Santander - New UI for paying existing payee

EssexExile

Daliah said:

I can't think of any really compelling reason why anyone would want to change the payee name once you have set it up, so I don't understand where the requirement to change the payee name [on existing payee records]  would come from.

If you have made an error, just delete the payee and set it up again with correct details. Problem solved.

My Virgin credit card became an MBNA credit card. I just wanted to change the name but couldn't. In all my years of banking I think that's the only time it would've been useful!

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

• If the CoP facility confirms the payee name matches the sort-code and account number, then (rather than clicking on 'Continue'), reverse out by clicking on the 'Back' button which will take you back to the initial payee set-up form.
• On the payee set-up form, leave the sort-code and account number unchanged, but type in the payee name that you require and re-run the 'Check payee details'.
• This time the CoP facility will display the warning that there's no match found

There is something significant that you have conveniently ignored here. By pressing "Back" then changing the payee name to a non CoP match and pressing "Continue" you are putting on record for Santander that your payment information does not match CoP. You have agreed to take the associated risk.

So let's say that in future you make a payment of say £1000 to that payee and some technical problem occurs (this forum is crammed full with reports of Santander mishaps) which causes the £1000 to go astray, what do you do? If you go to Santander to complain, they will no doubt first look at their records and note that your payee name was not matched by CoP. So they may well say "tough luck the CoP system was live at the time you created your payment with an unmatched payeee name and you confirmed you were happy for it not to match the CoP warning."

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of CoP, which is purely to validate that a sort code and account number are correct, so choosing to change a payee name post-validation doesn't invalidate that initial check (provided of course the sort code and account number weren't altered too when editing), i.e. the payee name is a means to an end, not the end in itself.

If some sort of unspecified technical problem resulted in payments being made to a different account from the specified one (based on sort code and account number), then they'd have no valid grounds on which to try to make the claim you suggest in your contrived theoretical case - in other words, if you wanted to make a payment to account 123456/12345678 but Santander sent the money to 654321/87654321 instead, the name associated within the entry in your payee list is irrelevant, but for anyone paranoid enough to genuinely consider that risk material, screenshots would offer plenty of proof.

RG2015

Deleted_User said:

RG2015 said:

pafpcg said:

Deleted_User said:

RG2015 said:

Deleted_User said:

RG2015 said:

Frogletina said:

I have not tried this myself, but I'm sure I read that someone on MSE uses the CoP to identify that they have the correct account and once confirmed they amend the payee to the name that they want to use.

I cannot comment on Santander but NatWest allow this. In fact, once an account name has been verified, you are asked what name you would like to give the account.

Just to clarify the details. Clearly, when setting up a new payee, to use CoP you have to enter the correct name on the receiving account. Having done that, are you saying that Natwest then says words to the effect: "What do you actually want to call this payee?" and you can respond with any characters that you like? For example could you put "My account with Coventry BS"? And from then on when you view your list of payees this one be shown as "My account with Coventry BS"" rather than the CoP verified name?

Further, is there a dialogue that you can subsequently use to change that payee name to something else? If so, that's extremely useful and sounds like a good implementation of the "nickname" facility I want to use.

1) Yes, you can call it what you like, although this is limited to 18 characters.
2) You can only edit the payee reference, not the payee name (given name).

...........
...........
The bottom line is that with Santander payments I cannot use CoP. Instead I revert to the pre CoP "£1initial payment pantomime" which I have been using for years and it totally bypasses CoP because I refuse to have most of my Payee Names shown only as "My Name" .

I'm not going to argue with you about how you want to operate your own account with Santander, but for the benefit of anyone else who reads this thread and draws the wrong conclusion from your claim "with Santander payments I cannot use CoP": 

No, when setting-up a new payee on a Santander bank account, it's perfectly possible to use the CoP facility and then change the payee name to whatever you want.

• Open the form for setting-up a new payee and enter the expected name on the payee's account together with the sort-code and account number.
• Check the payee's details using the CoP facility.
• If the CoP facility confirms the payee name matches the sort-code and account number, then (rather than clicking on 'Continue'), reverse out by clicking on the 'Back' button which will take you back to the initial payee set-up form.
• On the payee set-up form, leave the sort-code and account number unchanged, but type in the payee name that you require and re-run the 'Check payee details'.
• This time the CoP facility will display the warning that there's no match found.
• You know that the sort-code and account number are correct from the previous CoP check, so click on the 'Continue' button and proceed through set-up.

I understand this, however it falls short of the NatWest facility. NatWest registers that the payee name is confirmed and it shows this on the payee list irrespective of what the payee name field shows on the list. 

Thank you.That's a significant improvement on Santander. Just to clarify, when you subsequently receive your formal NatWest statement, what payee information does it display for the payment?

