Faster Payment timescales, aka the lies banks tell

suicidebob

malc_b wrote: »

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.

You apparently did a lot of research but your comments are still all guesswork and conjecture.

malc_b

suicidebob wrote: »

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

Great work.

Maybe try reading what I posted.

Between small banks and building soc, yes FP can take until next working day. But for them that time will be constant.

For big banks that are part of FP delay is sub 1s unless sending bank is stopping the payment (or systems are down). Any big bank transfer that normally would take sub 1s that has gone immediately is being blocked by the bank. The bank telling you that FP can take a day is effectively lying to you by implying a FP issue which it isn't (unless a system really is down).

malc_b

suicidebob wrote: »

You apparently did a lot of research but your comments are still all guesswork and conjecture.

Are you saying that FCA would allow banks to lie to customers? There are rules that say customers must be treated fairly. How is lying treating a customer fairly? I would imagine there is no actual rule saying banks must not lie to customer, but more the reverse that banks must keep customers informed and treat them fairly.

The sub 1s second time and other FP info comes from FP so it isn't guesswork or conjecture but reporting the facts as told to me by FP.

malc_b

suicidebob wrote: »

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

Two actually since I phoned twice and I also have a letter where again they state there were no blocks on my account and quote the FP can take a day rule.

If you want the nitty-gritty then the process was something like this

Send small payment - OK
Send large payment - large payment doesn't arrive
Get automate security call - confirm, large payment arrives
Send other large payments (different banks) - don't arrive
Rang and told no block
Send £1 in from another bank - arrives
Send £1 back to other bank - blocked.
Get relative to repeat the above, same sort code send/receive - OK

The last is pretty much the killer IMO. It proves that the systems at sending and receiving banks are working and so is the FP route between them. I can receive money via the same route but cannot send it. By any definition my account is blocked and that is down to the sending bank. Saying otherwise is lying to a customer.

meer53

This is Santander we're talking about. Why are you surprised ?

At my bank, there is a clause in the t & c's which advises that payments may be delayed whilst fraud checks are carried out. I would assume the same is in Santanders t & c's ? And most other banks too.

PeacefulWaters

There's been an awful lot of words typed to say "Faster Payments might no get there until the end of the next working day" and "frontline staff don't always know the reasons why".

Shall we leave it there?

colsten

malc_b, the end-to-end process of an account holder sending money from one account to another is commonly referred to as Faster Payment. The process consists of several steps, not just the use of the service provided by Vocalink (who I presume are the "faster payments people" you spoke to directly).

So if somebody tells you that a Faster Payment can take to end of the next business day, they are not telling a lie, for the simple reason that it is in fact the truth. This is not invalidated by the fact that most Faster Payments will arrive in the target account a lot faster.

It's not hard to understand, is it, and it is totally ridiculous, or may be even libellous, to accuse a bank or their operatives of lying just because one of your Faster Payments didn't arrive instantly.

malc_b

colsten wrote: »

malc_b, the end-to-end process of an account holder sending money from one account to another is commonly referred to as Faster Payment. The process consists of several steps, not just the use of the service provided by Vocalink (who I presume are the "faster payments people" you spoke to directly).

So if somebody tells you that a Faster Payment can take to end of the next business day, they are not telling a lie, for the simple reason that it is in fact the truth. This is not invalidated by the fact that most Faster Payments will arrive in the target account a lot faster.

It's not hard to understand, is it, and it is totally ridiculous, or may be even libellous, to accuse a bank or their operatives of lying just because one of your Faster Payments didn't arrive instantly.

I spoke to these people http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/ .

I don't imagine the the bank operators are lying, they are just say what is in front of them. However, I do notice that they are careful to stick the the script. They never directly say the delay is down to faster payments, they just quote the fact that fast payments are allowed to take up to next working day and let you draw your own conclusions.

And note I am specifically talking about large banks that are wired into the faster payments system, as I have made clear in every post I have made. For these banks there is an electronic route from bank A via FP to bank B.

So

http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/about-us/how-faster-payments-works

4 to 10 is all electronic and sub 1s. The only place it can be blocked is 4 or would you like to support your statement about multiple steps with some facts.

As I have said repeatly, yes it is a fact that FP can take up to next working day, for small banks that is, which why the rules allow for this. Or for large banks whose systems are down for maintenance etc.. But excluding those rare cases, for big banks, the cause is that they are blocking.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. I have proof that an identical transfer went via FP about 5min later and meanwhile my blocked transactions stayed blocked. Same sort code to same sort code, just different user, different accounts. That pretty much proves that the bank is not telling the whole truth.

The whole point of this thread was to let people know that banks can be economical with the truth and imply that delays were down to FP when that isn't the case (system crashes excepted). It wasn't to get into specifics or a moan at any bank. I think this is an important fact to know because you will be losing interest while your money is supposedly held up in FP where as in reality your bank still has it.

SuperAllyB

malc_b wrote: »

Two actually since I phoned twice and I also have a letter where again they state there were no blocks on my account and quote the FP can take a day rule.

If you want the nitty-gritty then the process was something like this

Send small payment - OK
Send large payment - large payment doesn't arrive
Get automate security call - confirm, large payment arrives
Send other large payments (different banks) - don't arrive
Rang and told no block
Send £1 in from another bank - arrives
Send £1 back to other bank - blocked.
Get relative to repeat the above, same sort code send/receive - OK

The last is pretty much the killer IMO. It proves that the systems at sending and receiving banks are working and so is the FP route between them. I can receive money via the same route but cannot send it. By any definition my account is blocked and that is down to the sending bank. Saying otherwise is lying to a customer.

Not directly relevant to your point about banks blaming the wrong party, but i'm not surprised you've experienced delays as the above combination of small/large transactions is similar to the way a lot of fraudulent use of lost/stolen cards is carried out.

ColdIron

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck

What if it needs batteries?