Dual signatories for online payments

ChemicalGeek

I'm on the committee for a small professional society with a turnover just above the VAT threshold, and we are looking for a new bank account. We currently bank with Barclays, but our treasurer finds their customer service woeful. We are looking for an account that will allow us to make online payments with dual signatories for authorisation, as mailing cheques around the country for dual signatories is a tedious and time-consuming process.

We aren't a registered charity, so CAF is not an option. Looked at the co-op, but a member has suggested we might have difficulties with them as we are based in the chemicals sector, and apparently they are shy of working with organisations in this sector due to their ethical policies (even though our aim is to promote safe and responsible use of chemicals!) Our treasurer is also reluctant to switch to Santander due to the many complaints about their poor service levels.

Can anyone recommend any other accounts that offer this facility?

Wywth

By dual signatories, I presume you mean both signatories, rather than either?

If so, I think you will find difficulty in any bank offering an account that requires both approvers. How would it actually work? Would one approver have to approve a transaction and then sit in a que pending another user to approve it?

All online accounts I've seen require you to accept that one approver only (albeit from a number of approvers, sometimes limited to a maximum of 4) approves a transaction. Company Mems & Arts may need to be revised accordingly to permit this.

lil.smartie

Lloydstsb offers this.

Kate

dzug1

The way it works is that someone logs onto the account and originates a payment - ie signatory 1.

Someone else then logs on (a different name) and authorises it - ie signatory 2. Until he does it just sits there

I believe HSBC offer something like it though have never looked that closely. Santander certainly do, at least on ex A&L accounts

Any business account that is online should offer it

Savvy_Sue

dzug1 wrote: »

The way it works is that someone logs onto the account and originates a payment - ie signatory 1.

Someone else then logs on (a different name) and authorises it - ie signatory 2. Until he does it just sits there

and although Sig 1 can see the payment there in the list of 'awaiting authorisation' transactions, s/he can't do anything more.

dzug1 wrote: »

Any business account that is online should offer it

I agree, but many don't, and when I asked NatWest about this for a small walking group I was told that if I went for online banking I would have to lose the dual signatory requirement! In other words, not only would I be able to move money around online without anyone else knowing what I was doing (or approving it!), I'd also be able to sign cheques all on my own. Let's just say that although I haven't closed the account, they don't get much of our business any more.

OP, have you tried Unity Trust? I don't know if you'd meet their T&C, you can but ask. I use them in my day job, and for that walking group, and find them excellent.

There's also Triodos, again no idea if you'd meet their requirements, or what their online banking is like.

paddyrg

Coutts and RBS offer Bankline - a more powerful than usual online banking application - which offers exactly this. Just beware of payments expiring if they're not signed off the same day as they're set up (unless this is configurable somehow)

Savvy_Sue

paddyrg wrote: »

Coutts and RBS offer Bankline - a more powerful than usual online banking application - which offers exactly this. Just beware of payments expiring if they're not signed off the same day as they're set up (unless this is configurable somehow)

Gosh, that wouldn't suit us at all!

Not SO bad at work, although even there it's not always the same day that something is authorised, especially if the authoriser has a query about it. But with the walking group, I'd find that very frustrating: I usually initiate a payment then email round to see who can authorise it, it's not always the same day because I do these things in the evening!

Wywth

dzug1 wrote: »

I believe HSBC offer something like it though have never looked that closely.

I don't think they do.

HSBC give total access to a 'primary user'

A 'primary user' can then add or delete 'secondary users' and set appropriate limits on them. e.g. the secondary users may have view only access, or may be granted a payment limit by the primary user.
Where a payment limit exists, then the secondary user can solely authorise any payment up to that limit themselves, and cannot create any payment instruction in excess of that limit.
The limits can be set on both an accumulated daily and an individual transaction level (and for different payment types)

longtimelurkersam

lil.smartie wrote: »

Lloydstsb offers this.

Kate

Kate is indeed correct. LTSB offer this (its relatively new).

ChemicalGeek

Thanks all. Our treasurer has contacted Unity Bank, and this is looking very positive.

System

I know this is an oldish thread, but it seems to be the only one on the subject.

I am the Finance Director of a SME currently operating on-line banking with Barclays. We originally opened the account with the usual two signatory requirement, both to sign, and a few years ago moved to on-line banking. At the time this was possible but only with one authorised operator (me).

I am now looking at retiring shortly, on a phased basis, while training up a sucessor, and my co-director will shortly be doing likewise. So the single on-line management becomes an obvious security risk.
However, I notice that Barclays now offer Dual Authorisation, which appears to exactly fit the requirement. Has anyone any experience of this in practice?

Their website says that the Originator sets up (say) a payment, and an Authoriser has to log in independently, locate the pending transactions, and authorise as appropriate. The Authorisor can amend a payment, but it cannot be sent because it then goes back into pending until the Originator approves it.

That appears to be exactly what we would want. But it seems to imply that the two roles are in fact exactly comparable - either could be the Originator or Authoriser. It might not be appropriate where there was say a junior bookeeper and a treasurer, the second overseeing and authorising the work of the first.

Has anyone any experience or observations?