General Discussion and Whimsical Banter

masonic

[Deleted User] said:

pecunianonolet said:

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

How did they come up with 85k anyway? Such a (seemingly) random figure.

Probably thought aligning it with the FSCS limit would make it easier for people to remember how much of their money is protected.

[Deleted User]

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

pecunianonolet said:

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

How did they come up with 85k anyway? Such a (seemingly) random figure.

Probably thought aligning it with the FSCS limit would make it easier for people to remember how much of their money is protected.

I'll word it better, typical me haha. And how did the FSCS come up with that figure?

slinger2

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

pecunianonolet said:

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

How did they come up with 85k anyway? Such a (seemingly) random figure.

Probably thought aligning it with the FSCS limit would make it easier for people to remember how much of their money is protected.

I'll word it better, typical me haha. And how did the FSCS come up with that figure?

Wasn't it 100,000 euros at the time. We were in the EU then of course.

masonic

Yes, it was in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that this was considerably strengthened across the EU. You might remember it being adjusted downward and then back up due to exchange rate fluctuations. When we left the EU, it was just left where it was. Fortunately the UK has enjoyed equal protection for savings and investments, whereas elsewhere in the EU protection was much lower for investments.

[Deleted User]

slinger2 said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

pecunianonolet said:

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

And criminal gangs might find a way to create "fake scams" to get banks to pay them directly. Would understand if the cap would be maybe up to 10k but 85k is a bit out of touch imho

How did they come up with 85k anyway? Such a (seemingly) random figure.

Probably thought aligning it with the FSCS limit would make it easier for people to remember how much of their money is protected.

I'll word it better, typical me haha. And how did the FSCS come up with that figure?

Wasn't it 100,000 euros at the time. We were in the EU then of course.

Ah that makes sense, thankyou.

Barkin

Barkin said:

Yup, app showing 4.65% for me too.

Was showing 4.4% some time last week. 

Cambridge BS Your Saver - app. now back to showing 4.4% again. 

ircE

Barkin said:

Barkin said:

Yup, app showing 4.65% for me too.

Was showing 4.4% some time last week. 

Cambridge BS Your Saver - app. now back to showing 4.4% again. 

Yep, me too. Guess it was an error after all.

eskbanker

Beddie said:

mebu60 said:

Interesting to note that in the capping of APP fraud reimbursement to £85k (per institution?) to be paid within five (working?) days there is also the possibility that the scamee's bank will be able to claim back half from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the money. I've long felt that the receiving bank needed to be 'incentivised' to take a greater interest. 
Unsure about the capping. Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415k and 411 instances where they lost more than £85k. The latter is small in overall % terms but that's still a lot of real people who won't in the future get fully reimbursed.
Nothing I could see either on the responsibilities of customers to be more vigilant and not to expect reimbursement if they've ignored multiple warnings from their bank. 

Customers can be as thick as they like, they can ignore 20 warnings, they can be told by their bank not to do it.

Then, when it all goes wrong, they get a full refund up to £85k...

Surely this is going to be abused, it's set up for collusion.

Banks aren't required to reimburse customers who've been grossly negligent in ignoring warnings, a subject that has been examined in considerable detail as part of the design of this process (and refined from the years it's been used on a voluntary basis):

https://www.psr.org.uk/media/as3a0xan/sr1-consumer-standard-of-caution-guidance-dec-2023.pdf

Although Confirmation of Payee isn't explicitly mentioned there, my expectation would be that if a customer chooses to ignore a CoP name mismatch warning, then the bank isn't obliged to reimburse, as this would be considered a sufficiently specific warning, rather than a generic boilerplate one.

The fact that the receiving bank will be expected to fund half of the money is also a safeguard against collusion, as is the police reporting provision, i.e. 'if you're hoping for a refund, this needs to be reported to the police for investigation'.

ircE

Received a letter from Bath BS today who are introducing Confirmation of Payee on the 31st October. Almost feel sorry for them given how much paperwork they send me for the £1 I've got with them.

Bridlington1

Continued from the Regular Savings Accounts: The Best Currently Available List thread:

flaneurs_lobster said:

It seems that the Internet's Wayback Machine (archive.org) has been hacked and subjected to a DDOS attack. Whether because of this or as a precaution it's offline.

Anyways, it does mean that @Bridlington1 's most useful list of Regular Saver t&cs is unavailable. 

I've had the dreaded email from haveibeenpwned as a result:

You've been pwned!

You signed up for notifications when your account was pwned in a data breach and unfortunately, it's happened. Here's what's known about the breach:

Email found:
Breach:	Internet Archive
Date of breach:	28 Sep 2024
Number of accounts:	31,081,179
Compromised data:	Email addresses, Passwords, Usernames
Description:	In September 2024, the digital library of internet sites Internet Archive suffered a data breach that exposed 31M records. The breach exposed user records including email addresses, screen names and bcrypt password hashes.

Further details:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/internet-archive-hacked-data-breach-impacts-31-million-users/

Sadly this also means the archived list of switching offers also becomes unavailable for the time being.

In the interests of having a failsafe option in case such an event happens again I shall be downloading pdf versions of the Ts&Cs of each of the regular savers and switching offers once the wayback machine is up and running and storing these on a onedrive to reduce the likelihood of us losing access to them for an extended period in the future.