The statement shows the payee name that I gave it, for example RG2015 RBS no 1 a/c

If I had chosen to, it would not have shown the actual payee name at all.

RG2015

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

• If the CoP facility confirms the payee name matches the sort-code and account number, then (rather than clicking on 'Continue'), reverse out by clicking on the 'Back' button which will take you back to the initial payee set-up form.
• On the payee set-up form, leave the sort-code and account number unchanged, but type in the payee name that you require and re-run the 'Check payee details'.
• This time the CoP facility will display the warning that there's no match found

Note what RG2015 says about NatWest Bank's way of setting up payees. Unlike Santander, NatWest allows you the option to give your payee a separate "nickname" and your record will show clearly both the nickname as well as the CoP checked payee name. Many other banks provide similar "nickname" features. Why can't Santander do the same?

Just to clarify, the Cop checked name does not appear anywhere after it has been changed. All that shows in the NatWest payee list is that the payee name has been confirmed during the set up process.

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to when you first created the payee details (ie at validation time). If at validation time you give sort code, account number and payee name and Santander responds by telling you that CoP cannot validate it invites to to change the details, If you decide not to amend them, it then asks you to confirm you wish override the "not validated" warning. That failure to validate will then be noted as part of Santander's record of the payee set up.

The scenario under discussion is a successful CoP validation, followed by immediately amending the payee name, which will then of course fail the second CoP check, but that doesn't matter because by that stage you know the account is the one you intend to pay.  The failure of the second CoP check doesn't give Santander the right to abdicate responsibility for any subsequent errors they make.

Deleted_User said:

Your statement "choosing to change a payee name post-validation doesn't invalidate that initial check" is incorrect as Santander will not allow you to change payee name post-validation. If you wish to change the payee name post-validation you will have to completely delete the payee and set it up again from scratch.

I haven't retested this recently but believe that Santander does allow payee name changes in the way @pafpcg suggested, i.e. immediately after CoP validation but before going any further - it certainly worked like that last time we were discussing this.

soulsaver

eskbanker said:

I haven't retested this recently but believe that Santander does allow payee name changes in the way @pafpcg suggested, i.e. immediately after CoP validation but before going any further - it certainly worked like that last time we were discussing this.

I did it today, it worked for me.

pafpcg

Deleted_User said:

eskbanker said:

p

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of CoP, which is purely to validate that a sort code and account number are correct, so choosing to change a payee name post-validation doesn't invalidate that initial check

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to when you first created the payee details (ie at validation time). If at validation time you give sort code, account number and payee name and Santander responds by telling you that CoP cannot validate it invites to to change the details, If you decide not to amend them, it then asks you to confirm you wish override the "not validated" warning. That failure to validate will then be noted as part of Santander's record of the payee set up.

Your statement "choosing to change a payee name post-validation doesn't invalidate that initial check" is incorrect as Santander will not allow you to change payee name post-validation. If you wish to change the payee name post-validation you will have to completely delete the payee and set it up again from scratch.

Picks, I invite you to re-read what you've written. 

Have you realised that your claim in your second paragraph that a payee name cannot be changed 'post-validation' is contradicted in your first paragraph: "... Santander responds by telling you that CoP cannot validate it invites to to change the details".  What's that if it isn't 'post-validation'?

In any case, as Soulsaver has reported above (and I did such a payee-name change myself last week), it is possible!

RG2015

“That is because you haven't yet completed setting up (aka validating) the payee.”

Validation is not the same as setting up. Validation is part of the set up process.

RG2015

Deleted_User said:

It was said:

Validation is not the same as setting up. Validation is part of the set up process.

The only time you can do a CoP validation is when you set up the payee. The payee setup process and CoP validation are integrated and always done together. Having completed that, Santander will not allow a change of  payee name. So I say:

- Once Santander's payee setup/validation is done you cannot change the payee name

- Other banks (eg NatWest) implement CoP in a user friendly way with an optional nickname field (which acts as a customer chosen payee description) but is not CoP validated. If entered, nickname can be changed at any time and this will be displayed on formal statements. In my case this means, unlike Santander, my statement will be meaningful showing the payee as I have chosen.

 

In NatWest, the payee reference can be changed at any time. 

The payee name, even if it has been changed from the verified name, can not subsequently be changed.

The status of the payee, even if the name is changed, is shown as verified on the payee list.

RG2015

Upon reflection, I see that I have used the terms validation and verification synonymously.

My mistake.

This will alter the validity of my statement that validation was not the same as setting up.

I had meant to say verification was not the same as setting up. Hence in this context, @Picks , saying that validation is also known as set up is not unreasonable.