Nat West

missile

RG2015 said:

I understand that marketplace is a platform facilitated by Facebook/Meta and presumably their Ts&Cs indemnify them against any financial claims. (ie they accept no responsibility for any disputes)

Therefore this scenario has nothing to do with Meta and could have happened with any financial transaction dispute.

Surely NatWest must have substantially more evidence than one party's word that any wrongdoing has occurred. Otherwise this action by NatWest could happen to anyone without any cause. Or alternatively, NatWest have grossly overreacted and could be liable for a substantial compensation claim.

I am not doubting the original post in any way but it does appear as though I am missing something.

I thought my bank would defend MY interests, not freeze several thousand pounds of my money to cover a trifling sum of £8. 

I know nothing more than I have posted here. When I phoned NW, they refused to discuss.
This is the relevant passage from message I received:

"Dear Mr XXX,
You may already have received a text message from us, advising that we have placed a temporary restriction on your accounts. This is because we have received a report in relation to payment(s) into your account.
The payment(s) in question are outlined below and may have been partially / fully withdrawn from your account, pending further information:

BAC     (Removed by Forum Team)                              8.00   8FEB  

To enable us to resolve this, please respond to the following questions within 3 working days from the date of this email. Please note that, in the absence of a full response within that timeframe (including copies of relevant documents you may have in your possession), a decision will be made about the payments without information provided by you.  Please also provide any other information you believe to be relevant to the payment.  Any information provided will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which is available on our website." 

Giving me only 3 days to gather evidence and respond seems overly dictatorial, harsh and authoritarian.

WillPS

Don't accept payment for goods or services from anyone other than trusted friends and family directly in to your main bank account (or ideally any proper bank account), is the moral of the story.

There are other potential issues you risk facing:

• being deemed by your bank to be using your personal account for business purposes
• being deemed to have a financial connection with somebody who is later found to be using their account for illicit purposes

Both are known to lead to account closure.

RG2015

Some of the posts on the attached thread may be useful.

@missile,  I hope you have a quick and satisfactory outcome to your issues with the bank.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6421482/banks-closing-accounts/p1

Band7

@missile, have you considered to ask your MP to help you with this? An MP should assist you in the resolution of this issue in any case, but specifically with a company that is still owned by over 48% by the taxpayer (i.e. including yourself)

missile

Now, this buyer giving abuse to Marketplace admin. They told me, he is reporting them to the Police  

missile

In any dispute, I have found eBay nearly always sides with the buyer. Paypal account gets frozen and after "review" the buyer gets automatic refund from your funds.

I thought Bank transfer was buyer beware and no refunds. Seems I was wrong :-(

eskbanker

missile said:

In any dispute, I have found eBay nearly always sides with the buyer. Paypal account gets frozen and after "review" the buyer gets automatic refund from your funds.

I thought BACS was buyer beware and no refunds. Seems I was wrong :-(

But bank transfers aren't equivalent to an online marketplace that can set its own rules about how it defines 'buyer' and 'seller' roles and sets up policies accordingly.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/news/185948/new-proposals-to-reimburse-victims-of-fraud-are-fundamentally-flawed-say-mps/ is a topical reference to the fact that there is generally a strong desire for tighter controls that are guaranteed to promptly reimburse those who've sent money to fraudsters.

Unfair as it may seem, in terms of the scenario that you've found yourself embroiled in, you're effectively initially seen as the fraudster (even though I'm sure that nobody on here doubts your side of the story), and your bank's desire to get answers quickly (which should obviously clear your name and reinstate access to your funds) is consistent with that push to bring such matters to a swift conclusion.

p00hsticks

missile said:

RG2015 said:

I understand that marketplace is a platform facilitated by Facebook/Meta and presumably their Ts&Cs indemnify them against any financial claims. (ie they accept no responsibility for any disputes)

Therefore this scenario has nothing to do with Meta and could have happened with any financial transaction dispute.

Surely NatWest must have substantially more evidence than one party's word that any wrongdoing has occurred. Otherwise this action by NatWest could happen to anyone without any cause. Or alternatively, NatWest have grossly overreacted and could be liable for a substantial compensation claim.

I am not doubting the original post in any way but it does appear as though I am missing something.

I thought my bank would defend MY interests,

Any banks main priority is going to be to defend its OWN interests, which in cases of alleged fraud are not necessarily the same as those of its customer....

missile

"But bank transfers aren't equivalent to an online marketplace that can set its own rules about how it defines 'buyer' and 'seller' roles and sets up policies accordingly."

It was a Bank Transfer by BACS. Buyer and seller is not the correct terminology. It is Payee and Recipient. Banks make their own policies, but they do not set the rules. It will be interesting to see whether the ombudsman agrees with you that NW have acted responsibly. 

3 days is a ridiculously short time frame for them to demand a response, especially when they allow themselves 5 days for their own investigation.

I thought BACS was the safest way to accept payment. Seems anyone could claim money back by saying it was fraud.

RG2015

I still find NatWest’s response to the complaint quite bizarre. Three days is an incredibly short space of time for them to have investigated the claim and suspended the account.

Does this mean that I could complain about anyone that I paid and get their account suspended in 3 days based on a pack of lies?