£26,000 gone missing!

dalesrider

rb10 wrote: »

It's impossible to key one digit of an account number incorrectly and for the system to accept it - and that's the whole premise of the article..

Is it......

Can you be 100% sure on that ???

as clearly there have been posts on here to that effect.
Also there is only a finate amount of numbers.

Add in banks run many groups of sort codes that are only 1 digit diffrent and its easy for one wrong number to hit another account.

Sorry for the person.. Nope. Maybe she does need to have a word with the other half who was running the account, as clearly they never noticed 1K not coming in...
Or had they never spoken on this point.

Sally is not rich. They live in a modest semi, her husband works in the public sector, and they have a joint income of less than £50,000. "We live a simple life; we are quite frugal. We even went overdrawn on that account for a while and cut back as a result."

She wants to try living on state handouts if they have been frugal on 50K :rotfl:
I'm sure plenty of people would be living the high life on 50K.

rb10

dalesrider wrote: »

Is it......

Can you be 100% sure on that ???

as clearly there have been posts on here to that effect.
Also there is only a finate amount of numbers.

Absolutely.

See this document (this is from the company that runs the UK payment systems).

It confirms that both the sort code and account number are subject to a modulus check.

Mathematically the Modulus 10 and Modulus 11 checks ensure that you cannot get just one number wrong and end up with another number that passes the modulus check (this is relatively easy to see). What is slightly more complex to prove (and, in fact, not relevant in the case of this article which claims that only one digit was incorrectly entered) is that nearly all transpositions will fail under these modulus checks.

Nationwide uses sort codes in the '07-xx-xx' range. You can see from section 6 of the link that I posted earlier that only the '07' part of the sort code is not subject to a modulus check. Therefore, if any of the other digits in either the sort code or account number were incorrect, the payment would fail. If the 0 or the 7 were incorrect, then the payment wouldn't go to Nationwide, but instead to another bank (and be dependent on their modulus validation rules).

Whilst there are only a finite number of account number permutations, the current system (including the modulus checks) permits 10 million accounts to be held per sort code.

If you want to see this for yourself, type in one of your account numbers to this link. The account will show as valid. Then choose any one of the numbers in the sort code or account number to change. The modulus check that is in place means that whatever you change this number to, the check will fail.

dalesrider wrote: »

Add in banks run many groups of sort codes that are only 1 digit diffrent and its easy for one wrong number to hit another account.

No - since the validation rules apply simultaneously to both the sort code and account number, then if you enter one incorrect digit to the sort code, but enter the account number correctly, then the payment will fail.

I would love to know what the real story behind this Guardian article is. My guess would be that she actually set up the payment to a payee already on her internet banking list (i.e. a completely different account number), instead of to her other account.

richardmk

Looking at the vocalink Modulus validation of account numbers. It would seem Nationwide is going to have more problems than most by having two different modulus checks, 10 and 11. This is what happens when an organisation panics when their account numbers are about to run out, and the risk is passed onto customers.
http://www.vocalink.com/media/300578/vocalink_-_validating_account_numbers_v2.50.pdf
If you transpose account digits you would expect that you would simply create an invalid number, but by accepting the results of two checks the probabilty of catching such errors is considerably reduced.

innovate

rb10 wrote: »

My guess would be that she actually set up the payment to a payee already on her internet banking list (i.e. a completely different account number), instead of to her other account.

That could well be, and this would go some considerable way towards explaining why Sally apparently has not found the energy to go to the police or to obtain a Court order.

rb10

richardmk wrote: »

Looking at the vocalink Modulus validation of account numbers. It would seem Nationwide is going to have more problems than most by having two different modulus checks, 10 and 11. This is what happens when an organisation panics when their account numbers are about to run out, and the risk is passed onto customers.
http://www.vocalink.com/media/300578/vocalink_-_validating_account_numbers_v2.50.pdf
If you transpose account digits you would expect that you would simply create an invalid number, but by accepting the results of two checks the probabilty of catching such errors is considerably reduced.

I think that is because if your FlexAccount is 07-01-16 XXXXXXXX, then you can also pay in to the same account using 07-44-56 XXXXXXXX. [I believe the reason for this is to make it easier when people upgrade from a basic/youth account (07-44-56) to a full adult FlexAccount (07-01-16) - it means they can keep using the same sort code and account number ... I know this argument has lots of holes in it but I reckon it's something to do with that.]

So having two modulus checks will just be to take account of this unusual treatment of sort codes ... I think that the fact one of them is Mod-10 and the other Mod-11 means the increased risk to the customer is zero.

Hominu

innovate wrote: »

That could well be, and this would go some considerable way towards explaining why Sally apparently has not found the energy to go to the police or to obtain a Court order.

Indeed. I certainly wouldn't have any problem spending £1000+ on legal action to get back my £26,000.

Then again, I wouldn't give away 26K in the first place. The most I've ever sent to the wrong account number is £1.

LardyCake

Thinking uncharitably... maybe the money went into the husband's girl friends account.

Almost as believable as "not missing it" for two years.

oxfordrocks

LardyCake wrote: »

Thinking uncharitably... maybe the money went into the husband's girl friends account.

Almost as believable as "not missing it" for two years.

I could see that happening......money has gone to right account but hubby gives grand a month to secret family,
when wife realises, he bulls**ts his way out with extraordinary story about different digits on bank account.

ylesia

That is crazy that someone didn't notice £1k a month going missing - almost unbelievable! Also the suggestion that online statements are to blame! I am pretty much completely paperless and keep a much closer eye on things than I ever have as I don't need to refer to bits of paper!

I don't have any sympathy for her but pretty appalled at the lucky recipient who has obviously kept their mouth shut for 2 years (well if you believe the 'story' I guess)

Slinky

I transferred £1000 to the wrong account a couple of weeks ago - realised just as I hit the confirm button on something which would use FPS. My blood ran cold......

I run a business and it was one of my customers, ironically I only had his details on my account as I'd previously returned a payment to him that he'd made to me in error (under £100). Fortunately a quick phone call and an honest person saw the money back in my account 10 minutes later.

It's terribly easily done, but I'm not sure even I could miss 26 x £1K payments that didn't arrive in another of our accounts.