Can someone please explain why bank can't reverse a transfer ?

CLAPTON

fraud is not really taken very seriously in my view; it's difficult to get the police to do much
however, it would be very arbitary justice for the police to be able to freeze an account without a court order.

Jon_01

CLAPTON wrote: »

fraud is not really taken very seriously in my view; it's difficult to get the police to do much
however, it would be very arbitary justice for the police to be able to freeze an account without a court order.

I agree there needs to be safeguards.

But the current system where the bank won't do anything and the police can't isn't helping when people can get away with this kind of activity. . .

real1314

Jon_01 wrote: »

No it not fair that the bank should pay.

BUT, if he'd paid by CC they'd have to cover it. Its the system that give you protection if you pay one way and not if you pay another that appears odd?

Surely, a bank is a bank. Either you're covered in some way or your not?
Maybe a little simplistic I agree, but why protect CC and nothing else? All that happens is that all the scammers and fraudsters move to the system that lets them get away with it ??

You're not covered.

When you have money (or even an overdraft facility) in a bank account, it's YOUR money to do with as YOU wish. It's just electronic cash.

If you give that electronic cash to someone else, and then you wish to reverse the transfer, you have to use the same routes as if it was cash - i.e the police / courts.

It's really quite simple, YOU have to take responsibility for what YOU do with YOUR bank account.

bobblebob

CLAPTON wrote: »

fraud is not really taken very seriously in my view; it's difficult to get the police to do much
however, it would be very arbitary justice for the police to be able to freeze an account without a court order.

The police wont do anything as it happens far too often, and the people doing are are clever to cover their tracks. The people doing it may have had your bank details months before acting, so its virtually impossible for the police to track that

The banks should do as they loose money having to refund you

Mark_In_Hampshire

The same problem occurs when no fraud is involved and you simply type in the wrong sort code or account number - even just getting one digit wrong.

Checks do mean that if the target of the funds is an invalid number the money is put back in your account (the payment isn't really reversed, it just doesn't get made, or, the receiving bank rejects the inbound funds so it "bounces" almost instantly)

However if you managed to put in the wrong s/c and acc no but the ones you put in were for a valid account, then your money is gone. There is no mechanism for clawing back the funds apart from your bank asking the other bank to ask their customer to send them back.

This does need attention, yes.

dtaylor84

Jon_01 wrote: »

BUT, if he'd paid by CC they'd have to cover it. Its the system that give you protection if you pay one way and not if you pay another that appears odd?

If he'd paid by CC the money would have gone to a "merchant". The merchant has to agree that the money could be clawed back in various conditions, in order to process credit card transactions.

There is no such agreement required to set up a bank account. If you transfer money to another person's bank account it is equivalent to withdrawing the money from your account, giving it to them, and them depositing it in their account. You cannot just take the money back out of their bank account. And nor can the bank.

PC_Gabriel_Kent

Caveat Emptor!!!!!

Olipro

Bank transfers are not intended for making payments to untrusted parties, if you don't trust the person you're paying you should make the payment using your debit card as you will then be covered, if you can't do that then find an escrow service.

Mikeyorks

Jon_01 wrote: »

How can the banks justify a none reversible system when fraud can be proven?

BACS transactions can be reversed - within the first 24hrs. Faster Payment cannot ....... and clearly tells you so when making the transaction.

So - you always choose a mechanism that offers you some safeguard if buying from someone you don't know?

agsnu

dtaylor84 wrote: »

If he'd paid by CC the money would have gone to a "merchant". The merchant has to agree that the money could be clawed back in various conditions, in order to process credit card transactions.

There is no such agreement required to set up a bank account. If you transfer money to another person's bank account it is equivalent to withdrawing the money from your account, giving it to them, and them depositing it in their account. You cannot just take the money back out of their bank account. And nor can the bank.

Additionally, there is a fee associated with handling credit card transactions - no doubt in part to cover the cost of dealing with fraud.

How would you like it if the bank took 3% of your wages when your employer transferred them into your account?