Nat West

eskbanker

grumbler said:

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.

Ah right, understood - I thought you were picking up on OP's reference to suspected fraud immediately above that.

OP - in response to the question in your belated edit above, this isn't about 'my world', it's about the obligations of banks under the APP scam reimbursement code, which requires them to freeze funds when such a scam has been reported.  Once the sender's bank has notified NatWest of the alleged fraud, NatWest essentially have no choice other than to take immediate action, while investigating - there may be questions for the sender's bank to answer here about the credibility of the claim though, but it's largely out of NatWest's hands once it reaches them.

RG2015

All eskbanker is doing is trying to help the OP, and in return he is receiving increasing amounts of vitriol, even now extending to his posts on other threads.

In my world I look at the facts and make my own conclusions. I take on information from as many sources as possible. It is irrelevant whether I agree with them all. I certainly don't admonish anyone for describing what they see as the facts.

To that end eskbanker is probably the most knowledgeable purveyor of banking and financial facts on this site.

RG2015

eskbanker said:

RG2015 said:

All eskbanker is doing is trying to help the OP, and in return he is receiving increasing amounts of vitriol, even now extending to his posts on other threads.

Really?  Must have missed that!  Can't deny that it's more fulfilling to be debating issues rather than tedious ad hominem stuff though....

RG2015 said:

To that end eskbanker is probably the most knowledgeable purveyor of banking and financial facts on this site.

Kind of you to say so, but for the avoidance of doubt I'm just a naturally inquisitive amateur, rather than having (or claiming) any inside track - I've never worked in banking (or any other branch of financial services) nor claimed to have done so!

Never ever thought you were any sort of banker (other than pertaining to the esk, and possibly la rive droite).

No banker would ever give a straight answer like what you do. 

RG2015

missile said:

The message went to my junk mail box and I might have missed it.
It struck me as odd too, in their e mail they ask for my full name and account details.

Details about you:

1.1         Your Account Number and Sort Code

(OR 10-digit Customer Number, OR 16-digit debit card number)  

1.2         Personal Customers only:

Full Name

Date of Birth

I contacted their social media site and after wasting an hour, I phoned NW and they confirmed e mail was genuine, but refused to discuss.

@missile,

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am keen to find out about the NatWest process just in case I too become a scam victim. Feel free to decline though.

Apart from the details given above, what else did NatWest ask for?

Many thanks.

eskbanker

RG2015 said:
Never ever thought you were any sort of banker (other than pertaining to the esk, and possibly la rive droite).

Based on the tone of some remarks, it's only a matter of time before OP asks if I work for a bank (I suppose my choice of ambiguous username does contribute to that) or makes a lame attempt at rhyming slang 'humour'....

RG2015

Oh no! I hope no one reads too much into that.

I do have an unfortunate habit of incorporating completely accidental faux pas into my comments.

missile

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

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

Agreed - as above I'm not claiming that NatWest's actions are proportionate, so it will be revealing to see what FOS makes of it.  Chances are that there will already be similar cases on their decision database....

To return to this earlier discussion about the ombudsman, I had a brief look around and came across a similar (but not identical) scenario, in which a Mr B made a payment to a seller who banked with NatWest, and, after not receiving what he believed he was entitled to, notified his bank that he considered this to be a scam.  The crux of the case differs from the situation being discussed in this thread, but IMHO it's worth observing a passing comment from the ombudsman in the midst of some wider deliberations:

NatWest froze the receiving account and restricted the seller’s access to it pending further enquiries. This is what I would expect to happen when a bank is put on notice of a potential problem and funds still remain.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2164073.pdf

Edit:

missile said:
I edited my post to reflect your "helpful" corrections of my terminology, i.e. payee/ payer etc.

In your world: The bank can create their own "rules" and have acted correctly
In my world: The bank has not been reasonable and it will be interesting to see if ombudsman agrees.

I was typing the above when you posted again - the edit I was referring to was your additional question ("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?"), which wasn't there originally.  Anyway, as above, there is FOS precedent that NW's actions in this situation are not only reasonable but expected....

