Bank not letting me spend my own money

Shakin_Steve

TheBanker said:

Shakin_Steve said:

It's a really sad situation when banks have to be as careful as this. They are, of course, subject to all kinds of rules to protect the (stupid) consumer. There's also an element of self preservation, it's them that end up reimbursing the 'victim' should they be scammed.

As I said in a previous thread, why should the vast majority be inconvenienced so that the feckless few can be protected from their own ignorance? 

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I don't think the language used here is appropriate. Scams are sophisticated, and people who are far from stupid fall for them. And some of the people you class as Stupid may actually be vulnerable for one reason or another.

Depends on your point of view. How should we cater for 'vulnerable' people? If by vulnerable, you mean incapable of running a bank account without being conned out of their money then, surely, special provisions should be made for these people. Perhaps every transaction should be checked, so that banks are not on the hook for their vulnerabilities.
This is all hair splitting. The people I see on tv and in the newspapers are not vulnerable, they fall for scams which have been doing the rounds for months, even years. They just cannot be bothered keeping abreast of current events, and expect the banks to pick up the tab.
I used to find the messages I received from my bank condescending, designed for children. But I now see that it's probably necessary to use such language.
I will not change my opinion on this subject, but that makes no difference. The bleeding hearts will ensure that banks will reimburse, no matter how careless people are.

Brie

Shakin_Steve said:

TheBanker said:

Shakin_Steve said:

It's a really sad situation when banks have to be as careful as this. They are, of course, subject to all kinds of rules to protect the (stupid) consumer. There's also an element of self preservation, it's them that end up reimbursing the 'victim' should they be scammed.

As I said in a previous thread, why should the vast majority be inconvenienced so that the feckless few can be protected from their own ignorance? 

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I don't think the language used here is appropriate. Scams are sophisticated, and people who are far from stupid fall for them. And some of the people you class as Stupid may actually be vulnerable for one reason or another.

Depends on your point of view. How should we cater for 'vulnerable' people? If by vulnerable, you mean incapable of running a bank account without being conned out of their money then, surely, special provisions should be made for these people. Perhaps every transaction should be checked, so that banks are not on the hook for their vulnerabilities.
This is all hair splitting. The people I see on tv and in the newspapers are not vulnerable, they fall for scams which have been doing the rounds for months, even years. They just cannot be bothered keeping abreast of current events, and expect the banks to pick up the tab.
I used to find the messages I received from my bank condescending, designed for children. But I now see that it's probably necessary to use such language.
I will not change my opinion on this subject, but that makes no difference. The bleeding hearts will ensure that banks will reimburse, no matter how careless people are.

Maybe we should say these people are trusting rather than vulnerable?  I agree that sometimes it's amazing that someone will fall for such scams but that doesn't make them feckless or stupid but they certainly are victims.

I remember explaining to a work colleague about a scam she was about to fall prey to and how it wasn't a good idea to give in to the sales talk.  She was bright but trusting.  And her basic line was "how can people do that to others and take advantage?"  Only response is that some people have no integrity.  

xylophone

I'm even thinking of taking finance from the dealer, 

If it's free credit, why not?

Relative could have paid in full in cash but px'd old vehicle and took the free finance on the new.

Held on to the cash in an interest bearing account and just made sure that enough was transferred to current a/c to meet the monthly DD.

It has all gone without a hitch and two years on the car is paid for and interest earned.

masonic

Shakin_Steve said:

Maybe banks could introduce some kind of disclaimer to be signed by customers who are willing to take responsibility for their own money. That way, if you get scammed, it's you that's lost the money and not the bank and, indirectly, the rest of us.

Such a disclaimer would be unenforceable. Banks cannot get customers to sign away their statutory and regulatory rights.

masonic

Shakin_Steve said:

TheBanker said:

Shakin_Steve said:

It's a really sad situation when banks have to be as careful as this. They are, of course, subject to all kinds of rules to protect the (stupid) consumer. There's also an element of self preservation, it's them that end up reimbursing the 'victim' should they be scammed.

