Is it normal for Santander to delay every faster payment sent?

innovate

dezza wrote: »

Hopefully it'll settle down with time when my 'activity' is more recognisable by the bank - just not something I've had an issue with any other bank.

I was in a similar position when I first started using my 123 in seriousness, so I understand your frustration all too well. The cashback and interest kept me hanging in.

Each bank is different - - e.g. withdrawing large sums of cash in Branch w/o prior advice seems to be very easy at Lloyds and Halifax but a lot more difficult at Santander and Natwest.

Keep the faith. The 123 is a lovely account if you have qualifying DDs and/or cash to make interest from.

onzey

dezza wrote: »

I notice that delayed payments first come up on online banking as 'Rejected', then an identical payment is made shortly afterwards, which goes through. Do these rejected payments come up on your monthly statement as such?

I've had a couple of these Rejected payments on mine. In both cases the Rejected payment (under Money in) immediately followed by the repeat payment (under Money out) had the following day's date, relative to the original payment.

dezza

That's how the rejected/repeat payments show up on my online banking too, looks quite messy given the amount of times this has happened but guess it's not much of an issue, as long as the payments aren't blocked entirely.

I'll certainly keep the account as the cashback/interest would add up over time - hopefully the fraud check procedures will settle down over time, although I might have to take it up with them if it continues time after time.

Thanks

pqrdef

Caladan wrote: »

As to the person who encourages making £1 payments to beneficiaries to check the account details - This might seem like a good idea, but if I was reviewing one of my customers accounts and saw that happening frequently I'd be onto the Fraud/Money Laundering office before you could say "TIMESCALES"

Just more evidence of how banks screw up their customers on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and don't give a toss.

Which bank is this? Another one to avoid.

Caladan

innovate wrote: »

Sounds you are an employee of a bank who reviews payments customers make online?

If so, why would you pull up those of your customers who know that banks won't co-operate in the slightest when payments have been made made in error, and therefore make tiny test payments before they commit bigger sums?

As an aside, I don't actually find the "send £1, then pile in" approach generally as an issue. I appreciate that literally all banks are monitoring these sorts of transfers very closely, and I applaud them for doing this. Though I know they know that a £1 payment, followed by one or more much larger payments, isn't enough reason to suspect wrong-doings.

My apologies - I didn't explain myself very well there. I work in branch, but I have a duty of care to examine unusual behaviour if I come across it.

The concern would be that somebody was attempting Account Takeover Fraud (i.e. not the genuine customer). It's unlikely to be a sign of any ill will on the customers part - but as many fraud detection systems are fully automated using this approach is highly likely to trigger a referral.

Kind regards,
Cal

pqrdef wrote: »

Just more evidence of how banks screw up their customers on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and don't give a toss.

Which bank is this? Another one to avoid.

A somewhat miss-guided view I'd say. A common way fraudsters test whether or not they've successfully taken over an account is by making small payments or setting up direct debits to charities etc. Therefore small transactions followed by large ones ring major alarm bells - For our customers protection and generally speaking the customer would never even know the review had taken place - Therefore no hassle at all for the client.

The only person that loses out by reviewing the account is the staff member taking the time to do it to ensure our customers accounts are safe.

Don't worry, I don't want you as a customer anyway. I happen to be one of those who bends over backwards to help people, far beyond what my job requires. I don't waste my time helping the ones with attitudes like yours.

Edit: Toned down my language slightly. Good god can I get annoyed by bluster sometimes.

pqrdef

Caladan wrote: »

I have a duty of care

No you don't. Your employers will tell you whatever they want you to think.

Caladan wrote: »

to examine unusual behaviour if I come across it.

So we're not allowed to be unusual now.

Caladan wrote: »

A common way fraudsters test whether or not they've successfully taken over an account is by making small payments

If I can set up a payee, why would I need to test it with a small payment? That would only test the destination account details.

A small incoming payment might suggest that the account holder is a fraudster testing his access to the account it came from. But banks don't bother to check incoming payments, because they don't see any risk to the bank. They don't care about criminality, they only care about their own liability.

Caladan wrote: »

or setting up direct debits to charities etc.

Oh dear, I do that as well. Three this week.

All I have to do is phone the charity, or they phone me, and give them the sort code and account number. They never do any kind of ID check. One of them asked me if I had permission to set up DDs on the account, but I figured out what they wanted me to say.

I don't need any access to the account, nor would I be testing my access to the account in any way.

Caladan wrote: »

For our customers protection

It does nothing to protect the customer. Actually it doesn't even do much to protect the bank, because let's face it, defrauding a bank is child's play. It's a sham for PR purposes and for the benefit of incompetent regulators.

innovate

Caladan wrote: »

The only person that loses out by reviewing the account is the staff member taking the time to do it to ensure our customers accounts are safe.

By jove, you are representing the worst of terrible "customer service" attitude. It is the job of banks to ensure customer's money is being kept safe, so how could you "lose out" doing your job?

You have ignored the fact that banks won't co-operate in the slightest when payments have been made in error. Therefore prudent account owners have to make tiny test payments before they commit bigger sums.

I realise this may create a "fraudster pattern" but what exactly would you suggest people do in the absence of banks being willing to assist, and do so in a timely manner, in retrieving money that was sent to a wrong account by mistake?

Caladan

pqrdef wrote: »

No you don't. Your employers will tell you whatever they want you to think.


So we're not allowed to be unusual now.


If I can set up a payee, why would I need to test it with a small payment? That would only test the destination account details.

A small incoming payment might suggest that the account holder is a fraudster testing his access to the account it came from. But banks don't bother to check incoming payments, because they don't see any risk to the bank. They don't care about criminality, they only care about their own liability.


