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

pmduk

Archi_Bald wrote: »

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.

That was an idiotic suggestion by a single member of staff whom HSBC would probably disown.

Having said that, many fraudsters do attempt a small transaction prior to their fraudulent activity, but it'd be foolish for any bank to see a £1 transaction to a new payee as indicative of fraud.

BlindLeadingTheBlind

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

It was also known to banks that the characteristics of the FP Service would undoubtedly attract the attention of fraudsters looking for weaknesses in the system. By increasing their customers' exposure to fraud, it is reasonable to assume banks accepted an increased responsibility to ensure their systems and procedures surrounding the FP Service were watertight. They are quite clearly not!

Your dismissive, condescending attitude JuicyJesus is identical to the one I've encountered in my recent dealings with staff at Lloyds/Halifax. It is totally understandable as it must be extremely tedious for banking staff to be constantly dealing with customers like myself who have fallen foul of misleading, poorly designed and unhelpful systems and procedures which allow payments to wrong accounts.

It is your apparent considerable knowledge and experience in this area that partly makes it difficult for you to see and understand the consequences of the flaws in the system. If I made a mistake and acted stupidly it was when I believed I was making a payment to an account payee. I have been used to this being a "guarantee" that my money will end up in the named individual's account.

Unless banks tell the user and in a clear and prominent way on the Faster Payment transaction screen that no check is done to ensure the name quoted on the payment matches the name on the account it is entirely reasonable for the user to suppose this is done. When and only when a user knows the payment is made purely by SC and Ac No can the risks of the payment method be truly appreciated. (It is perhaps why I've never sent cash through the post!)

When the user is informed of the risks it is then that other considerations come into play such as the wisdom of making a test payment. And specifically in the case of fraud, were the account details obtained by a secure means.

A member of Barclays branch staff told me there wasn't a day that went by when she didn't deal with approx 6 wrong payments in circumstances identical to mine. A similar picture was given to me by the Action Fraud organisation. It is clearly a weakness in banks procedures surrounding the FP Service that is being targeted by organised crime because the fraudster can hide behind the intended beneficiary's name waiting to collect payment before swiftly moving the money on using the FP Service. When coupled with the seemingly endless supply of money-laundering accounts in UK Banks, and one in particular, I think my comment quoted above is entirely justified.

It is too simple and too convenient for banks (and others) to blame customers' stupidity and carelessness as the cause of all payments to wrong accounts. It is shameful that banks have not introduced some of the changes needed, especially considering how simple these probably are to do and particularly considering how long they've had to respond to customers complaints.

Meanwhile, as banks successfully encourage more and more of us to conduct our banking requirements on-line, the number of payments through the FP Service grows dramatically. The number of payments to wrong accounts grows similarly and customers begin to hear the phrases: "We do not check that the name quoted on the payment matches the name on the account as this is not part of our procedures. As we have acted in accordance with our procedures your complaint is not upheld." Or "we are unable to recover the funds as no bank error has occurred". So please forgive me if I don't share your belief that the problem is with "idiots putting in wrong numbers and expecting other people to indemnify them for their mistakes".

JuicyJesus

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

Your dismissive, condescending attitude JuicyJesus is identical to the one I've encountered in my recent dealings with staff at Lloyds/Halifax. It is totally understandable as it must be extremely tedious for banking staff to be constantly dealing with customers like myself who have fallen foul of misleading, poorly designed and unhelpful systems and procedures which allow payments to wrong accounts.

That's an interesting way of saying "people who have done things wrong and now expect other people to sort out the mess even when they had nothing do with the original error."

I would suggest you have received an identical response because that response is correct i.e. that it is not Halifax's fault that you did something stupid.

It is your apparent considerable knowledge and experience in this area that partly makes it difficult for you to see and understand the consequences of the flaws in the system. If I made a mistake and acted stupidly it was when I believed I was making a payment to an account payee. I have been used to this being a "guarantee" that my money will end up in the named individual's account.

There has never been any such "guarantee". If it existed, it existed in your head. Banks, last I checked, were not responsible for adhering to imaginary service level agreements.

