Scammed....

barnstar2077

Barclays give me a warning whenever I set up a new transfer.  Which is a good idea in my opinion.

SallySunshine

Santander are good as well for security, in the end I start to doubt myself it I want to do the transfer! I agree with Nationwide’s slightly OTT latest approach.

John_

tacpot12 said:

naedanger said:

I have certainly faced a lot of questions (clearly designed to catch different types of scam) over recent bank transfers and even had to watch a long video. And while the amounts were larger than a few thousand, I would not have raised any flags as being either vulnerable or suspicious. I am almost surprised an elderly person is able to move a large part of their money even for a genuine reason.

I tend to agree - even if the customer says the reason is genuine, the banks should be refusing to do accept the instruction when they think payment is suspicious. The banks should be warning customers that insist on paying scammers that they will be reported to the police for funding organised crime. This gentleman does require someone to take control of his money before he loses it all. 

So my bank should stop me making transactions that they are unsure of, even if I explain that I’m comfortable with it and need it to go through?

That’s an awful idea.

masonic

tacpot12 said:

naedanger said:

I have certainly faced a lot of questions (clearly designed to catch different types of scam) over recent bank transfers and even had to watch a long video. And while the amounts were larger than a few thousand, I would not have raised any flags as being either vulnerable or suspicious. I am almost surprised an elderly person is able to move a large part of their money even for a genuine reason.

I tend to agree - even if the customer says the reason is genuine, the banks should be refusing to do accept the instruction when they think payment is suspicious. The banks should be warning customers that insist on paying scammers that they will be reported to the police for funding organised crime. This gentleman does require someone to take control of his money before he loses it all. 

Might annoy a few people whose house purchase falls through because they couldn't transfer their deposit to their solicitor, etc etc.

I've had several payments treated as suspicious by the bank even though they were fairly modest transfers to another UK account opened in my name - and had to phone them to get the payment released. Fortunately, I had the right to insist they made the transfer as instructed. I wouldn't want to lose that right, and the ability to move my savings between my accounts as needed, and spend them (legally) as I see fit.

At the end of the day, all anyone can do is try to educate people. If people are mentally competent, they should not lose the right to make their own financial decisions. Especially if that control is ceded to their bank!

msallen

tacpot12 said:

naedanger said:

I have certainly faced a lot of questions (clearly designed to catch different types of scam) over recent bank transfers and even had to watch a long video. And while the amounts were larger than a few thousand, I would not have raised any flags as being either vulnerable or suspicious. I am almost surprised an elderly person is able to move a large part of their money even for a genuine reason.

I tend to agree - even if the customer says the reason is genuine, the banks should be refusing to do accept the instruction when they think payment is suspicious. The banks should be warning customers that insist on paying scammers that they will be reported to the police for funding organised crime. This gentleman does require someone to take control of his money before he loses it all. 

This has to be a f***in' joke surely?

AnotherJoe

tacpot12 said:

naedanger said:

I have certainly faced a lot of questions (clearly designed to catch different types of scam) over recent bank transfers and even had to watch a long video. And while the amounts were larger than a few thousand, I would not have raised any flags as being either vulnerable or suspicious. I am almost surprised an elderly person is able to move a large part of their money even for a genuine reason.

I tend to agree - even if the customer says the reason is genuine, the banks should be refusing to do accept the instruction when they think payment is suspicious. The banks should be warning customers that insist on paying scammers that they will be reported to the police for funding organised crime. This gentleman does require someone to take control of his money before he loses it all. 

So instead of someone with dementia being treated appropriately, say with POA, bank card removed, whatever, everyone else should have arbitrary restrictions imposed according to whatever bank they use?

maisie_cat

FD have robust systems. When I tried to transfer £10k to a new savings account it was bounced because they couldn't get through to me on the phone. I was actually impressed with their response.

Aceace

I don't mind being texted, or phoned, or having an app alert to verify that a transaction is genuine. What really enrages me is when a transaction appears to go through but its actually blocked for being "unusual" but absolutely no notification is given. So, you only get to find out when you check or the recipient complains that they haven't received the funds. I've had this situation 3 times with Santander. 

naedanger

msallen said:

tacpot12 said:

naedanger said:

I have certainly faced a lot of questions (clearly designed to catch different types of scam) over recent bank transfers and even had to watch a long video. And while the amounts were larger than a few thousand, I would not have raised any flags as being either vulnerable or suspicious. I am almost surprised an elderly person is able to move a large part of their money even for a genuine reason.

I tend to agree - even if the customer says the reason is genuine, the banks should be refusing to do accept the instruction when they think payment is suspicious. The banks should be warning customers that insist on paying scammers that they will be reported to the police for funding organised crime. This gentleman does require someone to take control of his money before he loses it all. 

This has to be a f***in' joke surely?

I am not sure if it a joke or not.

But it is not that far from what is currently required. The bit about reporting the victim for funding organised crime isn't correct but the police should be called if the bank believes (after following certain protocols) that the customer is a victim of fraud. The police should then attend and speak to the customer.

The following adjudication gives more information of what protocols the Financial Ombudsman Service will expect banks to have followed when considering whether the bank should be required to compensate the scam victim.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/261989/DRN5883001.pdf In this particular case the bank were required to compensate the victim even although the victim gave at least one false answer in response to one of the bank's questions.

More on the financial ombudsman's decision making process on when to decide whether to hold banks liable for not doing enough to prevent fraud:
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/fraud-scams

As said by others, a consequence, is that all customers can expected detailed and prolonged questioning of any out of character transactions. (I have been doing quite a few unusually large transactions recently and have been questioned at length in the branch even although the bank knew the background.)

General_Grant

DireEmblem said:

I'm sorry, but maybe there needs to be a compus mentas test for people of a certain age, or if you havent setup or initiated a new transfer in a while, a text back asking if you are aware what it is for and is it valid?

What "certain age" would you suggest?
How does that relate to your present age - younger, older, the same?

Should they also be tested on spelling of Latin phrases?