Is on-line banking safe?

tosyn

CLAPTON wrote: »

actually with the use of check digits it's very easy to know if the wrong a/c numbers are entered; indeed the codes could even be automatically corrected.

computers can do this very easily

however our present banking system chooses not to use check digits so errors can't be identified or corrected.

Actually check digits will only check the 8 digits of account number formation is correct, not whether it is operationally active/activated.
So you could still transfer money to a non-existing bank account in which case, the bank will have to reverse the transaction, I would have thought?

dzug1

dr_adidas01 wrote: »

If you worried about this then you just wouldn't leave the house!!!

Well actually the majority of accidents occur in the home so you are doomed regardless:D

CLAPTON

tosyn wrote: »

Actually check digits will only check the 8 digits of account number formation is correct, not whether it is operationally active/activated.
So you could still transfer money to a non-existing bank account in which case, the bank will have to reverse the transaction, I would have thought?

clearly the degree of error detection and correction depends upon the algorithms used but essentially they will detect and correct a wide range of errors.

clearly if you typed an totally valid sort-a/c code combination with the correct check digits then it wouldn't know.
so if you typed aunt mauds a/c code instead of uncle harry's then it wouldn't know.

however, if you made a mistake with one or even a small number of digits then it would be able to detect and potentially correct the error.

tosyn

CLAPTON wrote: »

clearly the degree of error detection and correction depends upon the algorithms used but essentially they will detect and correct a wide range of errors.

clearly if you typed an totally valid sort-a/c code combination with the correct check digits then it wouldn't know.
so if you typed aunt mauds a/c code instead of uncle harry's then it wouldn't know.

however, if you made a mistake with one or even a small number of digits then it would be able to detect and potentially correct the error.

I see your point. I still think a name cross-checking is possibly the simplest solution to tackle this problem as I mentioned in my earlier post. Now a days most banks are in the Faster Payment scheme so lets hope they implement this to reduce the margin for errors.

CLAPTON

tosyn wrote: »

I see your point. I still think a name cross-checking is possibly the simplest solution to tackle this problem as I mentioned in my earlier post. Now a days most banks are in the Faster Payment scheme so lets hope they implement this to reduce the margin for errors.

as far as I'm aware, account names aren't carried over bacs or FP so can't be checked although the 'reference' field could be utilised;
this would of course require the 'sender' to know how the 'receiver' is referenced on their a/c.
so my mate 'joe bloggs' may well be 'richard joe bloggs' or 'r j bloggs' on his a/c.; but maybe it could be got to work better than the current system

innovate

tosyn wrote: »

I see your point. I still think a name cross-checking is possibly the simplest solution to tackle this problem as I mentioned in my earlier post. Now a days most banks are in the Faster Payment scheme so lets hope they implement this to reduce the margin for errors.

So you'd need to know the exact name of the account holder, in addition to the exact sort code and account number?

Eg. you want to pay Paul Smith on 01-02-03 12345678
Do you send the money to Paul Smith? P Smith? P. Smith? Mr P Smith? Mr P.Smith? Mr and Mrs Paul Smith? Mr Paul Smith and Mrs Emma Smith? Mr. P. M. Smith? Mr Paul M. Smith?

And god forbid if there is a P Smith 01-02-03 12345678 and a Paul Smith 01-02-03 22345678 - - which one would you want the software to pick for you?

Obviously, there is clever software that could find approximate matches, but the cost of implementing this would be huge, and the result would in many cases still not be precise. Plus, instead of figuring out what the correct account name might be, double-checking the sort code and account number seems significantly less effort for us busy users.

CLAPTON

innovate wrote: »

Obviously, there is clever software that could find approximate matches, but the cost of implementing this would be huge, and the result would in many cases still not be precise. Plus, instead of figuring out what the correct account name might be, double-checking the sort code and account number seems significantly less effort for us busy users.

The reality is that people do make mistakes
and the process for correcting them is deeply flawed.

In my view we do need to change the current situation.

Unfortunately the banks don't suffer significantly from the current situation so see no reason to act.

As I recall, the idea of faster payments was successfully fought off by the banks for at least 20 years before they were eventually forced to improve the old system.

JacksterD

How useful would a check digit actually be? I guess it would be useful under some circumstances, but I always assumed that account numbers were given out sequentially as opposed to randomly?

CLAPTON

JacksterD wrote: »

How useful would a check digit actually be? I guess it would be useful under some circumstances, but I always assumed that account numbers were given out sequentially as opposed to randomly?

why does that have any relevance to using check digits?

cepheus

It seems a trivial problem to me.

Presumably there is some sort of check since the sort code has to correspond to the correct account number. Providing they don't do something silly such as release sequential account numbers from the same branch the chances of a match is remote. The additional check of a surname as well should reduce the probability of a mistake to a million to one even if the wrong account number is typed in.

So why is there a problem?

I guess the Mail have something wrong here, typing wrong numbers must be so common the banking system would quickly grind to a halt unless some sort of check was conducted.