Faster Payment timescales, aka the lies banks tell

jamesd

Rather than next day the banks could:

1. Verify that the recipient name matches that given by the sender to some reasonable degree.
2. Facilitate the use of IBANs with their better checking for typos.
3. Implement the planned recall facility for FP transactions.
4. Encourage the use of low value transfers and recipient confirmation of receipt, followed by sending to the now-verified account in a second transaction.

There's no need to move to next day for all transactions if all the bank will check on is large amounts, for some definition of large. Also no need to do it to recall sending to the wrong account when there's a recall system due to arrive anyway.

I assume that the National Crime Agency SAR team would like mandatory next day transfers with guaranteed minimum delays.

Armorica

""faster payments may take up to the next working day""

they are talking about the payment, not the system. The delay can be on the sending OR the receiving side - as you say, some smaller banks and building societies simply don't have their accounting systems open at the weekend.

SnowTiger

malc_b wrote: »

So when a big bank to big bank faster payment does not go through and the big bank "implies" that it is the fault of faster payments by quoting "faster payments may take up to the next working day" they are plain lying.

Not a lie. You fail to understand it.

malc_b

My post was just informative. I thought I was clear but apparently not.

I don't have a problem with the banks doing security check and holding any payments until the security checks are complete. If anything I would have thought that would allow delays as long as necessary.

My issue is that it certainly impolite and IMO against FCA rules for banks to lie (indirectly if you like) about why a payment is delayed. Call me a cynic but the banks gain if they block a large payment which then isn't in the sending account or the receiving account. Blaming faster payments makes it sound like it is stuck in the system when the reality is that the sending bank still has that money.

And yes I have fallen foul of this which is why I researched it and posted information on the subject here. I spoke to directly to faster payments people who were a bit annoyed that the banks implied it was their fault for delaying payments when it wasn't anything to do with them.

Fair enough that security systems can be triggered and block payments. But if you call the bank and clear security the payment should be released and proceed that day.

You should not be told that security has been cleared, there is no block on the account, and faster payments can take up the next working day. I was repeatedly misinformed. Yes, factually security was cleared, my account said no block, and FP rules allow up to next working day. Grouping these facts together was meant to imply that FP was the cause of the delay without actually saying that.

The truth is that the bank systems (at least at santander) are programmed not to clear the block straight away which will give the bank a bonus.

More importantly, customers moving money from one savings account to another can find they have lost a weekend's worth of interest. If you know the facts as I gave in my first post then you can argue the bank into making a good will gesture payment to cover the lost interest rather than believing the suggestion that it was outside the bank's control.

malc_b

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Fact 4: Banks are legally obliged to comply with AML. Thus they have the legal right to delay Faster Payments until the end of the next business day.

Fact 5: if their investigations find fraudulent activity, they have the legal obligation to stop the payment entirely and block the account.

My point was they don't have the legal right to lie about it by implying the delay is down to FP.

suicidebob

So your exhaustive research concluded that "faster payments may take up to the next working day".

Great work.

suicidebob

malc_b wrote: »

My point was they don't have the legal right to lie about it by implying the delay is down to FP.

What do you mean by legal right?

malc_b

jamesd wrote: »

Or the receiving bank. Or some temporary glitch in the system or a bank's connection to it. Big bank to big bank delays for larger or uncommon amounts are more likely to be due to money laundering checks. Small amounts that are routine due to glitches.

According to faster payments they have had almost zero downtime in years of operation, something they are quite proud of. Of course there can be an issue with the bank systems but you should be told that if you phone and ask.

In my case I got another user to do the same transfer that was blocked on my account, that is same sort code to same sort code, just different account number. Theirs went through, mine didn't proving that FP was working fine and the block was specific to my account at the sending bank. Something the bank denied.

malc_b

suicidebob wrote: »

What do you mean by legal right?

I replying to a post where I had been told the banks had "legal" rights to delay payments. So I stressed the legal. I can't imagine that FCA rules allow banks to lie to customers although that I assume isn't illegal in that they could go to prison. FCA could fine them I would assume.

suicidebob

malc_b wrote: »

Something the bank denied.

When you say bank you actually mean 1 customer service representative.