Unless banks tell the user and in a clear and prominent way on the Faster Payment transaction screen that no check is done to ensure the name quoted on the payment matches the name on the account it is entirely reasonable for the user to suppose this is done.

It requires a leap of logic, but sure. But then, this is slowly being rolled out across banks as they react to Ombudsman rulings that this is something that should be done, and it doesn't in any way suggest that the Faster Payments system is "broken".

More to the point, putting in a name doesn't absolve you from making sure that the payment information itself is correct. A putative name check would just mean there are now three bits of information for you to check. Or, in your case, not check and expect other people to check for you.

When and only when a user knows the payment is made purely by SC and Ac No can the risks of the payment method be truly appreciated. (It is perhaps why I've never sent cash through the post!)

Personally I don't understand the mentality where you think getting one or two crucial pieces of information entirely wrong on your own instruction which nobody else input except you and which you actively confirmed to say was correct is somehow the banks' fault because they're not checking to see if you've been an idiot today.

When the user is informed of the risks it is then that other considerations come into play such as the wisdom of making a test payment. And specifically in the case of fraud, were the account details obtained by a secure means.

It's already up to you to make a test payment. You already can, today. As stated by many others, a lot of people do. And how the fr*g is it the banks' responsibility to ensure details were obtained by a secure means? Their responsibility is to act on customer instructions, i.e. what you tell them to do.

A member of Barclays branch staff told me there wasn't a day that went by when she didn't deal with approx 6 wrong payments in circumstances identical to mine. A similar picture was given to me by the Action Fraud organisation.

Oddly enough that figure is far higher than any I've seen. I think you are exaggerating.

Also, Action Fraud? This has nothing to do with fraud.

It is clearly a weakness in banks procedures surrounding the FP Service that is being targeted by organised crime because the fraudster can hide behind the intended beneficiary's name waiting to collect payment before swiftly moving the money on using the FP Service. When coupled with the seemingly endless supply of money-laundering accounts in UK Banks, and one in particular, I think my comment quoted above is entirely justified.

OK... what? Now you're talking gibberish.

It is too simple and too convenient for banks (and others) to blame customers' stupidity and carelessness as the cause of all payments to wrong accounts.

So it's NOT the customer's fault if they put in the wrong number, click to confirm that it is correct, and then click again as final confirmation having been given the opportunity to check twice.

Have you considered a holiday in pqrdef-land? I hear it's lovely this time of year. Well, for you - it's always raining and it's the banks' fault.

It is shameful that banks have not introduced some of the changes needed, especially considering how simple these probably are to do and particularly considering how long they've had to respond to customers complaints.

On the other hand, forced emigration to pqrdef-land seems more appropriate.

Meanwhile, as banks successfully encourage more and more of us to conduct our banking requirements on-line, the number of payments through the FP Service grows dramatically. The number of payments to wrong accounts grows similarly and customers begin to hear the phrases: "We do not check that the name quoted on the payment matches the name on the account as this is not part of our procedures. As we have acted in accordance with our procedures your complaint is not upheld." Or "we are unable to recover the funds as no bank error has occurred". So please forgive me if I don't share your belief that the problem is with "idiots putting in wrong numbers and expecting other people to indemnify them for their mistakes".

Seems perfectly fine to me. My quoted explanation seems perfectly correct.

There is, as I noted, nothing wrong with saying the name isn't checked, but I don't believe for a second it will stop people sending cash to random accounts carelessly.

John1993_2

BlindLeadingTheBlind wrote: »

it must be extremely tedious for banking staff to be constantly dealing with customers like myself

Yes, I imagine that you are dead right there.

As I've said before, have you ever considered taking responsibility for your own actions? I can promise you, it leads to a far brighter future.

JuicyJesus

John1993 wrote: »

Yes, I imagine that you are dead right there.

As I've said before, have you ever considered taking responsibility for your own actions? I can promise you, it leads to a far brighter future.

I swear it's the purest example I've seen yet of everything being someone else's fault. I mean I'm all for a safety net, but completely disclaiming any responsibility for one's actions because there was nobody there to stop them...

