How long does it take to transfer money between two banks savings accounts?

jaypers

I always use the £1 first method. Only issue I had was with Zopa where Barclays put a hold on the subsequent big payment. No hassle, they phoned me, asked me some questions, released the payment then marked my Zopa details Zopa as ‘trusted’. Don’t have a problem with this sort of security. Not done it for a while as most payees now saved etc and not needing to open any new accounts.

As I mentioned earlier, any sending Bank can easily track Faster Payment details. If the payment has left, a trace can be put on to see what has happened at the recipient. 

masonic

I tend to have more problems when I send a single large payment to a new payee vs £1 then larger payment. Fraud algorithms seem to be adaptive to what is normal activity on the account in question, and I always send a test payment when I am able (i.e. provider will accept a funds deposit split over more than one payment).

cwep2

Virgin have a £30k limit on faster payments (I think?) and you mentioned it was a considerable amount of money. This along with a fraud protection trigger is probably the reason it got delayed. Also closing your account immediately might have raised a red flag. 

Unfortunately this is all hindsight, but I am sure it will be the Virgin end where it's gone wrong.

The £1 then a larger amount immediately afterwards, although it's sensible, does trigger fraud red flags. There seems to be no good way around it, it's just bad luck if it happens. Make an official complaint that you've lost interest as a result and you might get something back, but nowadays they to hide behind the fact they are protecting you from fraud and it's not their fault. I have (successfully) argued against this (Santander) but this was money held up to an account that had been set up over 1yr and had >6 payments go in that direction already, and a couple the other way too, so I felt that the fraud check was completely out of line in that instance. Before that goodwill payment my account was blocked maybe 5-6 times per year, after that once in a year, so either their algorithm is working or the payout they were forced to make to me changed their behaviour(/algorithm).

Good lukc and I hope the money comes through soon, but keep ringing Virgin and make an official complaint.

SouthCoastBoy

It is always a worry when transferring large sums of money. I tend to use the £1 method as well. Now payee names are validated there is less risk of sending the incorrect account details although not all banks adopted it immediately and not sure if all banks use it now?

I use atom & chase and both have been excellent when it comes to latency, received money within minutes if not seconds in some instances. I also like the fact atom uses a nominated account as once set up there is additional security.

I know none of this helps the op, but if the payee details have not changed from the initial £1 test I'm sure the money will turn up, however I understand the anxiety it must cause, I would be the same.

GeoffTF

Swipe said:

I've always used the £1 first method and never had a problem. No way I'd ever transfer without a small test first to register the new payee.

I always do that, and have never had a problem.

auser99

masonic said:

I tend to have more problems when I send a single large payment to a new payee vs £1 then larger payment. Fraud algorithms seem to be adaptive to what is normal activity on the account in question, and I always send a test payment when I am able (i.e. provider will accept a funds deposit split over more than one payment).

Last week I'd moved a chunk of money into Bank 1, with a view to immediately moving it into Bank 2 for a Fixed bond.

I put 1/3 of the quoted amount in first, but even this triggered the potential fraud klaxon.
Despite the fact that last year I'd successfully moved a bigger sum between the 2 banks without any problem.

I can only imagine that it was moving money into Bank 1 and then immediately moving it to a "new" contact a few days later that did it.

It took 2 phone calls, initially telling me the "block" had been taken off, but I could tell it hadn't been.
Second phone call they made out that their "system" was down for taking such blocks off, and I had to go to the branch personally.

Luckily for me, there's a branch within walking distance, as it would have been pretty annoying otherwise.

Eventually having spoken to 3 people on phone calls, and the actual branch manager at the bank (who called in a favour off a colleague to do it quicker), it was unblocked!

I am tempted to put a complaint in and recover the lost interest, but as this might only be say £3-5, that's probably a bit pathetic

dealyboy

auser99 said:

masonic said:

I tend to have more problems when I send a single large payment to a new payee vs £1 then larger payment. Fraud algorithms seem to be adaptive to what is normal activity on the account in question, and I always send a test payment when I am able (i.e. provider will accept a funds deposit split over more than one payment).

