees the payment, Mr Brown is already getting a salary into his account. Hmm is Mr Brown working 2 full time jobs? Or another example, Mr Brown is on income support and also appears to be receiving a salary? Lets look at the transaction, hmm its in the name of Ms Smith? Mr Brown's bank then blocks his account and requests verification of Ms Smith's salary payment. They both have to go into Mr Brown's local branch and speak to the fraud department. Its a general annoyance to everyone involved.

So you might be able to get away with it but it also might turn around and bite you in the butt.

I doubt that is ever going to happen..

Biggles

crispy_chris wrote: »

Mr Browns bank sees the payment, Mr Brown is already getting a salary into his account. Hmm is Mr Brown working 2 full time jobs? Or another example, Mr Brown is on income support and also appears to be receiving a salary? Lets look at the transaction, hmm its in the name of Ms Smith? Mr Brown's bank then blocks his account and requests verification of Ms Smith's salary payment. They both have to go into Mr Brown's local branch and speak to the fraud department. Its a general annoyance to everyone involved.

Utter fantasy.

Your bank are interested how many jobs you have? I've had more than one at the same time, not a problem. Your bank are doing the job of the benefits agency? No. Your bank know what name the payment was in? I don't believe so, just the sort code & a/c number (in any event, the payment might well be in the account-holder's name if the employers make up their own little 'rules').

crispy_chris

Biggles wrote: »

Utter fantasy.

Your bank are interested how many jobs you have? I've had more than one at the same time, not a problem. Your bank are doing the job of the benefits agency? No. Your bank know what name the payment was in? I don't believe so, just the sort code & a/c number (in any event, the payment might well be in the account-holder's name if the employers make up their own little 'rules').

You dont have to believe it if you dont want to. But I've blocked accounts for exactly the example I cited. And yes, it does show us (the receiving bank) who the sender 'believes' they are sending it to.

never-in-doubt

crispy_chris wrote: »

You dont have to believe it if you dont want to. But I've blocked accounts for exactly the example I cited. And yes, it does show us (the receiving bank) who the sender 'believes' they are sending it to.

No way! If you want to confirm who you worked for we'll be sure to avoid that bank as what you describe is pure wrong and without justification you are in breach of the banking code - you can't just go blocking accounts without a certain level of authority......

You're talking bollox i'm afraid mate. either that or you worked for that famous bank C.O.N Bank Plc...

You are aware we have various bank employees on here and the ones that have replied have all stated that banks couldn;t care less about payee name! What made you so different (jobsworth maybe?)

peachyprice

crispy_chris wrote: »

Heres an example for you.

Ms Smith is living with Mr Brown.

Ms Smith goes to her employer and gives Mr Brown's sort code/account number to them to pay her salary into. The employer pays the salary into Mr Browns account.

Mr Browns bank sees the payment, Mr Brown is already getting a salary into his account. Hmm is Mr Brown working 2 full time jobs? Or another example, Mr Brown is on income support and also appears to be receiving a salary? Lets look at the transaction, hmm its in the name of Ms Smith? Mr Brown's bank then blocks his account and requests verification of Ms Smith's salary payment. They both have to go into Mr Brown's local branch and speak to the fraud department. Its a general annoyance to everyone involved.

So you might be able to get away with it but it also might turn around and bite you in the butt.

in Jackanory land that is :rotfl:

crispy_chris

hehe fair enough

td_007

Now that this has reared its head again I felt I should add to it:

First of all YES someone else can deposit into your account. With that out the way....

The question about employer policy to transfer payments only to the employee's account: in a MNCs with 1000s of employees (the one I know) the payroll is outsourced on the basis of certain agreements of what the contractor will do. If the company has the policy of transferring payment only to the employee a/c and this forms the part of the agreement with contractor then to change it for one employee could mean changing the outsourcing contract! If that is the case it is humongously expensive and the company will ensure it will have its way with all the legal and regulatory firepower at its hand. You can talk about employee making a case etc.....but the employer in this case has the upper hand and most likely get its way, like it or not.