Nat West

RG2015

p00hsticks said:

RG2015 said:

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.

But in cases of alleged fraud, my understanding from reading these boards is that it doesn't happen that way round. The account is suspended first and only then does the claim get investigated.

But NatWest must have made some sort of preliminary investigation before suspending the OP's accounts.

Otherwise anyone could cause banking chaos by fraud claims against multiple users. 

eskbanker

RG2015 said:

p00hsticks said:

RG2015 said:

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.

But in cases of alleged fraud, my understanding from reading these boards is that it doesn't happen that way round. The account is suspended first and only then does the claim get investigated.

But NatWest must have made some sort of preliminary investigation before suspending the OP's accounts.

Otherwise anyone could cause banking chaos by fraud claims against multiple users. 

As I understand it, any preliminary investigation is only carried out by the sender's bank, i.e. the sender has to convince their bank that they're being scammed, and once that's happened, the recipient's bank is effectively working on the assumption that the sender's bank is acting in good faith.  Any investigation that the recipient's bank conducts does clearly need input from the recipient, and while waiting for that, some sort of action needs to be taken to prevent the money being withdrawn, otherwise it could be too late - obviously if a (real) fraudster is told that their account will be frozen after some investigating, it's not hard to envisage what would happen!

But yes, as above, this is open to abuse....

RG2015

missile said:

In your world,
Banks can make their own "rules"
It is fair to assume guilt until client proves innocence
CEOs are entitled to obscene bonuses and get knighthoods

In my world,
It will be interesting to see whether the Ombudsman agrees with you.

It is a matter of opinion whether NatWest have acted proportionately. I understand that you are feeling aggrieved. In my opinion rightly so. However annoying it is though, the only course is to wait for NatWest to complete their investigation. I do not believe that even the Ombudsman can speed this up.

On your point above, I know it is speculation, but if the Ombudsman were to find in favour of NatWest would you claim that he was biased in favour of the banks or would you accept his findings?

On a more general note, I am very concerned that this type of cavalier attitude by the banks appears to be getting worse. Selfishly, I want to ensure that I don't fall foul of a situation like yours. The best I can do is learn as much as I can from incidents like this. To that end, I am grateful to you for sharing this with us.

Descrabled

What would happen if you paid £8 to some deserving organisation like British Gas or Thames Water and then called it a push svam. Not suggesting this but, in the current climate, just wondering.

RG2015

eskbanker said:

RG2015 said:

p00hsticks said:

RG2015 said:

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.

But in cases of alleged fraud, my understanding from reading these boards is that it doesn't happen that way round. The account is suspended first and only then does the claim get investigated.

But NatWest must have made some sort of preliminary investigation before suspending the OP's accounts.

Otherwise anyone could cause banking chaos by fraud claims against multiple users. 

As I understand it, any preliminary investigation is only carried out by the sender's bank, i.e. the sender has to convince their bank that they're being scammed, and once that's happened, the recipient's bank is effectively working on the assumption that the sender's bank is acting in good faith.  Any investigation that the recipient's bank conducts does clearly need input from the recipient, and while waiting for that, some sort of action needs to be taken to prevent the money being withdrawn, otherwise it could be too late - obviously if a (real) fraudster is told that their account will be frozen after some investigating, it's not hard to envisage what would happen!

But yes, as above, this is open to abuse....

I am sorry, but the OP received £8 and returned £8 to the sender's bank.

The sender's bank can see all of this.

How on earth could they convince the OP's bank of a case of any wrongdoing?

 

eskbanker

Descrabled said:

What would happen if you paid £8 to some deserving organisation like British Gas or Thames Water and then called it a push svam. Not suggesting this but, in the current climate, just wondering.

Only one way to find out

I presume that it would be difficult for the sender to persuade their bank that a payment to such organisations would fulfil the requirements of an authorised push payment scam claim....

Edit: in particular the APP scam code applies specifically to faster payments, not debit card payments or direct debits, which are obviously the supported payment methods for most such organisations.

eskbanker

RG2015 said:

eskbanker said:

RG2015 said:

p00hsticks said:

RG2015 said:

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.

