What does your bank do in this situation

eskbanker

Section62 said:

eskbanker said:

Section62 said:

The risk which does exist is making an error when setting a new payee up, and the possibility of entering the wrong details.  By deleting payees after 13 months Nationwide expose me to the risk that I pay money to the wrong account when having to set up the payee again.  I don't see their actions as any form of protection.

Recreating payees now does subject (most of) them to the Confirmation of Payee validation, which may not have been the case when they were originally created, so that mitigates the chances of errors when recreating.

...unless you have lots of accounts with the banks and building societies that haven't got CoP working yet, or do the account number in the reference field so you get confirmation you are setting up a payment to ACME Building Society, but not confirmation it will go to your own account.

The main point was that Nationwide aren't doing this to protect us, in the way born_again was suggesting.

Yes, my reference to most payees (on average) being validated by CoP was recognising that it's not universal yet, but if you're sending payments to lots of non-CoP payees after gaps of more than a year then I'd suggest that you're very much an edge case.

And I was agreeing with your last point about motivation for implementing dormancy in an earlier post!

andyt8

I agree it just annoyed me when I went into my Santander online account to pay a membership fee and found they had deleted all my old saved payees details more than about 13mths old.  Yes they kept it for 12mths but as I don't always re-join every single year on the 1st of January - it is a real pain in the a***.  Also for birthdays if I don't send presents I will often transfer some money into their account instead - so again a very valid reason why it is often two years between some payments.  

NatWest don't do this I am sure and neither do Lloyds.

I have heard them say its done for security in case the payee details have changed etc etc but surely a bank does NOT EVER THINK OF RE-ISSUING a closed account number to a different person opening up a new account ??  So the worst that would happen is the payment fails.  Plus I have to type in txt verification numbers and PINs in order to make a payment.  Not like I accidently click the wrong line in the payees list and off goes my money in a flash payment.

I for SURE WILL NOT BE GOING PAPER FREE with Santander in principle if the bank decides the date when you don't want saved details anymore.  They can't yet remotely shred my sheets of paper.

Also just like the original poster I also move money between my current ac at Santander and other banks or building society for savings.  I don't want Santander to delete details of the "competition" from my saved payees that I may only use every two or three years. 

Just checked NATWEST current account has NOT deleted any of my saved payees.  I know that as it still has the garage that I bought my current car from secondhand in May 2021 and it was far away so I don't go back for service etc.

Just checked LLOYDS current account has also NOT deleted any of my past payees. I know that as it still has the details of our local FETE which I last paid for a blind auction way back in May 2019.  Yes I can search that far back online as well.

molerat

Interestingly the payee is still there somewhere deep it the system because when I reinstated a timed out deleted one it had the same payee reference number.  And they still delete the payee for ad hoc transfers even though there is a regular SO set up to that account.

EarthBoy

andyt8 said:

I have heard them say its done for security in case the payee details have changed etc etc but surely a bank does NOT EVER THINK OF RE-ISSUING a closed account number to a different person opening up a new account ??  

Yes banks do reissue old account members, or at least they certainly used to. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/dec/17/recycled-bank-accounts-send-money-wrong-person?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/katie-investigates/barclays-recycled-bank-account-now-stranger-has-2000/

https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/banks-pass-the-buck-over-recycled-accounts-vt50pnlw6wb?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqc7z7PWdBO5zZ3g9BlF3SLG6ZsNMcnBwDs3nn8cnZ43seMobPsYP41v68klyIk=&gaa_ts=696ba8c2&gaa_sig=1V0A5kgqBdg6aCBGD0oZ2CK4JLXAWH45BPrn6NP6h5Z9sZkaC6iuoCRM5fhUzdArzm1t_t-_7P1HPEl_2RzgLA==

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/exclusive-i-lost-40000-after-tsb-gave-me-another-persons-account-number-aTQCj3l5Igim

Kim_13

Banks would run out of account number/sort code combinations if they never reissued any. There are only so many possibilities, as there are only so many 11 digit mobile numbers (which also get recycled.) They should of course not recycle anything with a redirect in place.

Nasqueron

Hurrah more chopping down trees for security risk paper!

After 13+ months of not using a reference you should be checking it's still valid and adding it new