Last week I'd moved a chunk of money into Bank 1, with a view to immediately moving it into Bank 2 for a Fixed bond.

I put 1/3 of the quoted amount in first, but even this triggered the potential fraud klaxon.
Despite the fact that last year I'd successfully moved a bigger sum between the 2 banks without any problem.

I can only imagine that it was moving money into Bank 1 and then immediately moving it to a "new" contact a few days later that did it.

It took 2 phone calls, initially telling me the "block" had been taken off, but I could tell it hadn't been.
Second phone call they made out that their "system" was down for taking such blocks off, and I had to go to the branch personally.

Luckily for me, there's a branch within walking distance, as it would have been pretty annoying otherwise.

Eventually having spoken to 3 people on phone calls, and the actual branch manager at the bank (who called in a favour off a colleague to do it quicker), it was unblocked!

I am tempted to put a complaint in and recover the lost interest, but as this might only be say £3-5, that's probably a bit pathetic

... I would say go for it (i.e. complain) some banks/building societies are sensitive to criticism, but not when it comes to potential fraud... at the moment they are being ultra cautious and are doing the right thing by the government.

You will probably find that almost all of us have been inconvenienced by the gatekeepers. We need a better solution as long as it is not us losing our money.

masonic

SouthCoastBoy said:

It is always a worry when transferring large sums of money. I tend to use the £1 method as well. Now payee names are validated there is less risk of sending the incorrect account details although not all banks adopted it immediately and not sure if all banks use it now?

Lots of savings providers do not use confirmation of payee. Some do not issue individual sort code and 8-digit account numbers for their savings accounts, so you would be sending to the bank's holding account with a reference number that allows them to allocate the funds to you. There are also instances where it takes a day or two after opening an account for CoP to be set up. It's great when it is available, but I'm still experiencing many instances where it is not.

auser99 said:

I can only imagine that it was moving money into Bank 1 and then immediately moving it to a "new" contact a few days later that did it.

Who knows, but I often move money into my current account and then immediately move it a new payee. If I open a new financial account, that is what I am going to do. I'm not going to leave money hanging around in my current account where it doesn't earn any interest. If it is not unusual behaviour, then you wouldn't expect to keep getting inconvenienced for it. If I did, then I'd probably stop using that particular account for that sort of activity. I stopped using Chase bank for savings when there were lots of issues around withdrawals being held for fraud checks.

allegro120

dealyboy said:

@wmb194 said:

A one pound test payment followed by a large payment is a good way to trip a bank's fraud algorithms.

... so what would be a better approach ?

Majority of "fraud" calls I received were triggered by sending £1 followed by a larger sum on the same day.  I've changed my approach to sending £1 and a larger sum on the following day.  This seems to work.

auser99

masonic said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

It is always a worry when transferring large sums of money. I tend to use the £1 method as well. Now payee names are validated there is less risk of sending the incorrect account details although not all banks adopted it immediately and not sure if all banks use it now?

Lots of savings providers do not use confirmation of payee. Some do not issue individual sort code and 8-digit account numbers for their savings accounts, so you would be sending to the bank's holding account with a reference number that allows them to allocate the funds to you. There are also instances where it takes a day or two after opening an account for CoP to be set up. It's great when it is available, but I'm still experiencing many instances where it is not.

auser99 said:

I can only imagine that it was moving money into Bank 1 and then immediately moving it to a "new" contact a few days later that did it.

Who knows, but I often move money into my current account and then immediately move it a new payee. If I open a new financial account, that is what I am going to do. I'm not going to leave money hanging around in my current account where it doesn't earn any interest. If it is not unusual behaviour, then you wouldn't expect to keep getting inconvenienced for it. If I did, then I'd probably stop using that particular account for that sort of activity. I stopped using Chase bank for savings when there were lots of issues around withdrawals being held for fraud checks.

I'm glad others agree it's an obvious way to do things. This account is specifically for moves, so it was annoying it wasn't as easy as it should have been!