But in cases of alleged fraud, my understanding from reading these boards is that it doesn't happen that way round. The account is suspended first and only then does the claim get investigated.

But NatWest must have made some sort of preliminary investigation before suspending the OP's accounts.

Otherwise anyone could cause banking chaos by fraud claims against multiple users. 

As I understand it, any preliminary investigation is only carried out by the sender's bank, i.e. the sender has to convince their bank that they're being scammed, and once that's happened, the recipient's bank is effectively working on the assumption that the sender's bank is acting in good faith.  Any investigation that the recipient's bank conducts does clearly need input from the recipient, and while waiting for that, some sort of action needs to be taken to prevent the money being withdrawn, otherwise it could be too late - obviously if a (real) fraudster is told that their account will be frozen after some investigating, it's not hard to envisage what would happen!

But yes, as above, this is open to abuse....

I am sorry, but the OP received £8 and returned £8 to the sender's bank.

The sender's bank can see all of this.

How on earth could they convince the OP's bank of a case of any wrongdoing?

Yes, if the sender's bank could see the refunded money at the time their customer made the claim then yes, it's hard to understand why they'd have proceeded to notify OP's bank.

I assume it's a timing issue - this all started from an initial payment on Wednesday and OP's account was frozen on Friday, so if the other bank perhaps isn't a direct participant in the faster payments scheme there could maybe have been a delay in the funds being applied to the (original) sender's account?  It does seem unreasonable for the sender's bank to be acting so hastily though, if that was what happened....

grumbler

RG2015 said:

missile said:

In your world,
Banks can make their own "rules"
It is fair to assume guilt until client proves innocence
CEOs are entitled to obscene bonuses and get knighthoods

In my world,
It will be interesting to see whether the Ombudsman agrees with you.

It is a matter of opinion whether NatWest have acted proportionately.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I can't imagine a second opinion on freezing an account with several thousand balance for the sake of some alleged £8 scam. Personally, I blame idiots - you can find few everywhere - in banks, in authorities giving too much powers to idiots in banks - pretty much everywhere, up to the very top.

eskbanker

grumbler said:

RG2015 said:

missile said:

In your world,
Banks can make their own "rules"
It is fair to assume guilt until client proves innocence
CEOs are entitled to obscene bonuses and get knighthoods

In my world,
It will be interesting to see whether the Ombudsman agrees with you.

It is a matter of opinion whether NatWest have acted proportionately.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I can't imagine a second opinion on freezing an account with several thousand balance for the sake of some alleged £8 scam. Personally, I blame idiots - you can find few everywhere - in banks, in authorities giving too much powers to idiots in banks - pretty much everywhere, up to the very top.

Superficially it's clearly disproportionate to freeze thousands in order to ensure access to £8, but, in the context of being compelled to take action prior to investigating, what existing mechanisms are you aware of that allow a specific amount to be frozen, rather than freezing access to the entire account?

It seems clear to me that ideally they should only freeze the small amount but it's not obvious exactly how that could be achieved, within the confines of how accounts can actually be operated, so I can see why the blunt instrument approach is adopted, as envisaged in the Ts & Cs, even though it's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut:

We may suspend or restrict the use of your accounts, or certain services (such as your debit card or online banking) if:

[...]

• we reasonably suspect you're involved in fraud or other serious criminal activity; [...]

RG2015

grumbler said:

RG2015 said:

missile said:

In your world,
Banks can make their own "rules"
It is fair to assume guilt until client proves innocence
CEOs are entitled to obscene bonuses and get knighthoods

In my world,
It will be interesting to see whether the Ombudsman agrees with you.

It is a matter of opinion whether NatWest have acted proportionately.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I can't imagine a second opinion on freezing an account with several thousand balance for the sake of some alleged £8 scam. Personally, I blame idiots - you can find few everywhere - in banks, in authorities giving too much powers to idiots in banks - pretty much everywhere, up to the very top.

Didn't say it was my opinion grumbler.

It is though my opinion that proportionality is a matter of opinion.