In your world a bank makes their own rules and one is guilty of fraud until one proves their innocence. I tire of your condescending comments on this and other posts. 

If repeated references to 'my world' make you feel better then so be it, but I'm just relaying facts, even though they don't suit your narrative.  Beyond indignant outrage (albeit not entirely unwarranted given the inconvenience), in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?

In your world:
Banks and Bankers make the "rules"
You claim to have expert knowledge, in accordance with MSE rules you ought to declare your professional interest. 

In my world:
Contrary to your earlier posts, NW do not make the "rules"
It is up to each bank to decide how to interpret & comply with the "rules"
The ombudsman will decide whether NW have acted unreasonably

I don't claim expert knowledge or any professional interest but have you considered actually answering questions rather than being so evasive?

In case you missed it: "in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?"

I am not being evasive. You said Nat West make the "rules". The "fact" is that is not true.

I have told my story to alert others to the way Nat West treat clients.

missile

RG2015 said:

missile said:

The message went to my junk mail box and I might have missed it.
It struck me as odd too, in their e mail they ask for my full name and account details.

Details about you:

1.1         Your Account Number and Sort Code

(OR 10-digit Customer Number, OR 16-digit debit card number)  

1.2         Personal Customers only:

Full Name

Date of Birth

I contacted their social media site and after wasting an hour, I phoned NW and they confirmed e mail was genuine, but refused to discuss.

@missile,

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am keen to find out about the NatWest process just in case I too become a scam victim. Feel free to decline though.

Apart from the details given above, what else did NatWest ask for?

Many thanks.

Ask your knowledgeable friend

RG2015

missile said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

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

Agreed - as above I'm not claiming that NatWest's actions are proportionate, so it will be revealing to see what FOS makes of it.  Chances are that there will already be similar cases on their decision database....

To return to this earlier discussion about the ombudsman, I had a brief look around and came across a similar (but not identical) scenario, in which a Mr B made a payment to a seller who banked with NatWest, and, after not receiving what he believed he was entitled to, notified his bank that he considered this to be a scam.  The crux of the case differs from the situation being discussed in this thread, but IMHO it's worth observing a passing comment from the ombudsman in the midst of some wider deliberations:

NatWest froze the receiving account and restricted the seller’s access to it pending further enquiries. This is what I would expect to happen when a bank is put on notice of a potential problem and funds still remain.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2164073.pdf

Edit:

missile said:
I edited my post to reflect your "helpful" corrections of my terminology, i.e. payee/ payer etc.

In your world: The bank can create their own "rules" and have acted correctly
In my world: The bank has not been reasonable and it will be interesting to see if ombudsman agrees.

I was typing the above when you posted again - the edit I was referring to was your additional question ("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?"), which wasn't there originally.  Anyway, as above, there is FOS precedent that NW's actions in this situation are not only reasonable but expected....

In your world a bank makes their own rules and one is guilty of fraud until one proves their innocence. I tire of your condescending comments on this and other posts. 

If repeated references to 'my world' make you feel better then so be it, but I'm just relaying facts, even though they don't suit your narrative.  Beyond indignant outrage (albeit not entirely unwarranted given the inconvenience), in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?

In your world:
Banks and Bankers make the "rules"
You claim to have expert knowledge, in accordance with MSE rules you ought to declare your professional interest. 

In my world:
Contrary to your earlier posts, NW do not make the "rules"
It is up to each bank to decide how to interpret & comply with the "rules"
The ombudsman will decide whether NW have acted unreasonably

I don't claim expert knowledge or any professional interest but have you considered actually answering questions rather than being so evasive?

In case you missed it: "in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?"

I am not being evasive. You said Nat West make the "rules". The "fact" is that is not true.

I have told my story to alert others to the way Nat West treat clients.

missile said:

RG2015 said:

missile said:

The message went to my junk mail box and I might have missed it.
It struck me as odd too, in their e mail they ask for my full name and account details.

Details about you:

1.1         Your Account Number and Sort Code

(OR 10-digit Customer Number, OR 16-digit debit card number)  

1.2         Personal Customers only:

Full Name

Date of Birth

I contacted their social media site and after wasting an hour, I phoned NW and they confirmed e mail was genuine, but refused to discuss.

