NatWest: Denial of service

samizdat

I have had a dreadful experience dealing with NatWest.

I tried to carry out a telephone banking transaction, a faster payment to a pre-existing payee at an external bank. That payee was myself (same name). I was told the payment might take an hour or two to show up, worst case it would be made the next day.

The payment was not made. NatWest decided to flag the transaction as potentially fraudulent, and to put a block on my account. As a result, I cannot make any payments unless I visit a branch, or until I have re-activated my card reader.

I rang NatWest to complain, and was going round in circles trying to get them even to acknowledge that I had a valid complaint. Eventually, I managed to escalate things to a manager, who begrudgingly gave me a reference number.

My advice to anyone who actually wants to be able to access their own money is not to use NatWest.

In my opinion, their security process is seriously flawed.

If you ask your customers to follow certain security procedures, then I think you must accept all transactions that are carried out in accordance with those procedures. If the bank feels that the published procedures are inadequate, and that additional measures are necessary, they should publicly change the procedures.

What is unacceptable is to run "heuristics", and operate undisclosed procedures that can result in denial of service to your customers.

NatWest is trying to follow a "security through obscurity" model, and seems to think that fraudsters are going to be impeded by having unpublished criteria for transacting on accounts at NatWest.

In fact, it is only the bank's own customers that will end up being inconvenienced, and potentially exposed to significant financial loss, as a result of being unable to transact on their accounts.

I feel strongly that NatWest are misguided in their approach to security. However, I am aware that other banks also have flawed procedures.

Please share with me your banking security nightmares.

rb10

All banks actively monitor accounts, and flag up those payments which they suspect to be fraudulent.

On the whole, it is a good system. As you have found, a few slip through the net.

Them not answering your complaint - that's just Natwest's normal level of service.

agrinnall

Of course, the flaw in your argument is that a significant proportion - possibly a majority - of fraudulent transactions are in fact perpetrated by customers of the bank, and it's probably the monitoring for these that has caught you out this time.

samizdat

agrinnall wrote: »

Of course, the flaw in your argument is that a significant proportion - possibly a majority - of fraudulent transactions are in fact perpetrated by customers of the bank, and it's probably the monitoring for these that has caught you out this time.

Sorry, you've lost me there. Either their published procedures are adequately secure, or they are not. If not, make them better.

A major purpose of having a bank account is the need to transact, and it is up to the bank to come up with a reasonable way for me to do that securely. I cannot reliably do that with NatWest. I am therefore highly unlikely to place funds at the bank in future.

Banks need people to have faith in their ability to access money when needed, without having to turn up at a branch with a passport.

chambta

I'm not sure any bank is going to to do anything but 'undisclosed procedures'.

stclair

I wonder what happen if fraud took place on a customers account on the bank did not act on it....

opinions4u

You'd be the first to complain when your account is hacked and £20k shifted to a mysterious third party.

Somerset

opinions4u wrote: »

You'd be the first to complain when your account is hacked and £20k shifted to a mysterious third party.

A mysterious third party would be a new payee which would need to get through NW's security checks.

The OP's transfer was to an existing payee which had already passed those security checks.

opinions4u

Somerset wrote: »

A mysterious third party would be a new payee which would need to get through NW's security checks.

The OP's transfer was to an existing payee which had already passed those security checks.

And if that payee has had suspicious activity on their account?

samizdat

opinions4u wrote: »

And if that payee has had suspicious activity on their account?

What are you implying?

This payee, which happens to be myself, is an account with security over a residential property, and, relative to the sums at issue, there is a substantial equity cushion. It is also an account that continues to operate perfectly normally.

Ben8282

samizdat wrote: »

This payee, which happens to be myself, is an account with security over a residential property, and, relative to the sums at issue, there is a substantial equity cushion. It is also an account that continues to operate perfectly normally.

???

Is this a long winded way of saying you were trying to pay your mortgage?

If not, then a) what sort of account is 'an account with security over a residential property'? and b) what is the relevence of this comment to the problem encountered with transfering funds into this account?

It would also be helpful if you could give an idea of the value of the transaction, the origin of the funds involved and the reason for making the transfer.

There is a certain similarity between this thread and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3864137