Halifax will not believe it's not a scam

eskbanker

LindsayT said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that although that woman had warnings, she was still allowed to send the money, where as I didn't get any warning, I was just told they would not allow it.

There are perhaps two separate issues being conflated here - there are fairly generic automated warnings presented when setting up new payees (Confirmation of Payee checks for payees at UK institutions participating in that scheme, and presumably something less specific for overseas transfers), and these won't typically prevent progress if the payer is prepared to acknowledge the risks, etc.

However, as an entirely separate exercise, transactions that trigger anti-fraud algorithms will result in a manual dialogue with the fraud team, and if the payer is unable to convince the caller that the transaction should proceed then it simply won't be allowed to, but conversely many will be permitted, with warnings given.

Unsurprisingly, the detail of these algorithms aren't publicised, but the questions you were asked ought to give some clues about exactly which alarm bells were ringing - the destination country may be viewed as an unacceptable risk, for example, or the transaction value relative to your account usage profile.

friolento

LindsayT said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that although that woman had warnings, she was still allowed to send the money, where as I didn't get any warning, I was just told they would not allow it.

The automatic money laundering checks are random, for good reason, because if they weren’t, fraudsters would soon exploit the check patterns, or the money transfer system could grind to a halt.

It is also logical that different checks are carried out for different people, based on their transaction history, the amounts involved, the destinations involved, and the recipients involved.

It’s also a fact that checks continue to become ever more stringent, as a consequence of banks limiting their ever increasing liability for refunds to people who regret having sent money.

born_again

friolento said:

LindsayT said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that although that woman had warnings, she was still allowed to send the money, where as I didn't get any warning, I was just told they would not allow it.

The automatic money laundering checks are random, for good reason, because if they weren’t, fraudsters would soon exploit the check patterns, or the money transfer system could grind to a halt.

It is also logical that different checks are carried out for different people, based on their transaction history, the amounts involved, the destinations involved, and the recipients involved.

It’s also a fact that checks continue to become ever more stringent, as a consequence of banks limiting their ever increasing liability for refunds to people who regret having sent money.

None of the cases here were automatic. They were part of the banks process when someone is trying to make a payment, while talking to a staff member, or online & the warning given while making the payment.

Nothing bank security systems do is RANDOM. There is a lot of work that goes on in the back ground on these.
Any staff member mentioning checks are random gets a serious kick up the backside & some more training. Personally reported reps for saying this & having to deal with the resulting complaint.

soolin

I get a fraud warning every time I do a bank transfer to a new person and a message to ensure that I definiitely know the person and which reminds me about the scam . I have used bank transfers on Smile, First Direct and Metro and all make me tick a box and make sure I have read the warning before I proceed. Virtually none of my transfers have even been £25 , and I’ve had the warning for as little as £5.

Ergates

LindsayT said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that although that woman had warnings, she was still allowed to send the money, where as I didn't get any warning, I was just told they would not allow it.

And when, surprise surprise, it turned out to be a scam, she demanded that she be reimbursed by the banks and complained when they refused.

Under the new legislation she'd have been far more likely to succeed.

It's because of people like her that the legislation is being brought in, and *you* are suffering the consequences.

BlueonBlue

Why doesnt the OP comply with the previous hoops Wise ask for in sending a photo
As the Wise transfer option is more cost effective than your bank ever will be ....now and in the future.

A photo can be sent via the Wise app on a smartphone or via your laptop or computor and Wise can be phoned up for help and advice.

If your not technical Im sure that with some help this option is doable perhaps have a re-think of your options as this one is the best even with the extra safety step of providing a photo and ID.

After all your bank hasnt worked out has it ....so forget them and move on move forward.

The reasoning here is using Wise will be far better long term than dealing with banks who will cost you more money..
Other reputable transfer companys also exist if you dont want to use Wise .

TFL bus passes need photos .