Sent money to the wrong bank account? You’ll soon get more help getting it back

BMN

ChumpusRex wrote: »

The receiving bank has no authority to return the money, if the recipient claims that it is a genuine transfer. The receiving bank can only return the money with the explicit permission of the receiving account holder. If the account holder refuses permission for the return, then that's the end of the matter as far as the bank is concerned.

However, a lot of banks now have some small print in the terms and conditions, which read to the effect of "By using this account, you give your consent for us to return any payments which we believe may have been credited to your account in error." In other words, if a sender claims that a transfer to your account was made in error, the reciving bank already has consent to return an allegedly incorrect payment.

So, while the recipient refusing permission for return of the funds, is the end of the matter for the bank, it is not the end of the matter for the recipient.

The recipient commits the crime of "theft by finding" if he fails to return money that he knows to have been provided in error. The sender merely has to make a complaint to the police with the receiving sort-code and account number, and the police will contact the recipient of the funds and investigate the circumstances of the transaction.

What you have said is correct. But the bit you quoted from me was a direct response to something from which grumbler said.

ChumpusRex wrote: »

Banks will have made clear in their T&C that they may pass your data on to CRAs, etc.

However, the DPA is very clear. Consent is NOT required to pass personal data on to 3rd parties, provided that the disclosure is "fair". In fact, the ICO, in their guidance notes use the example of the CRA or debt collector, as a specific example where disclosure without consent is acceptable.

No it's not necessarily required.
In order for a company to process your data at least one of a few criteria must be fufilled. Consent is one of the possible criteria.

Archi_Bald

antrobus wrote: »

The only way that could be achieved is if there was one Very Big Database that held the details of every bank account in the country.

There is one very big database with every bank account in the country. Whether it is a physical or logical DB doesn't matter - it exists and it has been used tens of thousands of times every day since Faster Payments has been introduced. It would be a complete doddle to add the account holder name to that DB though I suspect it is already present. It would be a somewhat larger job for the banks to change their systems to display sort code, account number and account holder name in a confirmation dialogue, but it is junior programmer's skills only that are needed to implement this display of helpful information.

antrobus wrote: »

There are a number of arguments that could be made both for and against such a development. But one thing I'm certain of, if you want that in order to avoid the consequences of making a mistake when making a payment, you'll be paying for the cost of setting up that Very Big Database. 'Cos I certainly won't be contributing.:)

Both you and I have already paid for the implementation of that very big database. And neither of us has been asked whether we'd like to pay pay for, and neither of us will be asked whether we'd like to pay for any enhancements (or downgrades) of it. Like neither of us has been asked whether we'd like to pay for the 7-day switcher service, or PayM, to mention but a couple of other industry-wide investments that were or are being made.

Regarding the number of arguments that you say can be made for and against: I have made the ones for. Can you make the ones against? Genuine question - I might have overlooked some showstoppers.

Consumerist

antrobus wrote: »

If you're not happy with banks reporting the details of your credit to CRAs, then stop borrowing money from them.

That was easy, wasn't it.:)

I don't borrow either but the banks insist that I be regarded as a borrower because they want to think that I just might possibly in their wildest dreams become a borrower - i.e. become overdrawn. They just can't wait for their customers to slip up so they can drown them in the debt they thrive on.

It is worth mentioning that banks generally are opposed to the idea of a current account which is not allowed to go overdrawn. They insist that I am allowed to go overdrawn either with or without their prior permission whether I want that liability or not.

Bank are vultures but we have no choice but to tolerate them if we want to have any economic participation in society.

System

Archi_Bald wrote: »

There is one very big database with every bank account in the country. Whether it is a physical or logical DB doesn't matter - it exists and it has been used tens of thousands of times every day since Faster Payments has been introduced.

Is there? I understood that FP just checked that the sort code/account number was a valid combination.

