Recent experiences withdrawing a few thousand in cash

stripling

hallmark said:

I might be withdrawing low thousands (maximum £3k) soon from either Nationwide or Natwest.  I was expecting to have to give the branch notice & provide ID but Natwest appear to go even further:

"be prepared for our branch colleagues to ask further questions about your withdrawal request which can sometimes take up to 30 minutes"

& also

"In some instances, we may decline the cash withdrawal based on the information provided surrounding the transaction."

Now I don't mind jumping through hoops to a moderate degree but I'm really not up for a 30 minute interview in order to obtain a small amount of my own money, for purposes which are absolutely none of Natwest's business.  I'm also slightly intrigued to know how long the interview will last & what the outcome will be as I'm intending to politely tell them I have no desire to divulge what I'll be doing with my money & shouldn't need to.

I do understand that they need reasonable precautions. I'm prepared to notify them, provide ID or meet other reasonable demands.  A 30-minute interview I have to "pass" in order to get my own money sounds way over the top though.

Anyhoo, I'm wondering if anybody has anecdotal stories of withdrawing cash from either institution or really any bank lately, so I'm better geared up for the faff.

thanks

I organised, in advance, the removal of £10,000 cash from one of my accounts in one of the big banks. I was doing this because my bank account in another country X regularly skimmed huge amounts off me in electronic money transfers. I was going to take it to country X the old fashioned way - in my bag. This was around 20 years ago. 

When I went into the big city branch to collect it they tried to stop me - huffing and puffing and trying to give me foolish reasons along the 'because we said so' line. I politely stood firm and refused this 'because we said so' reasoning. 

There weren't any big scares or publicity about people being scammed in those days and I refused to tell them what I wanted it for. It categorically was not their business. Even with current scam worries they should only ask the technical details of whether you know the recipient, are you sure, are you being threatened, etc., 

 After insisting repeatedly that it was mine and they had not one single piece of real legislation to stand on they very begrudgingly handed it over. 

Finally, the words 'money laundering' were muttered - at which point I nearly cried with laughter and frustration. They only had to look at my bank account to see in glorious black and white that the source of my funds was..... drum roll..... a well-known British company.  Me taking the money out of the account was totally irrelevant.  

Banks have become utterly neurotic about terrorism, money laundering and now scams. It's not all their fault because they've had the frighteners put on them by poorly worded and ill thought out legislation. However, they often over react to cover their own backs, and many staff are inadequately trained. 

It was ironic in many ways because at the time London estate agents and their conveyancing teams were literally taking huge wads of cash off foreign buyers no questions asked. 

hallmark

To respond to a few of the comments in the thread, I do need (or you could say want) cash and there is a legitimate reason. It's not to pay somebody cash-in-hand, something rather more pleasant.  Ironically I'm a full-time IT Security guy and a part-time PT who spends most of his spare time in the gym therefore not currently likely to be regarded as vulnerable.

I do understand the challenges banks face & the need for sensible precautions.  I don't think some of the current precautions are especially sensible, IMO they frequently end up frustrating one group of people & not protecting the other.

The person who was scammed is a case in point.  The challenge is that most systems sophisticated enough to thwart con-men are simply too complicated for a lot of people (a LOT of OAPs) to use.

I have some very very bright relatives, people who were dauntingly clever in their day, who cannot do anything online, can't use a mobile phone, don't know how to switch a PC on, and would have no chance of understanding the difference, for example, between an account number, a customer number & a PIN. And therefore no chance of realising which one they shouldn't tell somebody on the phone. It's simply not feasible to ask somebody 90+ to learn a load of new stuff that didn't exist when they were already 70.   It's completely understandable how these people would infinitely prefer to deal in cash despite it's many drawbacks.

lr1277

For me the other problem with bank transfers is that if the sender's account is somehow involved with fraud, your account as the recipent maybe frozen or blocked. This requires time for the bank to conduct their investigation and then hopefully unfreeze/unblock your account. All a massive PITA.

Kim_13

etienneg said:

GeoffTF said:

mongoose2009 said:

very soon you wont be able to do any transaction in cash over £1000 under an circumstance

The FCA has already proposed that and more for cash deposits:

For personal accounts we proposed a limit of £1,000 per 24-hour period (which is the minimum amount law enforcement are allowed to seize under the Proceeds of Crime Act) and £10,000 per 12-month period.

