Bank maximum transfer amounts.

Freebird53

400ixl said:

CoP is mainly used for a secondary guard against typo's. It allows the person setting up the payment to check that the account details they have typed in are more likely to be correct as it validates a name as well as the numbers.

It does not in any way guarantee that the account is not fraudulently set up at the other end. It could be set up via identity fraud for example and CoP would not flag that to the payee as it wouldn't be known.

Also, you can set up larger transfers online, you just have to do it through other mechanisms than the faster payments system such as BACS or CHAPS depending on how much you want to transfer.

The article you have linked to is only part of the picture and looking at banks standard self service transfer limits. Not what you can do online via contacting the banks service desk. No need to go into branch.

@400ixl: Is there a better more comprehensive list please?

@:eskbanker: I understand what you're saying, and why banks don't differentiate on the use of CoP. I must have misread your original reply.

@Ozzig: I can see what you're saying, but how does having a limit per day prevent me being threatened into transferring money? Could I not simply be threatened on a number of occasions? Perhaps even consecutive days?

So I go into a branch (if I can find one!) to transfer some money to my savings account at another institution. They are happy, because I am on my own, and the thug who's threatening me is waiting outside. How is the restriction of 'we're not happy because we can't validate the identity of the person at the destination' overcome, to allow me to transfer £100,000?

Ozzig

Freebird53 said:

@Ozzig: I can see what you're saying, but how does having a limit per day prevent me being threatened into transferring money? Could I not simply be threatened on a number of occasions? Perhaps even consecutive days?

So I go into a branch (if I can find one!) to transfer some money to my savings account at another institution. They are happy, because I am on my own, and the thug who's threatening me is waiting outside. How is the restriction of 'we're not happy because we can't validate the identity of the person at the destination' overcome, to allow me to transfer £100,000?

I'd hope it taking multiple days could allow time for the victim to try and get help, as opposed to losing it all in one transaction.

At a bank, I would hope the presence of CCTV would deter some criminals, if standing outside they managed to avoid CCTV sending you in alone would allow you time to ask for help. 

Neither would stop all bad actors, however, I am sure it has stopped some.

The name validation is there primarily to prevent errors, as mentioned in another comment, if you're paying Bob Smith it doesn't check if Bob is an axe murderer or master forger, it just stops it from reaching Dave Jones whose account number and sort code are almost the same.


 

dcs34

Freebird53 said:

Slinky said:

Isn't that what scammers do? Get you to set up an account in your name somewhere else and transfer your money to it?

Really? So an account, in my name, at a registered financial institution. Where exactly is the scam?

Simply put, that you aren't the only person with access to that account, and very soon the money you have transferred in has disappeared...

pridehappy

It is much easier for criminals to process online banking payments, whereas for large transactions in-branch, government issued ID is nearly always needed. Plus, it would be much easier to trace with CCTV etc if something goes wrong, and criminals would be less likely to attempt fraud.

I don’t think there’s any banks or building societies where you can guarantee they won’t stop payments if they think it is fraudulent - I actually agree with it as it’s their best interest to protect your money. I’ve found Nationwide’s systems to be the most accurate at detecting possibly fraudulent payments and leaving others alone. Santander has in my opinion the worst with many stories out there.

35har1old

Ozzig said:

Freebird53 said:

Thats seems like a very large difference. Begging the question, do these institutions not trust their own online security?

Their own online security cannot check if you have someone standing next to you / online threatening you to transfer money.

In branch, they should be able to tell if the person with you looks intimidating especially when they look at them as they ask if you are being coerced into transferring the money etc

To be perfectly honest I think most banks probably trust their online security more than the people they let use it  

That argument doesn't work as you can also make that type of transaction by telephone banking

35har1old

Freebird53 said:

Good morning,

I recently asked in the savings forum if anyone knew of  a bank which did not have a 'silly' restrictions on money transfers. (Bear with me!).

Someone posted a link to a list, which described the limits of a number of institutions, but as pointed out by another poster, it's rather out of date. I've just found this site (perhaps its the same one as previously posted)

https://www.wearepay.uk/what-we-do/payment-systems/faster-payment-system/transaction-limits/

Now, looking down that list, it would appear that the majority of banks have an 'online' transfer limit of £25,000. But an 'In Branch' limit of £100,000 to £250,000!

Thats seems like a very large difference. Begging the question, do these institutions not trust their own online security?

Also, whilst it may be an viable avenue for someone who actually HAS a local branch available to visit, i'm sure many now use online banking because that is no longer the case!

Now, if I wanted to make a transaction to 'Gobbledook & Unknown Partners' I can see where a transfer limit MIGHT be of some use (to supposedly protect me from scams etc)

But when I want to transfer money from an account in MY name, to another account in MY name at different but registered UK financial institutuion, I so not see why ANY transfer limit should apply!

Thoughts?

Santander can have a faster payment limit of just£2000 but you can alter this online but I think this is there way of arguing that you increased the limit beyond there recommendation are if you fall victim of a scammer not there fault

eskbanker

35har1old said:

Santander can have a faster payment limit of just£2000 but you can alter this online but I think this is there way of arguing that you increased the limit beyond there recommendation are if you fall victim of a scammer not there fault

I can't see that line of argument working!  They, like most banks, signed up to the CRM code obliging them to reimburse victims of APP scams, under which they can reject such claims if the customer ignored effective warnings but these must be specific and related to the transaction in question, such as a CoP name mismatch, rather than customers choosing to override a default, arbitrary and indiscriminate limit on transfer values.

GeoffTF

With Lloyds, any payment over £25K has to be done in branch. NatWest allows £50K online, but only £20k in branch. Starling allows £1million online, does not support telephone payments and has no branches. Some banks favour telephone payments, others do not.

Ozzig

35har1old said:

Ozzig said:

Freebird53 said:

Thats seems like a very large difference. Begging the question, do these institutions not trust their own online security?

Their own online security cannot check if you have someone standing next to you / online threatening you to transfer money.

In branch, they should be able to tell if the person with you looks intimidating especially when they look at them as they ask if you are being coerced into transferring the money etc

To be perfectly honest I think most banks probably trust their online security more than the people they let use it  

That argument doesn't work as you can also make that type of transaction by telephone banking

Not sure which point you're referring to, but being perfectly honest I forgot all about telephone banking, not used it myself for years, as in branch / online has always worked for me. 

Freebird53

Starling bank certainly looks interesting, and since the local branch of my current bank closed, any 'perks' that may have been on offer are now moot.