Sending money to the wrong bank account

colsten

windup wrote: »

what dont you understand, you want to send me some money, to do that you need to supply the account number, the sort code, and a three letter checksum which is derived from the 2 numbers

you do not have to, and in fact you cannot, supply a 3 letter checksum for any UK faster payment or SO.

You are, however, unable to send a Faster Payment to a non-existing combination of sort code and account number as the FP system rejects your payment request before you can even confirm the details.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

you do not have to, and in fact you cannot, supply a 3 letter checksum for any UK faster payment or SO

Well, if you cannot do this now this doesn't mean that the system cannot be changed or doesn't need to be improved.

The fact is that the existing system has very poor protection from human errors.

colsten

grumbler wrote: »

Well, if you cannot do this now this doesn't mean that the system cannot be changed or doesn't need to be improved.

The fact is that the existing system has very poor protection from human errors.

What on earth is wrong with you? You seem to be criticising each post I make, without reading things in context.

windup said "you want to send me some money, to do that you need to supply the account number, the sort code, and a three letter checksum which is derived from the 2 numbers". I said you don't / can't specify a 3 digit checksum when you make an FP or SO. And that you are presently unable to send a faster payment to a non-existent combination of sort code and account number.

Simple fact.

Not sure why you would want people having to enter another 3-digit code that would achieve the same as the existing system - - - provided that people would know how to generate a valid 3-digit code to start with.

grumbler wrote: »

The fact is that the existing system has very poor protection from human errors.

human errors will always occur. I have sent money to a wrong recipient from my payee list before, so I know. No technology can ever completely eliminate human errors, and thank goodness for that.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with you? You seem to be criticising each post I make, without reading things in context.

I can assure you, it's not personal.

windup said "you want to send me some money, to do that you need to supply the account number, the sort code, and a three letter checksum which is derived from the 2 numbers". I said you don't / can't specify a 3 digit checksum when you make an FP or SO. And that you are presently unable to send a faster payment to a non-existent combination of sort code and account number.

Simple fact.

I read what windup says as a suggestion how to improve the system. It's bloody obvious that the current system is incapable of dealing with an extra 3-digit checksum.

Not sure why you would want people having to enter another 3-digit code that would achieve the same as the existing system - - - provided that people would know how to generate a valid 3-digit code to start with.

I would want to achieve higher protection from a human error. AFAIK, the current system has a 1-digit 'checksum' incorporated into the account number. Once I checked 10 consecutive numbers and almost half(?) of them were valid.

ETA:
Electronic transfer with wrong account number
Sent money to my own BOI Card number instead of account number from my halifax

human errors will always occur. I have sent money to a wrong recipient from my payee list before, so I know. No technology can ever completely eliminate human errors, and thank goodness for that.

Stop stating the obvious. 100% elimination is impossible, but anything below 100% is achievable.

windup

dggar wrote: »

If I use a valid sort code and a valid( but incorrect ) account number I don't see how the check sum generated will be invalid.


At what point in the process the destination bank supply something to match

The idea is - The payee, the person you are going to send something to, in future provides you with three things

1. sort code
2. account number
3. checksum/letters

In future - all three numbers are printed on statements, visible online etc, so everyone knows their checksum or has a means of finding it out easily

instead of two things

it's that simple

as a for example, and colston, this is an example - a suggestion on how the system can be improved to eradicate mistakes (if there were no mistakes happening we wouldn't be discussing it, and eradication is technically possible), the numbers are short, and the checksum is simplified to aid understanding

the payee provides you with 3 things
sort code 72
account number 6254
checksum 288

you go online, and try to create a new payee, and mistakenly enter
72
6245
288

the create new payee screen does this code

if entered checksum is not equal to the right 3 digits of (enteredsortcode multiplied by enteredsccountnumber) then display "you've made a mistake you numpty", please check the details supplied by your payee, this payee cannot be added to your account

ie the generated checksum 640 does not match the supplied checksum 288
so a mistake has been made, these account details are wrong, they don't even have to be checked with the destination bank, they are incorrect mathematically

--

This change could be done in about half a day if the will was there, how much staff time do banks and people waste hunting down their missing money now...

colsten

It is today not possible to make a faster payment to a non-existent combination of sort code and account number.

I can't see how adding another lot of numbers would improve anything at all, or how it would stop people from sending money to the wrong recipient.

windup wrote: »

This change could be done in about half a day if the will was there, how much staff time do banks and people waste hunting down their missing money now...

You clearly have no idea about implementing a change to a payment system.

windup

colsten wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with you? You seem to be criticising each post I make, without reading things in context.

I'm not sure why you are posting in this thread, you keep hitting the quote button and repeating the same point which has no relevance to the discussion you are trying to pull apart.

It is today possible to make a payment to a valid account number and sort code. That is the problem.

You clearly have no idea about programming or systems analysis, it's actually 10 minutes work, half a day was being generous. I'm sure you'll love to quote that and pick at it, if you do, you're missing the point again.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

It is today not possible to make a faster payment to a non-existent combination of sort code and account number.

However, it is easy to make a payment to a wrong existing account by making a small error when entering the details.

I can't see how adding another lot of numbers would improve anything at all, or how it would stop people from sending money to the wrong recipient.

In this case you will have to make a very big error, e.g. several wrong digits, not one.

Of course, nothing can stop you from sending money erroneously to a wrong existing recipient from your payees list.

colsten

windup wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are posting in this thread,

it's an open forum so you don't need to be sure or anything else about me posting here

windup wrote: »

you keep hitting the quote button and repeating the same point which has no relevance to the discussion you are trying to pull apart.

just because you don't understand what I am saying doesn't mean what I say isn't true.

windup wrote: »

You clearly have no idea about programming or systems analysis, it's actually 10 minutes work, half a day was being generous.

LOL, you are clearly a technohead who has absolutely no clue about what is involved in deploying changes to banking (or other corporate) applications. Anyone who has ever been involved in the end-to-end process will know what I mean. Your claim clearly demonstrates that you have never been involved in such a project.

charles51

Has anyone actually managed to recover money accidentally sent to the wrong account when the recipient does not respond.


My own bank and the recipient's bank, having written to their customer and had no reply, have both said there is nothing more that they can do. The financial regulator tells me there are no procedures in place to cover the situation. The financial ombudsman says the same.


I am told you can go to court to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal Order against the recipient's bank which would force them to provide details of their customer but a quick internet search suggests this is very expensive as you would need to be represented by a lawyer. You would then sue the customer.