Rules to protect customes from bank scams.

Graywisdom

My bank has just sent me details of changes which will be effective in October to seemingly protect customers from scams.
So one of the new terms states.... 'currently we only check that the account number and sort code you provide matches the account you're paying.(?). In future, we may also ask you for the name of the account holder so it can be confirmed.
"WE MAY ..... ASK FOR THE NAME OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER".!!
"MAY"???. It should be part of the basic transfer of monies.
So if they dont ask then surely the banks will have to be entirely responsible for any scam!

eskbanker

Graywisdom wrote: »

So one of the new terms states.... 'currently we only check that the account number and sort code you provide matches the account you're paying.(?). In future, we may also ask you for the name of the account holder so it can be confirmed.
"WE MAY ..... ASK FOR THE NAME OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER".!!
"MAY"???. It should be part of the basic transfer of monies.

That's the point though - it hasn't been up to now but they're letting you know that this change is being introduced.

Graywisdom wrote: »

So if they dont ask then surely the banks will have to be entirely responsible for any scam!

The word 'scam' gets bandied around ridiculously often on here, but in this case my understanding is that the change relates to additional validation of the recipient's details entered by customers when making bank transfers - under what circumstances do you believe that miskeying such details would qualify as a 'scam'?

JuicyJesus

Graywisdom wrote: »

My bank has just sent me details of changes which will be effective in October to seemingly protect customers from scams.
So one of the new terms states.... 'currently we only check that the account number and sort code you provide matches the account you're paying.(?). In future, we may also ask you for the name of the account holder so it can be confirmed.
"WE MAY ..... ASK FOR THE NAME OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER".!!
"MAY"???. It should be part of the basic transfer of monies.
So if they dont ask then surely the banks will have to be entirely responsible for any scam!

They already do ask. This provides the ability for them to check.

And no, this will not make the banks entirely responsible for any scam. It will simply make it so that scams adapt and change to meet the new rules; same as they always have. The responsibility lies with the scammer and, I'd argue, the person who receives a phone call asking them to transfer money somewhere and who then transfers it.

mije1983

eskbanker wrote: »

The word 'scam' gets bandied around ridiculously often on here

And I've yet to ever see a thread with 'scam' in the title, in any part of the forum, turning out to be an actual scam.


I live in hope.

Uxb

Well that is going to be fun if the account holder name is something like
"Prof AJ and Mrs P Jones Household Account"
I wonder what variations on that mouthful is going to be acceptable to the computer and what is not. and in essence this has always been the problem over account name checking - how far out in description the payee gives is acceptable. Is Prof and Mrs Jones in my example OK or not?

Its going to be fun to watch - from a distance.

Asghar

eskbanker wrote: »

The word 'scam' gets bandied around ridiculously often on here, but in this case my understanding is that the change relates to additional validation of the recipient's details entered by customers when making bank transfers - under what circumstances do you believe that miskeying such details would qualify as a 'scam'?

Totally agree, it seems more to do with when people make back transfers and enter the account number incorrectly and the money ends up in someone else's account. If a name is also required then it is a validation check.

mije1983

Uxb wrote: »

Well that is going to be fun if the account holder name is something like
"Prof AJ and Mrs P Jones Household Account"
I wonder what variations on that mouthful is going to be acceptable to the computer and what is not. and in essence this has always been the problem over account name checking - how far out in description the payee gives is acceptable. Is Prof and Mrs Jones in my example OK or not?

Its going to be fun to watch - from a distance.

And this could well be where it falls down and you get the 'computer says no' response which will frustrate more people than it helps!

In even simpler terms than your example you could have:

John Doe
J Doe
John Fred Doe
John F Doe
J F Doe

And then all the above with the relevant honorific in front.


Common sense would hopefully be used when it is done face to face with a bank worker, but online/phone banking could be the big issue if it's too strict. But then if it's too lax what's the point?

eskbanker

The (golf) European Tour must be a bunch of scammers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/45125735

Vortigern

Uxb wrote: »

Well that is going to be fun if the account holder name is something like
"Prof AJ and Mrs P Jones Household Account"

Another problem may arise for people who have multiple accounts and regularly move money around to satisfy the terms of the account

Where currently my payee names might be:

• Tesco1
• Tesco2
• TSB1
• TSB2
• Barclays etc.

Will they all need to be the same - Mr Firstname Lastname ?

Westie983

Vortigern wrote: »

Another problem may arise for people who have multiple accounts and regularly move money around to satisfy the terms of the account

Where currently my payee names might be:

• Tesco1
• Tesco2
• TSB1
• TSB2
• Barclays etc.

Will they all need to be the same - Mr Firstname Lastname ?

Payee will change to Mr/Mrs Firstname LastName with the bank name as a reference.

Westie983

tempus_fugit

A lot of these fields for the names are limited to 18 characters, which is not long enough to get my name into. I think there will be problems unless they update their systems.