Scammed....

barnstar2077

Personally I would rather the banks were overly zealous at applying the brakes.  To me it is worth the inconvenience if it makes life harder for scammers. 

masonic

barnstar2077 said:

Personally I would rather the banks were overly zealous at applying the brakes.  To me it is worth the inconvenience if it makes life harder for scammers. 

Banks could launch an 'enhanced security' account - restricted online banking, the need to use telephone banking for higher risk activities like setting up new payees, and the need to discuss the reason behind any such activity with the customer service agent performing the request for you. Could be a good selling point. Perhaps even introduce a 3 working day clearing service for payments so they can easily be recalled, a bit like the old BACS clearing cycle.

barnstar2077

masonic said:

barnstar2077 said:

Personally I would rather the banks were overly zealous at applying the brakes.  To me it is worth the inconvenience if it makes life harder for scammers. 

Banks could launch an 'enhanced security' account - restricted online banking, the need to use telephone banking for higher risk activities like setting up new payees, and the need to discuss the reason behind any such activity with the customer service agent performing the request for you. Could be a good selling point. Perhaps even introduce a 3 working day clearing service for payments so they can easily be recalled, a bit like the old BACS clearing cycle.

A great solution that should please most people would be to have a two tier system.  One as it is now for the majority of customers, and then a ultra secure level that people could opt in for.  I am only 43 but I would happily opt in today.  Even better if you could nominate a family member that the bank has to inform before transactions go through (for people who are especially vulnerable.) 

naedanger

masonic said:

naedanger said:

While I generally agree with what you say, I suspect the bank would not be liable even if the payment was genuine if they had reasonable grounds to be concerned e.g. if they were unable to contact the person (in the case of online payments), or the police advised them not to pay (in the case of branch transactions). 

This is the problem, and why banks should never be given the power to dictate what a customer may or may not lawfully do with their money. I have no problem with suspicious payments being held until the customer can be contacted and warned, or if the police or another authority instructs them to freeze the account or payments. That is what happens currently. My issue is with the notion that a bank could overrule the customer after speaking with them to avoid the liability associated with a fraud.

I have no faith in bank employees to know what is a genuine payment and what is not - based on my own experience of perfectly legitimate payments being stopped. Fortunately I had the right to insist they let those payments through at my own risk.

If there really is a market for bank accounts where the bank has the final say on what its customers do with their money, then that should be offered as a separate product, not imposed on everyone.

I am not advocating more stringent standards than we have today. The reason First Direct would have paid out is they realised they didn't do enough as judged by the standards required today.

And I agree that if a bank were to hold on to money without good reason then they should be held liable for that too.

Furthermore the banks have a far more significant say on what you can do with your money under the anti-money laundering regulations than under any standards required to help protect customers from financial harm as a result of fraud or financial abuse.