Banks to be able to hold suspicious payments for 4 days

masonic

NorwichMan said:

It's like we are all being signed up to an insurance scheme to compensate victims, without being able to opt out. Does this do anything to discourage the fraudsters?

If you are facing financial difficulties or looking for a quick way to make money and get invited to get involved in something like this for good money, will you be more or less likely to do so in the knowledge that your victims will get refunded by their bank?

k12479

I see risks that some people may get de-banked, some may have their ability to make transfers restricted, in practise even if not officially, and many will suffer inconvenience.

Hopefully the adults amongst us won't be too affected.

eskbanker

k12479 said:

I see risks that some people may get de-banked, some may have their ability to make transfers restricted, in practise even if not officially...

Care to share your workings, bearing in mind that this change simply extends an existing window?

NorwichMan

masonic said:

If you are facing financial difficulties or looking for a quick way to make money and get invited to get involved in something like this for good money, will you be more or less likely to do so in the knowledge that your victims will get refunded by their bank?

I do feel sympathy for victims, perhaps I will get caught out one day. And what Shakin_Steve said made me think, perhaps the banks, and indeed all of us, contributed to the rise in scams by embracing digital banking and mobile apps, which perhaps facilitated such scams by making it that much easier to make payments.

masonic

NorwichMan said:

I do feel sympathy for victims, perhaps I will get caught out one day. And what Shakin_Steve said made me think, perhaps the banks, and indeed all of us, contributed to the rise in scams by embracing digital banking and mobile apps, which perhaps facilitated such scams by making it that much easier to make payments.

I think it is a mistake to believe that fraud wasn't a problem before internet banking. The methods may have changed, but the problem has existed for centuries.

You could equally say that improvements in telecommunications are responsible. It simply wasn't economical to make the volume of international calls in the past to make today's scam call centres a profitable industry. Likewise, the demise of the postal system and replacement with email as a means of communication makes for a softer target for interception and impersonation.

Perhaps in the days of branch based banking where everyone had a personal relationship with their bank manager more of these things could be spotted and stopped, but nobody here bears any responsibility for the banks moving to more profitable business models that don't include the personal touch.

k12479

eskbanker said:

k12479 said:

I see risks that some people may get de-banked, some may have their ability to make transfers restricted, in practise even if not officially...

Care to share your workings, bearing in mind that this change simply extends an existing window?

Merely a hunch and that several actions to protect consumers from themselves in the past have had entirely foreseeable unintended consequences.

To be clear, I don't mean this 4 day period in itself will have that effect, mostly the £85k refund amount will but the extension gives more scope for restricting transfers. Shedding or limiting customers who are a liability, or a risk of being one, is a sensible precaution for any business.

masonic

k12479 said:

eskbanker said:

k12479 said:

I see risks that some people may get de-banked, some may have their ability to make transfers restricted, in practise even if not officially...

Care to share your workings, bearing in mind that this change simply extends an existing window?

Merely a hunch and that several actions to protect consumers from themselves in the past have had entirely foreseeable unintended consequences.

To be clear, I don't mean this 4 day period in itself will have that effect, mostly the £85k refund amount will but the extension gives more scope for restricting transfers. Shedding or limiting customers who are a liability, or a risk of being one, is a sensible precaution for any business.

I'd say limiting customers is the intended consequence of all of these measures. They've been brought in owing to a concern banks have not been reviewing and stopping enough high risk transactions to date.

eskbanker

k12479 said:

eskbanker said:

k12479 said:

I see risks that some people may get de-banked, some may have their ability to make transfers restricted, in practise even if not officially...

Care to share your workings, bearing in mind that this change simply extends an existing window?

Merely a hunch and that several actions to protect consumers from themselves in the past have had entirely foreseeable unintended consequences.

To be clear, I don't mean this 4 day period in itself will have that effect, mostly the £85k refund amount will but the extension gives more scope for restricting transfers. Shedding or limiting customers who are a liability, or a risk of being one, is a sensible precaution for any business.

The £85K refund amount is a reduction on what's been in place before (for most transactions, i.e. those from the major banks)!  Reimbursement under the voluntary CRM code over the past five years has been uncapped, and the original proposal for this legislation was to restrict it to £415K.