Nat West

grumbler

eskbanker said:

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; [...]

Well, we all know some bank notorious for moving all money somewhere and putting an account in massive overdraft for the duration of investigation. I am not saying that it's the best way of doing this, just that it's doable.

If there is no mechanism - do something useful and create it. As simple as that.

missile

I feel aggrieved. I would gladly pay £8 to have my account unblocked, to save me the inconvenience. However NW refused to discuss the problems they are causing me,

They have refused to tell me why my account has been blocked. I can only surmise, I am guilty on the strength, of one person reporting me for fraud.

NW have access to my account and could easily verify one payment in and corresponding payment out on The 08yj February, However they have chosen to assume I am guilty and demanded I prove I am innocent before I can access several thousand pounds of MY money in MY account.

A sledge hammer to crack a walnut(?)

eskbanker

grumbler said:
Well, we all know some bank notorious for moving all money somewhere and putting an account in massive overdraft for the duration of investigation.

Do we?

grumbler said:
I am not saying that it's the best way of doing this, just that it's doable.

Putting an account into massive overdraft would surely have exactly the same effect as freezing it entirely?

grumbler said:
If there is no mechanism - do something useful an create it. As simple as that.

But that was my point, it's not as simple as that - it's one thing for armchair critics to roll out the 'how hard can it be?' routine, but if there isn't currently a workable mechanism to selectively apply a partial freeze, then it doesn't in any way mean that it's straightforward to introduce one....

missile

eskbanker said:

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; [...]

In your world; it may be it reasonable for NW to suspect fraud and block access to a client of 50 years on the strength of one unsupported allegation?

As an aside it would appear that Payers bank has not acted in accordance with their own procedures 

"You need to give the retailer a chance to put things right. We are unable to help unless you have tried this first. They’ll usually solve a dispute much quicker than we can - give them at least 14 days to resolve things for you."

eskbanker

missile said:
As an aside it would appear that Payers bank has not acted in accordance with their own procedures 

You need to give the retailer a chance to put things right

We are unable to help unless you have tried this first. They’ll usually solve a dispute much quicker than we can - give them at least 14 days to resolve things for you.

Out of curiosity, which bank is it, and where do retailers fit into this scenario?  That wording sounds more like chargeback processing (for debit card payments) rather than APP scam recovery (for faster payments)....

grumbler

eskbanker said:

grumbler said:
Well, we all know some bank notorious for moving all money somewhere and putting an account in massive overdraft for the duration of investigation.

Do we?

Barclays IIRC. The victim customer still can see/access the account but can't do anything.

Putting an account into massive overdraft would surely have exactly the same effect as freezing it entirely?

If they can take £1M from an account with £1K balance, then nothing stops them from taking the exact amount that they want to safeguard. Say, £10 in this case.

grumbler

missile said:

eskbanker said:

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; [...]

In your world; it may be it reasonable for NW to suspect fraud and block access to a client of 50 years on the strength of one unsupported allegation?

As an aside it would appear that Payers bank has not acted in accordance with their own procedures 

"You need to give the retailer a chance to put things right. We are unable to help unless you have tried this first. They’ll usually solve a dispute much quicker than we can - give them at least 14 days to resolve things for you."

This^ is not about alleged fraud.

eskbanker

grumbler said:

Putting an account into massive overdraft would surely have exactly the same effect as freezing it entirely?

If they can take £1M from an account with £1K balance, then nothing stops them from taking the exact amount that they want to safeguard. Say, £10 in this case.

I'm not familiar with whatever it is that Barclays apparently do but doubt that some sort of artificial accounting trick can realistically be extrapolated into a more granular partial freezing mechanism.  For the record, I do agree that having such a facility would definitely be useful in situations like this, but just don't believe it's currently available - maybe the current consultation process will result in its eventual development....

eskbanker

grumbler said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

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; [...]

In your world; it may be it reasonable for NW to suspect fraud and block access to a client of 50 years on the strength of one unsupported allegation?

As an aside it would appear that Payers bank has not acted in accordance with their own procedures 

"You need to give the retailer a chance to put things right. We are unable to help unless you have tried this first. They’ll usually solve a dispute much quicker than we can - give them at least 14 days to resolve things for you."

This is not about alleged fraud.

I believe it is as far as the two banks are concerned, and hence the freezing of OP's account.  What do you believe triggered that if not suspected fraud?

grumbler

eskbanker said:

grumbler said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

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; [...]

In your world; it may be it reasonable for NW to suspect fraud and block access to a client of 50 years on the strength of one unsupported allegation?

As an aside it would appear that Payers bank has not acted in accordance with their own procedures 

"You need to give the retailer a chance to put things right. We are unable to help unless you have tried this first. They’ll usually solve a dispute much quicker than we can - give them at least 14 days to resolve things for you."

This is not about alleged fraud.

I believe it is as far as the two banks are concerned, and hence the freezing of OP's account.  What do you believe triggered that if not suspected fraud?

By "this" I meant what I quoted - the procedure for a retailer and a customer.