Electronic transfer with wrong account number

Hazzanet

The warning sign means that modulus checking information is not published for the sortcode ("cautious OK").

meer53

innovate wrote: »

I dispute this, I don't believe it is very easy.

Perhaps the OP could post what the correct sort code/account number should have been, and the erroneous one used, so we can stop talking theories.

What use will that be ? All we'll know is which number they transposed.

You might not think it's easy, but i've seen it many times at work.

Hazzanet

To give full disclosure, in my line of work, I've written scripts to modulus check bank details so I'm both conversant in the Postcode Anywhere API and understand the Vocalink modulus checking document. It is a surprisingly flawed system.

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

Try finding a valid sort code/account combination by randomly changing one or more digits in the account number. You'll probably have to at least sign up for a trial, more likely purchase the validation software since you are extremely likely to have to make a huge number of tries before you find a valid combination, if you find one at all before dying of boredom.

http://www.postcodeanywhere.co.uk/bank-account-validation/pricing/

grumbler wrote: »

....
I used the link above and checked 8 consecutive numbers for some correct sortcode. 2 out of 8 were valid.

..........................

JuicyJesus

Hazzanet wrote: »

And Metro Bank do not modulus check their account numbers at all (i.e. 00000000-99999999 are all valid).

Wouldn't surprise me if most agency banks didn't do so given the limited number of accounts per sort code.

The problem here is that the FPS system's checks aren't designed as a fail safe by any stretch. They can prevent some or most mistakes by consumers but they cannot prevent all of them. If an automated system is provided with incorrect information, and that information passes the rules it has to stop obvious dud information being accepted, then it's going to process it.

The key issue really is people taking insufficient care with payment instructions. It goes back to Charles Babbage's incredulity about being asked if a machine would provide the right answers if given the wrong inputs. Of course it won't. It never could. If you instruct a payment to a particular sort code and account number you shouldn't be surprised when the money goes there.

nidO

innovate wrote: »

This only applies up to certain amounts. Once you reach a given limit, you will not be allowed to make further withdrawals until your account is fully verified.

And what's your point? Your PayPal account being verified has nothing to do with individual bank accounts being confirmed, and you only need to have a verified PayPal account to be able to withdraw as much money as you like, to any account you like, confirmed or otherwise.

JuicyJesus

EarthBoy wrote: »

The Ombudsman won't be interested because the bank haven't done anything wrong.

Not entirely true. The bank should make reasonable efforts to recover the money. But by writing to the incorrect recipient, this will be considered reasonable.

Hazzanet

JuicyJesus wrote: »

They can prevent some or most mistakes by consumers but they cannot prevent all of them. If an automated system is provided with incorrect information, and that information passes the rules it has to stop obvious dud information being accepted, then it's going to process it.

I agree, and I personally think it's double bad luck when funds are sent to the wrong account because:

(a) You managed to hit one of the probable numbers that the modulus check is designed to allow; and
(b) The bank in question has allocated the account number to someone.

You'd expect that to be difficult to achieve but it does happen as we've seen here.

Nationwide do, however, make it easier by allowing a 'pass' on either check flag as valid.

stclair

You could share with your experiences with the Payments Council.

Regrettably they can not deal with individual cases.

http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/-/page/tellus/

eskbanker

innovate wrote: »

eskbanker wrote: »

That logic may apply if the wrong digit happened to be the last one of the account number but it could have been any of the digits for all we know!

Try finding a valid sort code/account combination by randomly changing one or more digits in the account number. You'll probably have to at least sign up for a trial, more likely purchase the validation software since you are extremely likely to have to make a huge number of tries before you find a valid combination, if you find one at all before dying of boredom.

http://www.postcodeanywhere.co.uk/bank-account-validation/pricing/

Yes, I wasn't actually saying that getting a valid account number from a single-digit error was easy, just observing the logical flaw in the statement that it's "basically impossible since account numbers aren't allocated consecutively", which assumes (a) that the error must have been in the last digit and (b) that the miskeyed digit was only out by one.

I imagine that in most cases such transcription errors wouldn't generate valid account numbers but unless you're essentially accusing OP of lying then it would seem that in this case they happened to hit on a valid one. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to OP if they've hit on a 10% chance or a 1% one or a 0.1% one or whatever, it can clearly happen!