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/cash-based-money-laundering

Can anyone explain why anybody has a legitimate need to do a transaction over £1,000 in cash? The usual response to this sort of question is along the lines of: "It's my money and I can do what I want with it!" But this isn't an answer - it just sidesteps the question! I can understand why drug dealers, smugglers and thieves love cash. I also understand why some unscrupulous traders want to hide from HMRC by using cash. None of these is a legitimate need.

OK, let me mention one instance which I might accept: that of selling a used car privately. Alternative payment methods exist, of course, but there are possible downsides (such as chargeback) that can put people off. Perhaps we need a payment method with a cast-iron guarantee? Food for thought for the providers of banking services.

Used cars, as you say. That is nothing to do with the taxman.

If you buy a car privately, it's cash or bank transfer. Once you've initiated the transfer, you have no more protection through having done that than physically handing over the cash. If debit or credit card is available, there's no reason not to use that, but it isn't.

But a bank transfer has the following downsides:

- Requiring those who feel uncomfortable with using online banking to go to a branch as part of any purchase - easier said than done as the banks continue to cut opening hours. They'd also need to have someone able to go with them to wait with the vehicle while they went to the bank, as someone unable to do so could find the vehicle they'd just paid for had disappeared. 

- Effectively forcing people onto online banking, as when someone agrees to have it because you have made it impossible for them to exist without it, it is not a free choice. This may also mean them incurring expenses to get the required technology/connection that the FCA/bank are not going to contribute to.

- If you have online banking and take your device with you to initiate payment to the seller once you have checked the vehicle and confirmed that you wish to buy it, the bank may hold up that transaction. Once you have initiated it, you don't want to leave without the vehicle, but the seller naturally doesn't want to let the vehicle go until the money clears in their account. This may lead to awkwardly standing around for hours, a stand off or the buyer being forced to leave empty handed because it's now out of banking hours. If the bank released the money to the seller's account the next day say, the buyer may have no vehicle and no money. I'm sure most sellers are honest, but the bank wouldn't want to take the risk if it were their money on the line.

- When you transfer money to the bank account of a stranger, you may find your account blocked by association because the seller has been up to something dodgy unconnected to the transaction. There was a thread on here where someone bank transferred something like £1,800 for two kittens while at the breeder's house and later found their account blocked for weeks.

As the child of someone who has narrowly avoided several scams (bogus emails and texts asking for details), that parent being forced to have online banking will not protect them or their money. At all. I can almost guarantee that they'd have fallen for a 'x called from the bank and said to move the money to a safe account.' They didn't grow up with this technology and frequently rant about not wanting it.

When they last wished to buy a car, they did ask if I would let them write a cheque to me and then I transfer the money to the seller via my online banking when they called from the seller's house to give the OK. Seeing only the potential for the bank to hold the transaction as above, block my account entirely pending investigation; serve me notice to close the account because let's face it, unusually high values coming into the account and then being paid out to a new payee is high risk for the bank; or worse still, completely overreact and CIFAS me, I declined to do so and suggested they ask their friend who is a car dealer to help, as it would be considered usual activity on their account. The friend agreed and all was well, but that I should have had to have those concerns over helping my parent who was not doing anything illegal (which I don't think were without merit) is absolutely not reasonable. Most aren't going to know a car dealer who can help solve the issue.

You shouldn't give your bank details to people you don't know, or transfer to them, but removing cash as an option forces exactly that. 

eskbanker

etienneg said:
...if cash transactions above £1,000 were prohibited by law...

Just to be clear, the £1K limit referred to was a proposal relating to a daily cap on cash withdrawals from deposits to a personal bank account, rather than any attempt to prohibit large cash transactions as such, so that's quite a strawman!

ToastLady

stripling said:

hallmark said:

I might be withdrawing low thousands (maximum £3k) soon from either Nationwide or Natwest.  I was expecting to have to give the branch notice & provide ID but Natwest appear to go even further:

"be prepared for our branch colleagues to ask further questions about your withdrawal request which can sometimes take up to 30 minutes"

& also

"In some instances, we may decline the cash withdrawal based on the information provided surrounding the transaction."