@missile,

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am keen to find out about the NatWest process just in case I too become a scam victim. Feel free to decline though.

Apart from the details given above, what else did NatWest ask for?

Many thanks.

Ask your knowledgeable friend

Have I offended you in some way? I am just asking you for some details of your experience.

You have just said that you want to alert others. Does that not include helping others by answering genuine questions?

I have just said that I look everywhere I can for information. In this case I cannot think of anyone more knowledgeable about this specific information than your good self.


But I did say I would understand if you declined, so I do understand.

RG2015

RG2015 said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

eskbanker said:

eskbanker said:

missile said:

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

Agreed - as above I'm not claiming that NatWest's actions are proportionate, so it will be revealing to see what FOS makes of it.  Chances are that there will already be similar cases on their decision database....

To return to this earlier discussion about the ombudsman, I had a brief look around and came across a similar (but not identical) scenario, in which a Mr B made a payment to a seller who banked with NatWest, and, after not receiving what he believed he was entitled to, notified his bank that he considered this to be a scam.  The crux of the case differs from the situation being discussed in this thread, but IMHO it's worth observing a passing comment from the ombudsman in the midst of some wider deliberations:

NatWest froze the receiving account and restricted the seller’s access to it pending further enquiries. This is what I would expect to happen when a bank is put on notice of a potential problem and funds still remain.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2164073.pdf

Edit:

missile said:
I edited my post to reflect your "helpful" corrections of my terminology, i.e. payee/ payer etc.

In your world: The bank can create their own "rules" and have acted correctly
In my world: The bank has not been reasonable and it will be interesting to see if ombudsman agrees.

I was typing the above when you posted again - the edit I was referring to was your additional question ("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?"), which wasn't there originally.  Anyway, as above, there is FOS precedent that NW's actions in this situation are not only reasonable but expected....

In your world a bank makes their own rules and one is guilty of fraud until one proves their innocence. I tire of your condescending comments on this and other posts. 

If repeated references to 'my world' make you feel better then so be it, but I'm just relaying facts, even though they don't suit your narrative.  Beyond indignant outrage (albeit not entirely unwarranted given the inconvenience), in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?

In your world:
Banks and Bankers make the "rules"
You claim to have expert knowledge, in accordance with MSE rules you ought to declare your professional interest. 

In my world:
Contrary to your earlier posts, NW do not make the "rules"
It is up to each bank to decide how to interpret & comply with the "rules"
The ombudsman will decide whether NW have acted unreasonably

I don't claim expert knowledge or any professional interest but have you considered actually answering questions rather than being so evasive?

In case you missed it: "in what way do you believe that NatWest aren't actually complying with their obligations under the CRM code and the relevant legislative and regulatory controls?"

I am not being evasive. You said Nat West make the "rules". The "fact" is that is not true.

I have told my story to alert others to the way Nat West treat clients.

missile said:

RG2015 said:

missile said:

The message went to my junk mail box and I might have missed it.
It struck me as odd too, in their e mail they ask for my full name and account details.

Details about you:

1.1         Your Account Number and Sort Code

(OR 10-digit Customer Number, OR 16-digit debit card number)  

1.2         Personal Customers only:

Full Name

Date of Birth

I contacted their social media site and after wasting an hour, I phoned NW and they confirmed e mail was genuine, but refused to discuss.

@missile,

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am keen to find out about the NatWest process just in case I too become a scam victim. Feel free to decline though.

Apart from the details given above, what else did NatWest ask for?

Many thanks.

Ask your knowledgeable friend

Have I offended you in some way? I am just asking you for some details of your experience.

You have just said that you want to alert others. Does that not include helping others by answering genuine questions?

I have just said that I look everywhere I can for information. In this case I cannot think of anyone more knowledgeable about this specific information than your good self.


But I did say I would understand if you declined, so I do understand.

No need to respond to this.

Upon reflection, it was cheeky of me to ask for information from you after admonishing you for your comments to esbanker.

Sometimes I say things without considering the consequences.