John1993_2

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I swear it's the purest example I've seen yet of everything being someone else's fault. I mean I'm all for a safety net, but completely disclaiming any responsibility for one's actions because there was nobody there to stop them...

"Dear Ford, I wish to complain. Yesterday I repeatedly rammed my fiesta into my garage door. Can you not put a warning on the windscreen letting us know that if we do this it might damage both the dooor and the car?"

Gromitt

I must admit, it is becoming like BlindLeadingTheBlind is the kind of person who would sue a coffee house for not writing "Caution: Burn risk. Contents may be hot." on the side of there cups.

Likewise, if you enter your sort code and account number, don't bother to check them, click OK and then when the next page comes up to show you what you just entered you blindly click "OK" again, assuming the bank will refund the money if you entered the wrong details then maybe a few payments going missing that you can't get back will make you see sense that its YOU who needs to confirm the correct information, NOT the bank. If you can't be bothered to check the entered numbers once they have been read back to you, it's your own damn fault.

I'm fedup of the UK turning into a baby sitting state where consumers need everything spoon feeding to them otherwise they complain, and everyone else has to pay to make changes to systems that were fine in the first place. I've already been told this year that my energy bills are rising because some people find the number of tariffs "too confusing" and they need to reduce them, which means me going on a higher cost tariff as I actually had the brain cells to determine which was the best and cheapest one for me.

matttye

JuicyJesus wrote: »

More to the point, putting in a name doesn't absolve you from making sure that the payment information itself is correct. A putative name check would just mean there are now three bits of information for you to check. Or, in your case, not check and expect other people to check for you.

I usually find it hard to fault your posts - but this point is not a good one.

It's a much larger leap that an account name would match a given account number and sort code, than it is simply that an account number would match a sort code.

There is a (number of accounts opened at specified branch) in (total number of accounts with specified bank) chance that an account number and sort code will match. For example; let's say there were 1,000 bank accounts opened at xyz branch of abc bank. Now lets say there are 1,000,000 accounts in total with abc bank. There is a 1 in 1,000 chance that any given account with abc bank will have been opened at xyz branch. This means there is a 1 in 1,000 chance the sort code and account number will match.

Clearly the chance of all three pieces of information matching will be orders of magnitude lower.

The chance of two people with the same account name at the same branch is slim in itself, but if you add into the mix that the account numbers would need to be close enough to be easily mistyped. Well, we're talking nigh on impossible odds.

Any who, I'm not suggesting account names should be taken into consideration; I just think banks need to be clear they're not used in the transaction itself.

matttye

Gromitt wrote: »

I must admit, it is becoming like BlindLeadingTheBlind is the kind of person who would sue a coffee house for not writing "Caution: Burn risk. Contents may be hot." on the side of there cups.

Likewise, if you enter your sort code and account number, don't bother to check them, click OK and then when the next page comes up to show you what you just entered you blindly click "OK" again, assuming the bank will refund the money if you entered the wrong details then maybe a few payments going missing that you can't get back will make you see sense that its YOU who needs to confirm the correct information, NOT the bank. If you can't be bothered to check the entered numbers once they have been read back to you, it's your own damn fault.

I'm fedup of the UK turning into a baby sitting state where consumers need everything spoon feeding to them otherwise they complain, and everyone else has to pay to make changes to systems that were fine in the first place. I've already been told this year that my energy bills are rising because some people find the number of tariffs "too confusing" and they need to reduce them, which means me going on a higher cost tariff as I actually had the brain cells to determine which was the best and cheapest one for me.

I understand what you're saying, but some banks are not clear at all that the account name isn't checked. If people think the account name is checked, they may be less cautious about entering the sort code and account number as clearly there's a high chance of an error being flagged up if the information doesn't match.

IF banks are clear about what is used, like lloyds, I have no sympathy.

dalesrider

matttye wrote: »

The chance of two people with the same account name at the same branch is slim in itself,.

Are you sure.

Have you looked in your local telephone directory lately?

Never mind Smith or Jones.... There are many regional names of which there can be hundreds of per sort code.

Add in, with the onset of internet banking. Many Sort codes do not relate to local branches.