Now I don't mind jumping through hoops to a moderate degree but I'm really not up for a 30 minute interview in order to obtain a small amount of my own money, for purposes which are absolutely none of Natwest's business.  I'm also slightly intrigued to know how long the interview will last & what the outcome will be as I'm intending to politely tell them I have no desire to divulge what I'll be doing with my money & shouldn't need to.

I do understand that they need reasonable precautions. I'm prepared to notify them, provide ID or meet other reasonable demands.  A 30-minute interview I have to "pass" in order to get my own money sounds way over the top though.

Anyhoo, I'm wondering if anybody has anecdotal stories of withdrawing cash from either institution or really any bank lately, so I'm better geared up for the faff.

thanks

I organised, in advance, the removal of £10,000 cash from one of my accounts in one of the big banks. I was doing this because my bank account in another country X regularly skimmed huge amounts off me in electronic money transfers. I was going to take it to country X the old fashioned way - in my bag. This was around 20 years ago. 

When I went into the big city branch to collect it they tried to stop me - huffing and puffing and trying to give me foolish reasons along the 'because we said so' line. I politely stood firm and refused this 'because we said so' reasoning. 

There weren't any big scares or publicity about people being scammed in those days and I refused to tell them what I wanted it for. It categorically was not their business. Even with current scam worries they should only ask the technical details of whether you know the recipient, are you sure, are you being threatened, etc., 

 After insisting repeatedly that it was mine and they had not one single piece of real legislation to stand on they very begrudgingly handed it over. 

Finally, the words 'money laundering' were muttered - at which point I nearly cried with laughter and frustration. They only had to look at my bank account to see in glorious black and white that the source of my funds was..... drum roll..... a well-known British company.  Me taking the money out of the account was totally irrelevant.  

Banks have become utterly neurotic about terrorism, money laundering and now scams. It's not all their fault because they've had the frighteners put on them by poorly worded and ill thought out legislation. However, they often over react to cover their own backs, and many staff are inadequately trained. 

It was ironic in many ways because at the time London estate agents and their conveyancing teams were literally taking huge wads of cash off foreign buyers no questions asked. 

I find myself in the same position, with foreign banks taking an extortionate amount in receiving fees for electronic transfers. At one point, my UK bank eventually convinced me that a bankers draft would be much safer. Never again, it took 6 weeks for the money to go through. Periodically over the years, I've taken out cash to take abroad, and always had a grilling. I haven't needed to do this for quite a few years now, but will need to next month. I can't even do a build up of cash using ATM's as I live in Scotland, which issue Scottish notes, which are not accepted by my foreign bank. Looking forward to it like a hole in the head.

GeoffTF

eskbanker said:

etienneg said:
...if cash transactions above £1,000 were prohibited by law...

Just to be clear, the £1K limit referred to was a proposal relating to a daily cap on cash withdrawals from a personal bank account, rather than any attempt to prohibit large cash transactions as such, so that's quite a strawman!

Actually, it was cash deposits, but it would probably have the effect of reducing withdrawal sizes and transaction sizes too.

jaypers

Not really sure what the issue is here. Due diligence by Banks is not only something they must do to stay in business (AML rules) but it also does help prevent crime. So many horrible crimes in society that are transacted by cash and never anything electronic. I think that in today’s society, far more large cash transactions are for some sort of crime or tax avoidance than those who aren’t. Yes a pain for anyone who needs cash for legitimate reasons but surely a small price to pay. 

Kim_13

jaypers said:

Not really sure what the issue is here. Due diligence by Banks is not only something they must do to stay in business (AML rules) but it also does help prevent crime. So many horrible crimes in society that are transacted by cash and never anything electronic. I think that in today’s society, far more large cash transactions are for some sort of crime or tax avoidance than those who aren’t. Yes a pain for anyone who needs cash for legitimate reasons but surely a small price to pay. 

The poster who was held at knifepoint and while muggers effected a transfer to their account is evidence that horrible crimes are transacted electronically. 

Due diligence is one thing, a hard limit entirely another. If you can evidence to the bank that you need the cash for a legitimate reason and give a specified period of notice, you should be able to transact in cash if you wish.

hallmark

jaypers said:

So many horrible crimes in society that are transacted by cash and never anything electronic.

Never anything electronic? There are many horrible electronic crimes.  Defrauding people out of their savings, Ransomware with demands for payment in Crypto, or blackmail whereby some dupe is misled into unwise behaviour thinking they're talking to somebody they're not for starters.