BMN

Consumerist wrote: »

I don't borrow either but the banks insist that I be regarded as a borrower because they want to think that I just might possibly in their wildest dreams become a borrower - i.e. become overdrawn. They just can't wait for their customers to slip up so they can drown them in the debt they thrive on.

It is worth mentioning that banks generally are opposed to the idea of a current account which is not allowed to go overdrawn. They insist that I am allowed to go overdrawn either with or without their prior permission whether I want that liability or not.

Bank are vultures but we have no choice but to tolerate them if we want to have any economic participation in society.

Yes bank accounts do have the potential to go overdrawn.
There are certain situations where this cannot be prevented - e.g. some offline card transactions and bank charges.

Ultimately though, you are responsible for the transactions on your account. They pretty much just act on your instructions.

I don't think the banks really do want you to "drown in debt". It presents a massive risk to them because they might not get the money back.

Consumerist

BMN wrote: »

Yes bank accounts do have the potential to go overdrawn.
There are certain situations where this cannot be prevented - e.g. some offline card transactions and bank charges.

Ultimately though, you are responsible for the transactions on your account. They pretty much just act on your instructions.

I don't think the banks really do want you to "drown in debt". It presents a massive risk to them because they might not get the money back.

Ok. I do take your point. It was a bit of a rant, I guess, which has taken us off topic. Apologies.

The point is that banks could do more to recover mistakes made with account numbers on payments but they just will not.

A problem arising from their failure in this respect is that it causes difficulties when setting up such things as [STRIKE]standing orders[/STRIKE] new accounts. A small value trial payment to a new account to test for its arrival in the right account could then be regarded as attempted fraud if you follow it up too soon with a major payment to the same account.

Archi_Bald

!!!!!! wrote: »

Is there? I understood that FP just checked that the sort code/account number was a valid combination.

The Vocalink site is a bit ambiguous on how Faster Payments does work in detail, but it is definitely capable of communicating between banks in near real-time, on an account-to-account-level.

I believe Vocalink has also built a central database that will be used for PayM, which goes life on April 28. This database links mobile phone numbers to bank accounts, so could be another easy repository for account names.

Whatever the details are, the basic infrastructure is in place and it would be 'just' a matter of passing account holder names around at the right time in the processing cycle.

Uxb

antrobus wrote: »

If you're not happy with banks reporting the details of your credit to CRAs, then stop borrowing money from them.

That was easy, wasn't it.:)

I have never EVER borrowed any money from my bank, either by overdraft, loan, credit card or accidentally becoming overdrawn.
My account (all of them) are still reported every month to the CRA's
Can you tell me why?

System

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The Vocalink site is a bit ambiguous on how Faster Payments does work in detail, but it is definitely capable of communicating between banks in near real-time, on an account-to-account-level.

Vocalink is ambiguous because it is not their process. The Faster Payments site gives a bit more detail and it appears that the sending bank doesn't even check the validity of the account, that is up to the receiving bank.

So it is not an account to account communication.

Vocalink database will only be concerned with people who want to use the PayM system. The big problem with any use of names is that they are neither unique nor consistent even for one person. Would there need to be an entry for each permutation/spelling of a person's name?

One example of this is my account. It is a joint account with a name of 'A + B Smith' I can expect and have had cheque payments for 'A Smith', 'B Smith' 'A & B Smith' and 'A Smyth' - never 'A + B Smith' How would the system cope with that?

Successful automated money transfer can only rely on unique properties

FormulaDriven

!!!!!! wrote: »

One example of this is my account. It is a joint account with a name of 'A + B Smith' I can expect and have had cheque payments for 'A Smith', 'B Smith' 'A & B Smith' and 'A Smyth' - never 'A + B Smith' How would the system cope with that?

Successful automated money transfer can only rely on unique properties

Yes, but you could use it as validation. If payee is stated by payer to be "MR SMITH", and the receiving bank can see that the account details relate to "A B Jones", then it would be quite possible to program the software to flag a lack of matching strings and ping a query back before the payment is made.