Moving savings to another account with higher interest

TheBanker

 I think there are many factors here.

There is no particular age group, as far as I know, that is more suspectable to being targeted by scammers. The types of scams that different age groups are likely to fall for are different though. An 18 year old is less likely to fall for a high value investment scam, simply because most 18 year olds don't have substantial savings (and I accept there are exceptions to every rule). I think as you work up through the age scale, investment scams become more likely because people have generally accumulated more money so are more likely to be interested in investment opportunities.

On the other hand, there are probably not many 80 year olds falling for Instagram scams, simply because I would imagine the percentage of 80 year olds who actively use Instagram is lower than for younger age groups. I would imagine people in their 40s/50s are more likely to fall for the 'Hi mum I've lost my phone, can you send me some money' WhatsApp messages. etc.

When the bank queries a payment, it's based on the transaction being made and the account history. Obviously when someone speaks to the customer to try to establish whether the payment is in fact a scam, age will be a factor, as will mental capacity. But they are not having that conversation because the customer is 80, they are having the conversation because there's an unusual payment.

Having said all of that, if you look through some of the published FOS decisions, there are cases where FOS have taken a customer's age into consideration when deciding that the bank should have done more to prevent a fraud

The banks are not doing this to annoy people. They are doing this because the regulators and government decided that the bank would be liable for the customer's mistakes, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds over the past few years. The alternative is that society decides that people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and we return to a situation where someone can be tricked into handing over their life savings with no possibility of getting any money back. 

BikingBud

TheBanker said:

 I think there are many factors here.

There is no particular age group, as far as I know, that is more suspectable to being targeted by scammers. The types of scams that different age groups are likely to fall for are different though. An 18 year old is less likely to fall for a high value investment scam, simply because most 18 year olds don't have substantial savings (and I accept there are exceptions to every rule). I think as you work up through the age scale, investment scams become more likely because people have generally accumulated more money so are more likely to be interested in investment opportunities.

On the other hand, there are probably not many 80 year olds falling for Instagram scams, simply because I would imagine the percentage of 80 year olds who actively use Instagram is lower than for younger age groups. I would imagine people in their 40s/50s are more likely to fall for the 'Hi mum I've lost my phone, can you send me some money' WhatsApp messages. etc.

When the bank queries a payment, it's based on the transaction being made and the account history. Obviously when someone speaks to the customer to try to establish whether the payment is in fact a scam, age will be a factor, as will mental capacity. But they are not having that conversation because the customer is 80, they are having the conversation because there's an unusual payment.

Having said all of that, if you look through some of the published FOS decisions, there are cases where FOS have taken a customer's age into consideration when deciding that the bank should have done more to prevent a fraud

The banks are not doing this to annoy people. They are doing this because the regulators and government decided that the bank would be liable for the customer's mistakes, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds over the past few years. The alternative is that society decides that people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and we return to a situation where someone can be tricked into handing over their life savings with no possibility of getting any money back. 

I don't think applying blame to people, ie "customer's mistakes" takes into account the complexity and ever changing nature of the scams that the deviant scum will dream up to separate anybody from their hard earned.  As is recognised the spread of people that have been duped covers all of society, even those that thought the were street smart, aware, financially savvy.

I am a consumer and do feel that the regulations are trying to cover differing aspects, AML and potential fraud, these will have I expect different flags but when trying to query the logic, ie smallish sums <£20k, to a different account, especially into an ISA or such like where there is full traceability and very low exposure, you run the risk of protesting too much. With the subsequent lockdown and loss of all capability, extremely unnecessary and frustrating.

One particular recent gripe that I challenged was the ability to move larger sums via phone banking app but not on internet banking. If I was being coerced then the risk is the same whichever method I use but no logic is provided from the "helpful" script-bound staff who just instruct that the transfer will need to be referred

I feel it is a fact that scams always have and going forward will always occur but can customer support be improved in managing not only the exposure but also the recovery methods.

Band7

TheBanker said:

The banks are not doing this to annoy people. They are doing this because the regulators and government decided that the bank would be liable for the customer's mistakes, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds over the past few years. The alternative is that society decides that people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and we return to a situation where someone can be tricked into handing over their life savings with no possibility of getting any money back. 

Agree, banks are not doing it to annoy people. They are doing it to reduce their own liability because they are now obliged as part of their licence to reimburse victims as well as those posing as victims unless they are able to prove that they took every conceivable precaution to prevent fraud. I do get quite angry when banks are saying they do it to protect their customers.

Rudyson

TheBanker said:

The banks are not doing this to annoy people. They are doing this because the regulators and government decided that the bank would be liable for the customer's mistakes, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds over the past few years. The alternative is that society decides that people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and we return to a situation where someone can be tricked into handing over their life savings with no possibility of getting any money back. 

Another alternative would be to actually try and catch the scammers. Investigating fraud and attempted fraud seems to be a very low priority (how many news items do we read of organised scammers being caught and prosecuted?), which means scammers can operate with a fairly high degree of confidence: if it works, great; if not, try the next person. 

TheBanker

@BikingBud - sorry I am struggling to get quotes to work properly...

I don't think applying blame to people, ie "customer's mistakes" takes into account the complexity and ever changing nature of the scams that the deviant scum will dream up to separate anybody from their hard earned.  As is recognised the spread of people that have been duped covers all of society, even those that thought the were street smart, aware, financially savvy.

I did not intend the word 'mistakes' to imply blame, and I am sorry if anyone has interpreted it that way. If I wanted to suggest the person who's fallen for a scam was to blame, I would have used a different word. 

The 'mistake' I was referring to was believing the fraudster was legitimate. There are many types of fraud - some appear obvious to me  but some are less obvious. And I know the fraudsters create a stressful situation for the customer, or win their trust in some way, so they let their guard down. 

As is recognised the spread of people that have been duped covers all of society, even those that thought the were street smart, aware, financially savvy.

This is a really important point. A lot of people say 'It won't happen to me' or 'I wouldn't fall for that'. But my bank, and presumably most other banks, have dealt with scam claims from people like solicitors, police officers and others who you would not think would get caught out. I am even aware of someone who works for a bank, in the fraud department, who lost money to a scam. 

TheBanker

Rudyson said:

Another alternative would be to actually try and catch the scammers. Investigating fraud and attempted fraud seems to be a very low priority (how many news items do we read of organised scammers being caught and prosecuted?), which means scammers can operate with a fairly high degree of confidence: if it works, great; if not, try the next person. 

This is true - but it requires effort from the Police who are not resourced or equipped to tackle this type of crime on the scale needed. The banking industry already fund a dedicated police team to investigate fraud, but far more resources are needed. Even with extra resources, it would be a real challenge given a lot of the fraud originates from overseas.

There is a statistic somewhere that Fraud accounts for something like 30% of all crime, but only 2% of police resources are dedicated to dealing with it. 

wmb194

TheBanker said:

Rudyson said:

Another alternative would be to actually try and catch the scammers. Investigating fraud and attempted fraud seems to be a very low priority (how many news items do we read of organised scammers being caught and prosecuted?), which means scammers can operate with a fairly high degree of confidence: if it works, great; if not, try the next person. 

This is true - but it requires effort from the Police who are not resourced or equipped to tackle this type of crime on the scale needed. The banking industry already fund a dedicated police team to investigate fraud, but far more resources are needed. Even with extra resources, it would be a real challenge given a lot of the fraud originates from overseas.

There is a statistic somewhere that Fraud accounts for something like 30% of all crime, but only 2% of police resources are dedicated to dealing with it. 

It also doesn't help that many of the scammers are in other legal jurisdictions.