We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Santander COP workaround

2

Comments

  • soulsaver
    soulsaver Posts: 6,253 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 19 September at 1:30PM
    Another thing the app has over online is the reference shows for each payee in the 'payees' list, but not in the online payee list. And a search facility.
  • mebu60
    mebu60 Posts: 1,279 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    soulsaver said:
    Another thing the app has over online is the reference shows for each payee in the 'payees' list, but not in the online payee list. And a search facility.
    Yes, the nickname idea would cause them a lot of faff to implement as that would need to be displayed too. The simplest route, if they are not going to allow 'proceed at your own risk', would be to allow the payee name to be changed after CoP tick. 
    4.5 hours and still original transaction actioned by them not showing. These things are sent to try us! 
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 24,552 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 19 September at 3:47PM
    mebu60 said:
    soulsaver said:
    Another thing the app has over online is the reference shows for each payee in the 'payees' list, but not in the online payee list. And a search facility.
    Yes, the nickname idea would cause them a lot of faff to implement as that would need to be displayed too. The simplest route, if they are not going to allow 'proceed at your own risk', would be to allow the payee name to be changed after CoP tick. 
    4.5 hours and still original transaction actioned by them not showing. These things are sent to try us! 
    I'm not sure whether that would be any simpler for them to implement, because, rather than a new field, it would require a whole new screen where the account name could be edited but the sort code and account number cannot. And presumably they would want a record of the original matched payee name in case of future dispute.
    They've managed to implement a dropdown for the reason for the payment without too much difficulty, so I have faith in their ability to solve this problem if they have the incentive to do so.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 33,530 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    masonic said:
    mebu60 said:
    soulsaver said:
    Another thing the app has over online is the reference shows for each payee in the 'payees' list, but not in the online payee list. And a search facility.
    Yes, the nickname idea would cause them a lot of faff to implement as that would need to be displayed too. The simplest route, if they are not going to allow 'proceed at your own risk', would be to allow the payee name to be changed after CoP tick. 
    4.5 hours and still original transaction actioned by them not showing. These things are sent to try us! 
    I'm not sure whether that would be any simpler for them to implement, because, rather than a new field, it would require a whole new screen where the account name could be edited but the sort code and account number cannot.
    They've managed to implement a dropdown for the reason for the payment without too much difficulty, so I have faith in their ability to solve this problem if they have the incentive to do so.
    I suspect that their enthusiasm for addressing (or even recognising) this issue can be measured by the fact that this has been discussed in similar threads on here ever since CoP was introduced in 2021!
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 24,552 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    eskbanker said:
    masonic said:
    mebu60 said:
    soulsaver said:
    Another thing the app has over online is the reference shows for each payee in the 'payees' list, but not in the online payee list. And a search facility.
    Yes, the nickname idea would cause them a lot of faff to implement as that would need to be displayed too. The simplest route, if they are not going to allow 'proceed at your own risk', would be to allow the payee name to be changed after CoP tick. 
    4.5 hours and still original transaction actioned by them not showing. These things are sent to try us! 
    I'm not sure whether that would be any simpler for them to implement, because, rather than a new field, it would require a whole new screen where the account name could be edited but the sort code and account number cannot.
    They've managed to implement a dropdown for the reason for the payment without too much difficulty, so I have faith in their ability to solve this problem if they have the incentive to do so.
    I suspect that their enthusiasm for addressing (or even recognising) this issue can be measured by the fact that this has been discussed in similar threads on here ever since CoP was introduced in 2021!
    True, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Suspect it is a niche problem with a disproportionate impact here. So it will take a greater proportion of those affected having a grumble to put it on the radar.
  • mebu60
    mebu60 Posts: 1,279 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    The suggestion that the complaints person will be putting forward is to display the reference field on the list of payees on the online website as it is (apparently, I don't have the app) on the app. That would help a bit to distinguish different accounts if the payee has to be yourself going forward to get through CoP on personal savings accounts.

