Bank Fraud Check and privacy

born_again

Wonder if all the people complaining about one extra click to say what the payment is for or it’s council tax or to a well known retailer or some other easily recognisable institution.
Will be please to know some has got their back if it goes pear shaped.

One of the most common scams is a email from someone you know you have to pay and a change of bank details.... Like buying a house and having to pay a solicitor. Even known it for council tax, etc (all well known payee's)
So having these checks can save you a lot of stress if scammed, by stopping it in the 1st place.

I'm sure the "Your money" would soon be up in arms if the bank did not get the money back if they made a mistake or were scammed....

michaels

born_again wrote: »

Wonder if all the people complaining about one extra click to say what the payment is for or it’s council tax or to a well known retailer or some other easily recognisable institution.
Will be please to know some has got their back if it goes pear shaped.

One of the most common scams is a email from someone you know you have to pay and a change of bank details.... Like buying a house and having to pay a solicitor. Even known it for council tax, etc (all well known payee's)
So having these checks can save you a lot of stress if scammed, by stopping it in the 1st place.

I'm sure the "Your money" would soon be up in arms if the bank did not get the money back if they made a mistake or were scammed....

No. I would be willing to accept the risk. I am an adult, if I give my money to the wrong person it is my fault not someone else's including the bank for failing to stop me being stupid. If the bank says you can be protected but only if you are willing to share info with us on the payment that would be reasonable but the govt insist that people must be protected from themselves hence 'nanny state'.

Socajam

michaels wrote: »

I can see it is a tricky question, especially now the banks are more and more being made liable for people who don't bother to do their own due diligence before sending money to random recipients.

However it doesn't half feel like an invasion of privacy. I had a couple of £50 transactions, nothing secret I just don't like having to tell a stranger what I spend my money on and I wouldn't dare lying as no doubt their voice stress detection software would pick that up in an instant.

Too much nanny state in this country imho but I know that is an old fashioned opinion.

I am sorry to say that your argument is making you sound very ignorant about the banking situation that is now taking place worldwide.
My suggestion would be to take all of your money out of the banks and keep it under your mattress.
Let those of us with sense continue banking and having faith in the financial institution that our hard earned money is relatively safe.

This should help you understand that once you deposit your money in the bank, you know longer owns it:

Who owns the money in your bank account? - MoneySavingExpert.com ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com › showthread

Sep 24, 2010 - 6 posts
According to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs-but it is not. Money deposited in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than 200 years, legally the property of the bank, rather than the account holder.

Flobberchops

michaels wrote: »

No. I would be willing to accept the risk. I am an adult, if I give my money to the wrong person it is my fault not someone else's including the bank for failing to stop me being stupid. If the bank says you can be protected but only if you are willing to share info with us on the payment that would be reasonable but the govt insist that people must be protected from themselves hence 'nanny state'.

There are two schools of thought on this:



1) It's my money, I'm an adult, give me freedom to access and spend it as I see fit, I accept all associated risks.
2) The bank's job is to look after my money. If anything was to go wrong I would expect to be compensated in full.


For better or worse, the latter is the prevailing mindset among consumers and regulators - and as a result the banks have little choice but to comply by putting intrusive security features in place. It's like going through the scanners at an airport - nobody likes being frisked, but nobody likes their plane being hijacked either.


That being said, the person asking you what the money is for really doesn't care what you're spending your money on, they just want you to make the right noises so they can tick the box on their screen asking whether they have had the mandatory fraud and scam discussion. You can be as vague as you like, just so long as it doesn't come across as evasive or deceptive (a difficult sweet spot to hit, I'll grant you). Alternatively, if you want to be a bit mischievous, next time you're asked, just say it's lingerie. Go into salacious detail about the size, colour, and how it fits. Keep talking about it after they have stopped asking. Make it your mission to be known as "the stockings and suspenders guy" among your bank's telephone team!

Ergates

Flobberchops wrote: »

1) It's my money, I'm an adult, give me freedom to access and spend it as I see fit, I accept all associated risks.
2) The bank's job is to look after my money. If anything was to go wrong I would expect to be compensated in full.


For better or worse, the latter is the prevailing mindset among consumers and regulators - and as a result the banks have little choice but to comply by putting intrusive security features in place. It's like going through the scanners at an airport - nobody likes being frisked, but nobody likes their plane being hijacked either.

The problem with 1) is that whist *most* people *most of the time* are capable of looking after their financial affairs and assessing risk without the bank's assistance, that isn't true for everyone all of the time.
Some people, either permanently or temporarily, become vulnerable, and banks have a legal and ethical duty to protect these people.
It's not always immediately obvious if someone might be in a vulnerable situation, so banks can't just assume everyone is fine unless told otherwise - if they did so they would fail in their duty.

System

It's unlikely to do with money laundering or even fraud.

It's to do with all these people that get scammed and then blame the bank for not protecting them their own actions then demand to be refunded by the bank.

tempus_fugit

michaels wrote: »

I can see it is a tricky question, especially now the banks are more and more being made liable for people who don't bother to do their own due diligence before sending money to random recipients.

However it doesn't half feel like an invasion of privacy. I had a couple of £50 transactions, nothing secret I just don't like having to tell a stranger what I spend my money on and I wouldn't dare lying as no doubt their voice stress detection software would pick that up in an instant.

Too much nanny state in this country imho but I know that is an old fashioned opinion.

The problem is, as you rightly said, is the number of people STILL being scammed out of their money and being persuaded to move it to a bogus account, so they are trying to stop these things at an earlier stage. I can understand the feeling of invasion of privacy but all I would have said is that they are legitimate payments, initiated by me and that I have not been contacted by anyone out of the blue or purporting to be from the bank, without giving away any specific details of the payments. That should suffice for their purposes and allow the payments to go through.

We’re have to accept the times we are in and that the ease with which we can now move our money around comes with some caveats and sometimes some hoops to go through. I’d prefer this to the usual cry from those that have been scammed that they “expected their bank to do more to protect their money”.