A crazy glitch at Natwest with cash deposit.

malchish

colsten wrote: »

I am getting bored now and I won't post any more until you post the resolution to the complaint.

Just one more point regarding facts.



You signed up in October 2010. I signed up in June 2014. You have 293 posts, I have 673. You have 95 thanks, I have 386. How does any of this mean that what either of us post can be verified by anyone else on the forum?

I resent your repeated snipes at me and others spending more time on the MSE forum than you do. Neither of us is more right than the other based on the number of time spent on MSE but it is, frankly, none of your business how much time anyone spends anywhere, unless they intrude into your private space, A public forum is not anyone's private space.

Colsten, another aggressive word "snipes".
You did not post until 04.08 - this is all very easy to check. The quantity of posts speaks rather against your credibility - because one may think you either have a vested interest to post a lot ( and so not impartual), or have nothing else to do...(and so not an expert, as not having a very busy job besides the internet forums ) both versions do not really instill much trust.

I await that you supportively express how outrageous and horrifying this Natwest mistake is, in your opinion (it , if course, it is true what I said).
This may at least help to prevent such glitches affecting new victims.

For once, I believe that such a mistake is indeed outrageous, and it worth dismissing some employees over this, and making a proper goodwill compensation to the horrified client, who will now take 10 statements every time cash is deposited... as feeling unsafe with Natwest.

stclair

malchish wrote: »

Yes, luckily he not only took the receipt for each deposit, but went to ATM and took a mini-statement slip with available balance. After that. on my advice, he recorded another Nawtest CS staff who confirmed to him that cash aid over the counter clears instantly.
This is why this case is so puzzling! I believe, there may be a computer glitch in the software. Because, there is indeed some cut off time for cash paif into a machine in the bank - this is reasonable, because those machine are only emptied every so often. I think , the software might have confused those quick Deposit machine payments with any cash payments, and made a "delay"... however, on the day of transacion online account showed the deposits correctly, and no overdraft...

Any funds paid into the cash deposit machines are credited in real time so their is no delays.

masonic

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Earmarked funds would not show on any statement. This might have made the available balance overdrawn.

If there were no DDs or SOs in the pipeline, then I'm not sure how else the funds could have been earmarked. I don't think the money could have been earmarked for a debit card transaction, since there would have to have been sufficient available funds prior to the cash deposit for this to happen, in which case, there would have been sufficient available funds after the money had been deposited and subsequently used to pay off the credit card.

stclair

masonic wrote: »

If there were no DDs or SOs in the pipeline, then I'm not sure how else the funds could have been earmarked. I don't think the money could have been earmarked for a debit card transaction, since there would have to have been sufficient available funds prior to the cash deposit for this to happen, in which case, there would have been sufficient available funds after the money had been deposited and subsequently used to pay off the credit card.

POS / Card transactions could have not debited the account. If a retailer does not complete the transaction after 3 days. The bank will release the funds back to the customer to allow them to use the funds again. If the customer has a full authority debit card retailers will also allow transactions to be processed without checking that funds are available within the floor limit.

matttye

malchish wrote: »

Colsten, another aggressive word "snipes".
You did not post until 04.08 - this is all very easy to check. The quantity of posts speaks rather against your credibility - because one may think you either have a vested interest to post a lot ( and so not impartual), or have nothing else to do...(and so not an expert, as not having a very busy job besides the internet forums ) both versions do not really instill much trust.

I await that you supportively express how outrageous and horrifying this Natwest mistake is, in your opinion (it , if course, it is true what I said).
This may at least help to prevent such glitches affecting new victims.

For once, I believe that such a mistake is indeed outrageous, and it worth dismissing some employees over this, and making a proper goodwill compensation to the horrified client, who will now take 10 statements every time cash is deposited... as feeling unsafe with Natwest.

What does his posting history have to do with the price of eggs?

malchish

stclair wrote: »

Any funds paid into the cash deposit machines are credited in real time so their is no delays.

i see....there is no cut off time for "quick deposit"? then I am even more puzzled... why did the first member of staff insisted on 2.30 cut off time? he must have got it from somewhere?
and the complaints rep also first mentioned cut off, but then reconsidered the issue and escalated to higher management - they were so surprised themselves... there was no confrontation with Natwest after the first bad call.

malchish

matttye wrote: »

What does his posting history have to do with the price of eggs?

impartiality. I would expect anyone impartial to say "wow... what a strange situation, how horrible for the customer"... I cannot understand why anyone impartial would accuse/suspect any OP in lies with no evidence whatsoever, such "confrontationary"(if there is a word) behaviour smacks of a troll, and posting history becomes an additional info in this.

Let's wait. I am awaiting news tomorrow.

stclair

malchish wrote: »

i see....there is no cut off tie for "quick deposit"? then I am even more puzzled... why did the first ember of staff insisted on 2.30 cut off time? he must have got it from somewhere?
and the complaints rep also first mentioned cut off, but hen reconsidered and escalated to higher management - they were so surprised themselves... there was no confrontation with Natwest after the first bad call.

The 2.30 cut off time relates to the deadline of when a customer needs to pay cleared funds into their account to cover any payments that have debited the account on that day such a direct debit or standing order. If funds are not in the account by this time the items would be returned unpaid creating charges.

malchish

masonic wrote: »

If there were no DDs or SOs in the pipeline, then I'm not sure how else the funds could have been earmarked. I don't think the money could have been earmarked for a debit card transaction, since there would have to have been sufficient available funds prior to the cash deposit for this to happen, in which case, there would have been sufficient available funds after the money had been deposited and subsequently used to pay off the credit card.

Exactly. This account of his never had card transactions, so there was no pending payments.

matttye

malchish wrote: »

impartiality. I would expect anyone impartial to say "wow... what a strange situation, how horrible for the customer"... I cannot understand why anyone impartial would accuse/suspect any OP in lies with no evidence whatsoever, such "confrontationary"(if there is a word) behaviour smacks of a troll, and posting history becomes an additional info in this.

Let's wait. I am awaiting news tomorrow.

Whilst I too dislike such behaviour, I don't think the frequency of posts or the age of the member's posts has anything to do with that.