Santander, a new payee, and excessive confirmations and questions

badger09

kaMelo said:

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.

I was going to post something similar, though somewhat milder. 

Sadly, these (annoying to some) checks, are an inevitable consequence of the removal of personal responsibility. And not just in banking🙁

Wyndham

Thanks all, comments appreciated.

But, I do want to be clear, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any checks, just that in this particular case the number of checks felt excessive.

Wyndham

SiliconChip said:

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.

I get that, of course I do. And I'm not objecting to there being any checks at all - but asking me four or five times if I was really, really, really sure? That seems over the top.

Wyndham

datz said:

Wyndham said:

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

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).

OK, playing devil's advocate here, with my tongue firmly in my cheek.... or they could take it out of their profits or the directors salary bonus scheme!

kaMelo

Wyndham said:

SiliconChip said:

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.

I get that, of course I do. And I'm not objecting to there being any checks at all - but asking me four or five times if I was really, really, really sure? That seems over the top.

The problem for banks is that under the CRM code a bank has to provide effective warnings and information to give customers a better chance to protect themselves against being defrauded. An effective warnings is defined as  "understandable, clear, timely, impactful and specific. That is why you are asked multiple questions about a payment through the payment process, things like what is the payment for, how well do you know them, have you confirmed the account details, has anyone called you to tell you your money is at risk, etc. This is to tailor the warnings to your specific situation. If a bank fails to do this then it's failed the effective warnings test and is liable.

For £60 it may seem like overkill, it probably is, but as a new payee a bank will always ask more questions.

TheBanker

Some banks are better at others than learning what's normal for your account.

I expect to be asked what I'm doing if I'm transferring money to someone new or it's a large amount. But being asked what I'm doing when I'm transferring £200 to a savings account in my own name, which has been validated by Confirmation of Payee and is an account I've transferred to regularly for over a year is a bit much. 

The problem, though, as highlighted above is that society, the government and regulators have decided the banks are responsible if one of their customers falls for a scam. Historically the bank was only liable if they allowed someone other than the account holder (or person authorised to act on their behalf) to make a transaction. Now they are liable for all sorts of scams that customers fall for. So naturally they are going to try to mitigate their loss exposure. 

In my personal opinion, customers need protection but we've gone too far away from personal responsibility. It appears the Home Secretary doesn't disagree: 

Braverman says people need to show more 'personal responsibility' to protect themselves from online fraud

Fell put it to Braverman that customers were not learning to protect themselves from online fraud because, if they are cheated, they tend to get their money back from banks. He suggested that people were being “coddled”. It was as if they were leaving their front door open, leaving themselves vulnerable to burglary, he said.

Braverman said Fell had a point. She told him:

I think that’s a really important point and I’m passionate about increasing awareness - much like practice changed when it came to wearing a seatbelt …

I think we need a step change when it comes to online activity. We are far more vulnerable than we appreciate and I think people’s lives are lived so politically online that they forget that there are fraudsters operating in that online world.

I think there needs to be a cultural change and a greater level of awareness amongst individuals about how they can secure themselves properly online, whilst also buying their theatre tickets and booking their holidays. I don’t think we have yet a sufficient level of personal responsibility.

 

MrFrugalFever

badger09 said:

kaMelo said:

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.

I was going to post something similar, though somewhat milder. 

Sadly, these (annoying to some) checks, are an inevitable consequence of the removal of personal responsibility. And not just in banking🙁

100% agreed. It is the minority impacting the majority, again.