Help please!!! transferred £300 into the wrong account.

pqrdef

Well next month we get the new BACS redirection-based switching service. This will allow payee details to be automatically translated. That can have other uses besides switching. Banks that don't currently support checksums will be able to "switch" all their customers to whole new sets of sort codes and account numbers, with checksums.

Not holding my breath though. Because the banks' attitude on this is total complacency.

Archi_Bald

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

4. Incorporate a check to at least ensure the ac no and sc are valid. (I believe a previous poster has mentioned how straightforward this is to do.)

The only one from your list I would agree with is the above. The rest are either already available, or are overkill if your point 4. gets implemented.

~Chameleon~

I seriously fail to understand why people cannot grasp that the only criteria to specifically identify a person's bank account is their sort code and account number!

Those are the only constants that are imperative to get right. You could send it in the name of Joe Bloggs if you like, as long as the sort code and account number are correct for your intended recipient. The name doesn't matter!

Gromitt

Why not something simple?

Ask user to enter the account number, sort code and amount and then press "Next" or "Confirm" or whatever to get to the next page.
Then ask the user to enter the account number, sort code and amount again.
If the two don't match, throw up a big red error box saying so and demand them going back to the beginning.
If the two match, show what was entered and say "Are you sure you wish to make this transaction - it can not be reversed once sent".

Finally, change "Payee Name" to "Would you like to add a note to this transaction to remind you what this transaction was for?". Allow both the name and reference to be changed each time the payment is used, but populate with the last used information.

~Chameleon~

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

Other improvements which seem obvious to me are:
1. Include in the message the need to ensure the ac no and sc are acquired by a secure means.

Common sense to check that yourself.

2. Change the order in which the ac information is requested to remove the prominence given to the payee's name.

Irrelevant.

3. Break down the ac no in a similar fashion to how we are used to seeing sort codes or credit/debit card numbers.

Why? It's an 8 digit number !!!!!!!

4. Incorporate a check to at least ensure the ac no and sc are valid. (I believe a previous poster has mentioned how straightforward this is to do.)

Your responsibility to ensure you type in the correct number. You are given the opportunity to double check it before hitting confirm.

5. Give the customer the option of sending a £1 test payment. Perhaps this is as good as checking ac payee name. (Again all infallible MSE members needn't bother with this.)

There's nothing stopping you sending a £1 test payment already. And indeed is advisable when setting up any new payee and/or transferring significant amounts of money.

Anything else you'd like your hand holding for?

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The only one from your list I would agree with is the above. The rest are either already available, or are overkill if your point 4. gets implemented.

The FPS system already does check if a sort code and account number are valid - the receiving bank will refuse the payment should it be going to an account that is closed, was never open, or is otherwise blocked for some reason, and it will never be sent. What the OP wants is a name check, which is completely impractical.

JuicyJesus

pqrdef wrote: »

Well next month we get the new BACS redirection-based switching service. This will allow payee details to be automatically translated. That can have other uses besides switching. Banks that don't currently support checksums will be able to "switch" all their customers to whole new sets of sort codes and account numbers, with checksums.

Not holding my breath though. Because the banks' attitude on this is total complacency.

Meanwhile, in pqrdef-land, Everything Is The Fault Of The Banks Somehow, so they should change everyone's sort code and account number in order to protect a tiny minority of stupid people from the consequences of not being able to input, check and confirm an eight digit account number correctly when carrying out basic financial transactions involving real money.

And if they don't do this, they're complacent.

Archi_Bald

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The FPS system already does check if a sort code and account number are valid - the receiving bank will refuse the payment should it be going to an account that is closed, was never open, or is otherwise blocked for some reason, and it will never be sent.

This is excellent news, and I have actually just tried it by setting up a new payee on a Lloyds account, attempting to send 1p to a Santander account that, according to postcodeanywhere, doesn't exist (it's 2 digits out from my real Santander 123 account).

Lloyds did let me set up the payee ok but the payment wasn't successful - got a message saying "We're sorry but we couldn't complete your request as the beneficiary Bank have advised us that the sort code and account number provided are incorrect".

JuicyJesus wrote: »

What the OP wants is a name check, which is completely impractical.

I agree, the reasons are totally obvious.

BlindLeadingTheBlind

Gromitt wrote: »

Why not something simple?

Ask user to enter the account number, sort code and amount and then press "Next" or "Confirm" or whatever to get to the next page.
Then ask the user to enter the account number, sort code and amount again.
If the two don't match, throw up a big red error box saying so and demand them going back to the beginning.
If the two match, show what was entered and say "Are you sure you wish to make this transaction - it can not be reversed once sent".

Finally, change "Payee Name" to "Would you like to add a note to this transaction to remind you what this transaction was for?". Allow both the name and reference to be changed each time the payment is used, but populate with the last used information.

I like your suggestion Gromitt! It would certainly avoid payments to wrong accounts caused by typos. I like also the whole change of emphasis away from the payee's name to the account number & sort code. This will drive home to users the fact the system operates only on these two pieces of account information.

I'd still like to see a message including the recommendation of sending a test payment. This should help reduce payments to wrong accounts caused by the account information being given to the payer incorrectly or, as in my case, fraudulently.

Archi_Bald

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

I'd still like to see a message including the recommendation of sending a test payment. This should help reduce payments to wrong accounts caused by the account information being given to the payer incorrectly or, as in my case, fraudulently.

If you read through the forum, you will find that at least one bank (HSBC), but probably others, take the sending a £1, followed shortly by a larger amount, to the same sort code/account number as a sign of fraud. Thus your suggestion will most likely get implemented shortly after hell has frozen over.