MSE News: Current account switching 'working well', but improvement still needed

Hazzanet

grumbler wrote: »

BTW, OFT was closed a year ago - and closed for a reason.

Indeed, the document is an old version I have hanging around. The point remains, though, if the error is due to a problem with the switching service, then the Service User, in your example, Vodafone, should not be levying charges or reporting adverse data to the CRAs.

As meer53 says, this could be done by a letter from the bank advising the Service User that it was not the fault of the payer.

Archi_Bald

Amazing, the debates we can sometimes have one here about basically nothing. Step back for a minute and ask

1. how many CASS DD transfers have gone wrong because the switch process failed somewhere?
2. how many of these have resulted in the account holder getting a default on their credit files?
3. how many of the affected account holders have been unable to get their credit files corrected?
4. how many of the affected account holders have been left out of pocket as a direct result of 1. ?

I suppose it is unlikely that any of us will ever know the real answers to these questions but my guess would be that all can be answered with 'negligible' and/or 'none'. If DD errors caused by CASS were a regular or frequent occurrence, we would have read about it on here or in the papers.

grumbler

1. (1 DD) x (2 switches) = 1 went wrong = 50% for me. Aqua&Coop

EarthBoy

Mobeer wrote: »

It's been done for me for Electricity, Gas, Home Phone, Internet. They could all switch with seamless service - I think banks should do the same.

Your memory is playing tricks. Switching energy suppliers might be seemless, but it's not instant. It takes a minimum of 17 days. Three days, plus a two weeks cooling off period in which you can change your mind:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-releases/ofgem-leads-radical-shake-energy-switching-process

Changing phone and internet supplier isn't instant either.

Archi_Bald

grumbler wrote: »

1. (1 DD) x (2 switches) = 1 went wrong = 50% for me. Aqua&Coop

That's number 1. What about 2, 3 and 4?

grumbler

Well, unlike an ordinary customer, I kept my eye on this, noticed that the DD failed and contacted Aqua on the very same day.
I still had the old account registered for the DD in my Aqua account.

EarthBoy

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2991930/More-customers-switch-bank-allowed-account-number-City-regulator-finds.html

"The City regulator said there were various technical solutions to delivering account number portability, and the Payment Systems Regulator, a newly-formed body, would consider the evidence in relation to account number portability."

This is probably regulator speak for "we haven't a clue how it would work".

There would be no point in keeping the same account no. unless you also keep the same sort code and the banking system is designed around sort codes being linked to particular banks. It would be very expensive to re-engineer the whole system so that the same sort codes could be used by any bank.

I can see it causing more problems than it solves. How would it work with overdrafts, for instance, if your overdraft limit with the new bank was less than with your old bank? If you were overdrawn at the time of the switch you could be instantly in breach of your new overdraft limit. You'd get bank charges before you'd even had chance to use the account.

Payments made into the account around the time of the switch might go missing and fall into a black hole, with both the old and the new banks claiming they haven't received the money.

The re-direction period under the switching service is soon to be extended from 13 months to 36 months, and this should allay any customer fears about payments going missing. There's really no need to have portable account numbers, it's just a red herring.

YorkshireBoy

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

In order to try and get a specific answer to this query I've sent a message via the simplerworld's contact us page. I'll post back when/if I get a reply.

But it's interesting that the FAQ quoted above specifically mentions credit ratings, because the actual 'guarantee' itself doesn't. It merely says "...we will refund any interest (paid or lost) and charges made on either your old or new accounts as a result of this failure".

Here's the reply I received...

"...if a payment is missed, as a result of a CASS switch, we would expect the new bank to take all reasonable steps to resolve this for the customer. This may include contacting a third party directly (or providing the customer with a letter) to explain that failure to honour the payment was due to a banking (or third party) error and not the fault of the customer.

In the one or two cases that we have become aware of, we have worked with the old and new banks involved in the switch to obtain a result for the customer.

In direct answer to your question, banks and building societies that participate in CASS are unable to ‘force’ third parties, with whom they have no contractual agreement, to update their records, but will always strive to ensure that switching customers are not adversely impacted.

Kind regards,

CASS"

grumbler

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Amazing, the debates we can sometimes have one here about basically nothing. Step back for a minute and ask

1. how many CASS DD transfers have gone wrong because the switch process failed somewhere?

grumbler wrote: »

1. (1 DD) x (2 switches) = 1 went wrong = 50% for me. Aqua&Coop

4 switches now and yet another DD failed - that maintains my 50% figure.
Luckily, it was just a minor 18185 DD this time.
I wasn't informed by Clydesdale about the exact date of the switch. The DD failed on the 16th; the balance shows as transferred on the 17th.

Hazzanet

Often times, the problem is not necessarily with CASS but with the Direct Debit Originators' systems which aren't quick enough to make the change in time.

Some systems have a 10 or so working day 'moratorium' on payments after receiving the ADDACS report while the new 'setup instruction' is sent to the new bank which can mean a payment is skipped deliberately by the system.

Also some of the largest companies fail to follow the BACS rules properly on CASS; some even engaging in activities that are specifically shown in the "Prohibited practices" section of the manual.

18185 aren't the brightest bulbs in the box so it wouldn't surprise me if it were their system as opposed to CASS itself.