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

auser99

@dealyboy, for the ultimate irony, I can't actually reply to your post as it gets held up in a "suspicious post" flag!!

auser99

@dealyboy, I will weigh the complaint up.

It was one thing 4 people not being able to unlock the account across 2 calls but quite something else for one guy reckoning their "system was down", was no timescale on it (ever) coming back up, and the only way was to get into the bank personally.

Clearly they wanted to have a proper in person verification / take IDs etc, but wouldn't admit it!

Wheres_My_Cashback

wmb194 said:

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

I believe most financial institutions fraud departments will tell you that a small test payment followed by a much larger payment will trigger a quick check (I've been told by them a few times) as it's a standard fraudsters test, but it doesn't necessarily mean the payment will be held up any significant amount of time unless there are also other factors different to the 1st payment, such as a new device, different IP address or an odd time which they determine. 

gt94sss2

I always find it is better to transfer money between savings accounts via a current account.

As others have said, depositing £1 followed by a larger deposit can often trigger a flag on their  fraud systems.

Its also less necessary now that the Confirmation of Payee system is being adopted by more and more providers

dealyboy

Clearly there is no general solution to transferring money between personal accounts at different banks.

Making payments to other parties which are intercepted by the sending bank occasionally are acceptable, in my opinion, but should not be routine. However holding up a payment to one's own account is not acceptable whatever the amount, after all the payer has gone through all the checks in creating the accounts and by logging on to make the payment.

If the rules/checks are not sufficient, change the rules, don't penalize the customer. In the case of Halifax recently when I made a first payment to my external account from which I'd just received a payment I was interrogated for half an hour during two calls.

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

Eco_Miser

dealyboy said:

Clearly there is no general solution to transferring money between personal accounts at different banks.

Making payments to other parties which are intercepted by the sending bank occasionally are acceptable, in my opinion, but should not be routine. However holding up a payment to one's own account is not acceptable whatever the amount, after all the payer has gone through all the checks in creating the accounts and by logging on to make the payment.

But how do they know it's your account? Names are certainly not unique within families, and scammers have been known to open accounts in the name of their target - the famed 'secure account' you should move all your money to.

dealyboy said:

If the rules/checks are not sufficient, change the rules, don't penalize the customer. In the case of Halifax recently when I made a first payment to my external account from which I'd just received a payment I was interrogated for half an hour during two calls.

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

Since they are responsible for our money, they are making sure that it is us who are moving the money, of our own volition, not on the instructions of a scammer or as a money mule or deliberate money launderer. Annoying though that is to those of us just chasing the highest rates.

masonic

dealyboy said:

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

It's a problem of the regulator's making, as that is who is forcing banks to be liable when customers transfer their money to scammers. So it is the bank's money that is lost when such transfers are waved through.

In my experience it doesn't take very long for banks to see such transfers as normal for the customer, after which they tend to leave them alone.

dealyboy

masonic said:

dealyboy said:

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

It's a problem of the regulator's making, as that is who is forcing banks to be liable when customers transfer their money to scammers. So it is the bank's money that is lost when such transfers are waved through.

In my experience it doesn't take very long for banks to see such transfers as normal for the customer, after which they tend to leave them alone.

Thank you for your view, but I disagree.

Banks decide their account application process and the criteria needed to login and send a payment.

If, after all the checks, one bank cannot decide that the other bank account is a bona fide account such that the payer and payee match, then there is something seriously wrong with the process.

In the case I mentioned with Halifax Bank, before the money was released, I had to say "yes" to accepting liability for any loss in the transaction.

gt94sss2

dealyboy said:

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

Not many people seen to realise that when you pay money into a bank it actually becomes their money - you are actually ending it to them.

That is what the 'CR' means on a statement 

dealyboy said:

In the case I mentioned with Halifax Bank, before the money was released, I had to say "yes" to accepting liability for any loss in the transaction.

Its a regulatory requirement that banks inform you of the risks.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-approach-to-authorised-push-payment-scam-reimbursement/government-approach-to-authorised-push-payment-scam-reimbursement

masonic

dealyboy said:

masonic said:

dealyboy said:

This is a problem of the banks' own making, they are responsible for our money in their hands and need to remember that.

It's a problem of the regulator's making, as that is who is forcing banks to be liable when customers transfer their money to scammers. So it is the bank's money that is lost when such transfers are waved through.

In my experience it doesn't take very long for banks to see such transfers as normal for the customer, after which they tend to leave them alone.

Thank you for your view, but I disagree.

Banks decide their account application process and the criteria needed to login and send a payment.

If, after all the checks, one bank cannot decide that the other bank account is a bona fide account such that the payer and payee match, then there is something seriously wrong with the process.

Yes, there is an argument that there would be no problem if scammers couldn't fraudulently open or gain control of bank accounts in the first place. I have wondered if things would be any better if the receiving bank was held liable to refund fraudulent transactions it has processed for a scammer instead of the victim's bank.

Confirmation of Payee was never designed to prove an account is bona fide. It is there primarily to protect against mistakes rather than deliberate fraud attempts.

I don't believe any bank has built in checks that the payer and payee account names match, only that the details provided match those held by the receiving bank.

dealyboy said:
In the case I mentioned with Halifax Bank, before the money was released, I had to say "yes" to accepting liability for any loss in the transaction.

You'll be pleased (or not) to learn that such a declaration does not in fact indemnify the bank against being held liable if it turned out you were the victim of a sophisticated advanced push payment scam.