Oh dear, I do that as well. Three this week.

All I have to do is phone the charity, or they phone me, and give them the sort code and account number. They never do any kind of ID check. One of them asked me if I had permission to set up DDs on the account, but I figured out what they wanted me to say.

I don't need any access to the account, nor would I be testing my access to the account in any way.


It does nothing to protect the customer. Actually it doesn't even do much to protect the bank, because let's face it, defrauding a bank is child's play. It's a sham for PR purposes and for the benefit of incompetent regulators.

Alright, I'll bite.

Point 1 - I do have a duty of care, both to my customers and to the bank. Example - A customer comes in asking to send a payment of £5000 to France/Swaziland/wherever. On querying the reason for the payment (which the customer invariably doesn't like us doing and almost always kicks off) I become concerned they may be about to become victims of a scam. I advise the customer to ensure they are 100% happy with the beneficiary and let them know what my concerns are (which, again, almost invariably leads to abuse from the customer as it's 'their business').

I now have 2 options - Send the payment for them and deal with the complaint a week later when they realise they've been conned, or I decline to send it/strongly advise against it and have them come back to me a week later saying thanks so much for saving me five grand and I'm really sorry if I was a bit short with you before.

Of course, I could just send the payment as per the customers instruction, entirely disregarding my duty of care, and more fool the customer because it's them that's going to lose out and it'd certainly save me a lot of hassle and work.

Or maybe it's just my employer telling me how to think and I 'don't give a toss', I'm sure you're right, and all those examples I've come across during my career are just coincidences.

Point 2 - Unusual is fine, but it's also going to trigger extra checks, again, to protect you and the bank (by the way - we're required by law to report any concerns about potential money laundering, if we don't we as individuals can be held criminally responsible). Most of the time you'll never know these checks have taken place as I said before.

Point 3 - Incoming payments ARE regularly screened, especially on new accounts, you're making assumptions here on, and I quote "no evidence whatsoever".

Point 4 - Yes, just setting up a direct debit alone is easy, but it can also be part of a wider process to take over an account. For obvious reasons I'm not going to post the entire method.

Point 5 - Again, your arrogance astounds me. I understand some people have very genuine reasons to be angry/upset with their banks but you seem to have allowed yourself to be blinded by rage beyond reason.

If we were not constantly looking out for potential scams/frauds/money launderers the following happens:

Criminals get money, and can then use it to fund other crimes. Yes, the bank may be liable and therefore is protecting itself, but guess where the costs have to be passed to to ensure the business continues to be profitable?

Go on, have a guess.

That's right, the customer.

I'm really not sure what your argument against these checks is to be honest.

BusinessIsBusiness

pqrdef wrote: »

No you don't. Your employers will tell you whatever they want you to think.


It does nothing to protect the customer. Actually it doesn't even do much to protect the bank, because let's face it, defrauding a bank is child's play. It's a sham for PR purposes and for the benefit of incompetent regulators.

Money Laundering Regulations '07 state that if not reported, anyone can liable for being complicit with Money Laundering when it is reasonable to be suspicious. For example a common practice such as this, it would be reasonable to question/ review the activity. With a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and an unlimited fine, I'd say that was reason enough to be on the ball as an individual about this kind of thing as well as the bank.

Lets face it, you do not work in a bank nor are you a decision maker within one. Banks do not go through huge expenses such as this for the sake of it. Ignorance is bliss...

Caladan

innovate wrote: »

By jove, you are representing the worst of terrible "customer service" attitude. It is the job of banks to ensure customer's money is being kept safe, so how could you "lose out" doing your job?

Quite right, a poor choice of words perhaps. In fact identifying and stopping frauds is one of the most satisfying parts of my job (far more satisfying than selling a credit card for example).

By the words 'lose out' I mean the only people this affects are the people taking the time to do it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or something we shouldn't be doing (far from it!). I tend to be quite blunt on this forum (as god help me if I was ever so straight talking at work) because I feel most people are more understanding here than when they're sat at my desk with a grievance.

innovate wrote: »

You have ignored the fact that banks won't co-operate in the slightest when payments have been made in error. Therefore prudent account owners have to make tiny test payments before they commit bigger sums.

Didn't ignore it as such, just wasn't what I was responding to, I'll pick it up though. Bear in mind I'm here as an individual, not a representative of my company (and if you see my other posts you may note I try to help people get around various barriers my company can put up).

I don't know what the actual legislation is around this (probably should in fairness) but I do know that with the new faster payment system once the money is gone it's gone, we can trace the payment with the other bank, and in cases of fraud advise the other bank we have concerns about their account and that bank can then consider inhibiting it, but recovering the funds is ultimately up to the customer and the other bank (legally the recipient shouldn't spend the money, but it is tricky to prove in court).

I do understand why people send these small £1 payments (although surely it's easier to just check the sort code and account number again with the beneficiary as you'd need to contact them to confirm the £1 has gone in anyway) and I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying it's more likely to flag up.

innovate wrote: »

I realise this may create a "fraudster pattern" but what exactly would you suggest people do in the absence of banks being willing to assist, and do so in a timely manner, in retrieving money that was sent to a wrong account by mistake?

As above, once the money is in the other banks hands there's not a lot your bank can do. The other bank will ask the person who received the funds if they are willing to return them (unless it's confirmed fraud they wont just debit the persons account just because they've been asked to - It could be perfectly genuine and that would open a whole new fraud market - Imagine selling a car, releasing it when the money comes into your account and then finding out it's been sent back because the person who bought the car lied about sending it to the wrong account).

I think the usual turnaround time is around 14 days, but I'm guessing there, and it depends on how quickly the person who received the money responds.

How would you do it differently?