As I said in a previous thread, why should the vast majority be inconvenienced so that the feckless few can be protected from their own ignorance? 

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I don't think the language used here is appropriate. Scams are sophisticated, and people who are far from stupid fall for them. And some of the people you class as Stupid may actually be vulnerable for one reason or another.

Depends on your point of view.

I'd be interested in your point of view about the firms that provide receiving accounts that are being exploted by fraudsters. Having somewhere to send the money is a vital part of the scam.

paul_c123

lottieholder said:

This is long bear with me.

This has happened several times over the last few years. I do appreciate that banks are trying to protect us from ourselves but sometimes they not only go too far but also cost us more money.  

Several years ago when my partner died I was left our house under the condition I paid the mortgage off. My bank wouldn't let me transfer more than £20,000 in one go so I did it in stages.  3 years later I get a restraint order from the bank saying not only did i still owe the money but I owed them for the the insurance on the house.  They had to retract the restraint when I proved that not only had I paid the amount owed with the required reference but I also proved that I had insured the house (there had been no restriction on which company I used, just that it had to be insured).

OK. so we go to the new bathroom 2 years ago.  I was going on holiday whilst it was being done as I can't live in a house with no loo.  As I was going away my contractor asked for money upfront for materials, £2000 to be exact.  No problem I thought. Tried to transfer the money, it was transferred straight back to me.  Conversation with someone I suspect was in India who I could barely understand and said his name was Ben!!!  What is the money for? New bathroom.  Do I know the person I'm paying? Yes, I've known him since he was at school, he's a plumber putting in my new bathroom, I need to pay him. I'm sorry we think you are being scammed.  The day before I left for Portugal I had to borrow the money in cash from my daughter and pay her back in the £600 increments my bank would allow.

So we go to today.  I went to buy a holiday chalet.  It's a doer upper but a good investment.  I find my bank has now restricted me to a maximum spend of £5000 in any one day.  The chalet is a little more than that and added on is gas compliance, site fee etc, etc.  So I pay £4500 and a promise to pay the rest tomorrow. I showed the lady dealing with the contract exactly what I'd done which confirmed my payment, and incidentally, also showed my bank balance. I had something to do I couldn't get out of so didn't check my account until about 10pm when I see that the payment that was confirmed was not showing on my account.  I check my messages and nothing.  So, I sent the payment again.  Now I have a problem. I have now received a message saying that the bank want to ensure that I'm not being scammed and to ring them.  I really don't want the payment to go through twice. I don't want to talk to someone in India I can't understand and will say they don't believe me and I really, really don't want to lose this deal.  

Can I ask,  I'm 76 totally with it, Joe Biden's older than me (OK some people may not regard that as a good example) Current checked IQ 141,  is this an age thing or are they doing it to everyone as it doesn't seem to be a problem with my children?

Which bank?

Some banks have terrible (anti)-fraud departments, with long waits and queues for outgoing calls etc. If it needs manual intervention rather than one of the automated payment systems then you will suffer. If you suffer, you can complain. And if your complaint is upheld, compensated etc.

If you're regularly doing large transactions such as those mentioned, you might need a different style of bank account, Google "Wealth Management Account" although I suspect your income/assets won't meet the threshold, so you'll need to bank and queue up with the plebeians.

penners324

Try a different bank

pridehappy

Sounds like they are being overprotective, although it's a common issue with banks these days so don't think it's just you.

I'd probably just contact the bank to cancel the payment, then switch. I've processed thousands with Nationwide and as long as you call them to confirm it's you and pass security, they'll allow the transfer to go ahead. Never had any issues with Virgin Money either, although Lloyds Bank and Santander are a little temperamental. 

Funnily enough, I'm having a similar issue with NS&I at the moment.

martinbainbridge1975

would be swapping banks if it was me, for all I dislike the bank I am currently with the security layers are worth it, for larger transactions I have to use my laptop and not the app, then put my card into a card reader and put pins in etc, never had an issue this way with payments rejected

D924

I find the best way around this problem to be miserably poor and have no money to spend.