Santander, a new payee, and excessive confirmations and questions

Wyndham

OK, I get that fraud is huge, and it must be awful to be scammed. I can also see that Santander are, in their own way, trying to protect me.

But... my brother and I were sorting something out for my mum's birthday. He has bought a gift, and we are splitting the cost. So I got his bank details because I thought that would be easier than paying by cash. But in order to set up the on-line banking payment, I was asked four or five times if I was really sure. I also had to give a reason for the payment (and 'none of your business, I'm just going about my life' didn't seem to be an option). They reminded me that even if I thought it was really him, it might not be, and asked me to verbally confirm with him that the details were correct - which given that I'd got them through a phone call felt a little on the excessive side.

The account check matched the account number to his name. I got the details directly from him. It was a relatively small amount. So why does the bank automatically assume that if I'm setting up a new payee it MUST be a scam and feel the need to give me four or five different warnings that I have to respond to?

Wonka_2

Not sure whether you've something different or whether the sum was large but I set one up yesterday via the Santander App for a sum in the £hundreds with only 2 'warnings' - one as I set the payee up and another as I tried to make the first payment 

Wyndham

Wonka_2 said:

Not sure whether you've something different or whether the sum was large but I set one up yesterday via the Santander App for a sum in the £hundreds with only 2 'warnings' - one as I set the payee up and another as I tried to make the first payment 

The sum isn't large - it's £60.

I did it through the website. However, I didn't set up the payee, and then pay, I did it all as one. Maybe because I said it was family (because I had to say something, again there wasn't a 'none of your business' option) then I got extra questions?

greyteam1959

All seems quite reasonable to me.
Been like that for several years on Santander.

dealyboy

Hi @Wyndham ... I'm with you.

Santander seem to be the worst at intrusive and impertinent questions when one is just performing standard personal banking. This started a few years ago with seven different pieces of security data required to login and perform a transaction, this is now down to two to login plus the warning pages.

However my dislike of Santander's over the top security is mitigated by the fact that all financial services companies are required to implement anti-fraud and anti-money laundering measures in addition to strong nudge warnings. I have accounts at several banks/building societies and experience many different ways they confirm the user and transaction, however it is universally simpler with a mobile app.

It is the age in which we live with banks needing to protect their business and the customer in a regulated environment. Sometimes transactions are intercepted with the customer needing to phone and answer a series of questions, and sometimes accounts are frozen whilst an investigation is undertaken with no communication for weeks (as you may have read on this forum).

If the price to pay to reduce these drastic actions is more security and warnings up front then I'm willing to pay.

EssexExile

Even if you're paying an existing payee they ask you 3 times if you're sure. It doesn't take long to click in the affirmative a few times, not really a problem.

boingy

greyteam1959 said:

All seems quite reasonable to me.

Of course it's not reasonable - it's only sixty quid. 
Making the customer click a couple of "yes, I'm sure and I accept it's my fault" confirmations would be adequate.

@OP. It's the modern curse, caused by banks being terrified of being held liable. I absolutely believe that it will not reduce real scams by any significant amount. Make a formal complaint and tell them it is your money and your responsibility. It won't make any difference but maybe if we all do it someone will notice eventually. Imagine the fuss if supermarkets searched us all on the way out in case we had nicked something....

Sea_Shell

The kicker will be if they ask all that and still then block your account if they don't "like" the recipient 😉

They do seem to be one of the most "trigger" happy.

SiliconChip

Wyndham said:

Wonka_2 said:

Not sure whether you've something different or whether the sum was large but I set one up yesterday via the Santander App for a sum in the £hundreds with only 2 'warnings' - one as I set the payee up and another as I tried to make the first payment 

The sum isn't large - it's £60.

So how would you feel if they didn't bother to do checks for an initial amount of £60 made by a scammer, who then made a second transaction for £6,000? A small payment followed by a large one is classic fraud behaviour, and one way to reduce the likelihood of it happening is to do all the checks from the start.

kaMelo

Wyndham said:

OK, I get that fraud is huge, and it must be awful to be scammed. I can also see that Santander are, in their own way, trying to protect me.

But... my brother and I were sorting something out for my mum's birthday. He has bought a gift, and we are splitting the cost. So I got his bank details because I thought that would be easier than paying by cash. But in order to set up the on-line banking payment, I was asked four or five times if I was really sure. I also had to give a reason for the payment (and 'none of your business, I'm just going about my life' didn't seem to be an option). They reminded me that even if I thought it was really him, it might not be, and asked me to verbally confirm with him that the details were correct - which given that I'd got them through a phone call felt a little on the excessive side.

The account check matched the account number to his name. I got the details directly from him. It was a relatively small amount. So why does the bank automatically assume that if I'm setting up a new payee it MUST be a scam and feel the need to give me four or five different warnings that I have to respond to?

Because every day people, who seem to have lived under a rock as they have never seen any warnings about moving money to a safe account or investing in pink unicorns etc, do exactly that then complain they want refunding.

 With the backing of the regulator, the ombudsman and cheered on by campaign groups like Which, banks are now on the hook for all payments unless they can demonstrate the customer was reckless or colluding in a scam.

Not surprisingly banks are now taking measures to protect themselves (they aren't protecting you) by making things more onerous for everyone by blocking payments and asking questions.

 This is just the start, things will only get worse.

datz

Wyndham said:

I can also see that Santander are, in their own way, trying to protect me.

As above - while Santander might try to sell it as "protecting you" - they are actually protecting themselves.

Under the CRM code (Contingent Reimbursement Model), signatory banks have to reimburse customers who have fallen victim to a scam (and weren't to blame). And this is the reason for the ever increasing number of obstacles placed between you and moving your own money around.

It's not a policy I agree with - not only for the reason you mentioned, but also because it rewards stupid, negligent, reckless (or potentially fraudulent) behaviour by some customers. Some people do some really silly things with their own money, and then expect the bank to have their back (and in many cases the banks are forced to).

Don't forget that the banks are refunding victims from their own pocket and, as with most recent regulatory efforts, this eventually feeds back into increased costs and/or reduced benefits for the whole customer base (you and me included).

I'm sure a few here will insist that every person must be fully shielded from their own actions and mistakes, even to the detriment of others... and while I can somewhat empathize, I am still a believer in personal responsibility.