    Meanwhile they are dealing with my complaint as to why the payment set up by them Thursday 10:30 was blocked by the automated system and there's been no contact for four days. I wasted a lot of time Thursday checking if it had gone out yet, was out most of Friday and away the weekend. Since secure messaging was discontinued their contact methods require the customer to be available for an unknown period of time. There is also a modest loss of interest as I have been unable to move funds across but my main complaint is the amount of time I wasted checking if the payment had gone, the frustration involved and the sheer uselessness of their system that blocks a payment (that they set up for me!) and does nothing proactive about it.
  • Rollinghome
    Rollinghome Posts: 2,711 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Santander's online site was once the most user-friendly around.  Now, various piecemeal updates have left it as one of the worst.  They really need to look at how much the competition has improved. The implementation of COP by most banks has been a major advance but makes it all but essential to allow aliases for payees.
    There are workarounds of sorts, but they don't fully solve the problem.  It's easy enough to ignore the no-COP warnings, but I find that payments are then more likely to be queried by security - and with Santander that can be a bizarre and long-winded process that would test even the most patient.  
    An identifier can sometimes be placed in the reference field, but not for payees that require an account number there.  I was recently about to send a payment to an account I'd closed and forgotten to remove as a payee, because the entry was identical to a more recent account with them apart from two digits in their reference.  Unlikely to be a major disaster I know, but still a pain that could be avoided with account aliases.
    Santander used to be my one-stop hub for almost all of my banking. Now I'm gradually moving back to my long held Natwest account, once the clunkiest of them all, plus their Ulster Bank savings account, solely because it's so much less irritating to use. 
    Santander need to catch up.

  • mebu60
    mebu60 Posts: 1,279 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    £75 tax free compo for the inaction on the blocked payment. Subsequent shifting of funds to DF Capital this morning all gone through fine.

    Complaints person doesn't believe it's nailed on that won't be able to push through non-CoP-match in the future, as discussed earlier in the thread it's only a validation not a block. She feels it was most likely blocked because it was a transfer to a savings institution, they've had a significant increase in 'move your money' scams recently. Pointed out that I had an explicit message at the very end of the process stating that the block was due to CoP match failure. That surprised her and that's when she confirmed is only for validation not to stop payment if you progress at your own risk after all their warnings. 
  • I really don't understand these COP issues when COP has not even been fully introduced. I think the banks have purposely scared people with the type of wording they use to suggest there is a problem with the payee details all in the premis of getting the public used to full COP when it comes as well as banks alleviating themselves of responsibility for scams.

    It matters not one iota what you put in the payee field or whether you select personal or business. COP can be overridden and ignored. Never has it led to my funds being blocked.

    Opening 3-4 new accounts monthly I fund from Chase/SAN predominantly and also Barclays/RBOS/LBG regularly along with many many smaller banks and have never had any issues in sending funds and I always use my own payee naming convention to suit my requirement, never my own name nor that which a society/bank may suggest. I always get the check messages, but ignore them all.

    I also believe CS staff at banks have a very poor understanding of COP and mis-inform the public regularly on how it works and what payees names should be used.

    I also believe many believe COP is the reason for being unable to send funds immediately to newly opened accounts when it's simply down to time factors, in that not all banks/societies put new accounts details into the external banking domain immediately and until they do those payments in can't be made. Assumptions are then made that it's down to COP or the banks online wording may suggest it's COP, when it's not.

    As long as you have the correct sort/account/ref (if req) then it will always get there until such time that COP is fully rolled out and used by all which is a long long way off.
  • 1spiral
    1spiral Posts: 168 Forumite
    100 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper

    An identifier can sometimes be placed in the reference field, but not for payees that require an account number there.
    I have a Joint account with First Direct and this causes us problems because for these institutions, usually the same sort code and account number are used. FD in their wisdom will not let you have 2 different "nicknames" for accounts with same sort code and account number, although they will let you have different descriptions in the reference field.
    I couldn't get the CS to understand the issue. They didn't seem to get that both get listed with the latest "nickname" (the first one gets overwritten) which is totally useless to me if I want one listed for me and the other for my spouse. We end up with 2 accounts listed with the same name and need to know the different references for each of us to differentiate.

Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 346.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 451.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 238.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 614.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 174.8K Life & Family
  • 252.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.