bank refusing cash withdraw

Shakin_Steve

Both sides of the argument are being taken to extremes here. I can see how the banks might act in order to save themselves from financial loss or fines, and I can see why a lot of people would bristle at the perceived intrusion into their private affairs. There is no consistency in how people are treated either, because to be consistent would be showing the fraudsters how to get around that very consistency.
So, basically, it's a lottery. The banks will stop you sending £20,000 to your dear old mum in case you are being scammed and you try to recover your money. But they obviously didn't stop the idiot who sent £20,000 to the nice man who was going to invest it for them, and now is going to cost the bank dear.
It's a bit of a mess.

Hoenir

[Deleted User] said:

Hoenir said:

In this day and age who still deals in large sums of cash.  Other than someone who wishes to have no auditable trace of the transaction......... 

A whole host of people would like to, for various reasons, and that doesn't even include those who don't trust banks (an eminently sensible position to take) yet are now forced to use them. The idea that only criminals wish to use cash is absurd, especially when you consider that enormous criminal enterprises in the UK are more prevalent than ever, and apparently have no problems conducting transactions as they see fit.

I didn't say criminal activity. Merely that some people wish to leave no trace of financial transactions made.  Never been any different. Though as society becomes less and less cash based. Such activity increasingly stands out from the crowd and those that express umbrage simply draw more attention upon themselves. When the matter could  be closed in a matter of a couple of minutes. The person asking for the information has zero interest in what it is. They are doing their job. Once completed they'll move onto their next task. 

Shakin_Steve

Hoenir said:

[Deleted User] said:

Hoenir said:

In this day and age who still deals in large sums of cash.  Other than someone who wishes to have no auditable trace of the transaction......... 

A whole host of people would like to, for various reasons, and that doesn't even include those who don't trust banks (an eminently sensible position to take) yet are now forced to use them. The idea that only criminals wish to use cash is absurd, especially when you consider that enormous criminal enterprises in the UK are more prevalent than ever, and apparently have no problems conducting transactions as they see fit.

I didn't say criminal activity. Merely that some people wish to leave no trace of financial transactions made.  Never been any different. Though as society becomes less and less cash based. Such activity increasingly stands out from the crowd and those that express umbrage simply draw more attention upon themselves. When the matter could  be closed in a matter of a couple of minutes. The person asking for the information has zero interest in what it is. They are doing their job. Once completed they'll move onto their next task. 

"As society becomes less and less cash based" could read, to some, as "As society gets less and less freedom to do as they wish with their own money".
There's always two sides to it. I, personally, do not want banks or councils or the government knowing how much I spend on a night out or give my son for his birthday.

Shakin_Steve

Not advising anyone else to do it, but I always have a reasonable amount of cash. If you can withdraw £500 a day from an ATM, it doesn't take long to build up a reserve.

ZeroSum

Shakin_Steve said:

Hoenir said:

[Deleted User] said:

Hoenir said:

In this day and age who still deals in large sums of cash.  Other than someone who wishes to have no auditable trace of the transaction......... 

A whole host of people would like to, for various reasons, and that doesn't even include those who don't trust banks (an eminently sensible position to take) yet are now forced to use them. The idea that only criminals wish to use cash is absurd, especially when you consider that enormous criminal enterprises in the UK are more prevalent than ever, and apparently have no problems conducting transactions as they see fit.

I didn't say criminal activity. Merely that some people wish to leave no trace of financial transactions made.  Never been any different. Though as society becomes less and less cash based. Such activity increasingly stands out from the crowd and those that express umbrage simply draw more attention upon themselves. When the matter could  be closed in a matter of a couple of minutes. The person asking for the information has zero interest in what it is. They are doing their job. Once completed they'll move onto their next task. 

"As society becomes less and less cash based" could read, to some, as "As society gets less and less freedom to do as they wish with their own money".
There's always two sides to it. I, personally, do not want banks or councils or the government knowing how much I spend on a night out or give my son for his birthday.

Councils wouldn't know what you're spending nor would they really care. Probably same for government.
Banks wouldn't know how much you spent on a night out if you used multiple accounts and ditto for government. 

Also you need to remember this is a money saving forum, so the idea of a decent chunk of cash sitting under a mattress earning no interest isn't going to sit well in here.

Thankfully I'm not that paranoid but like many savvy folk on here, I do utilise multiple bank accounts. So banks would never know the full picture of my spending habits regardless of the fact I never use cash

Shakin_Steve

ZeroSum said:

Shakin_Steve said:

Hoenir said:

[Deleted User] said:

Hoenir said:

In this day and age who still deals in large sums of cash.  Other than someone who wishes to have no auditable trace of the transaction......... 

A whole host of people would like to, for various reasons, and that doesn't even include those who don't trust banks (an eminently sensible position to take) yet are now forced to use them. The idea that only criminals wish to use cash is absurd, especially when you consider that enormous criminal enterprises in the UK are more prevalent than ever, and apparently have no problems conducting transactions as they see fit.

I didn't say criminal activity. Merely that some people wish to leave no trace of financial transactions made.  Never been any different. Though as society becomes less and less cash based. Such activity increasingly stands out from the crowd and those that express umbrage simply draw more attention upon themselves. When the matter could  be closed in a matter of a couple of minutes. The person asking for the information has zero interest in what it is. They are doing their job. Once completed they'll move onto their next task. 

"As society becomes less and less cash based" could read, to some, as "As society gets less and less freedom to do as they wish with their own money".
There's always two sides to it. I, personally, do not want banks or councils or the government knowing how much I spend on a night out or give my son for his birthday.

Councils wouldn't know what you're spending nor would they really care. Probably same for government.
Banks wouldn't know how much you spent on a night out if you used multiple accounts and ditto for government. 

Also you need to remember this is a money saving forum, so the idea of a decent chunk of cash sitting under a mattress earning no interest isn't going to sit well in here.

Thankfully I'm not that paranoid but like many savvy folk on here, I do utilise multiple bank accounts. So banks would never know the full picture of my spending habits regardless of the fact I never use cash

I couldn't care less how it 'sits' with anyone. That's the crux of the matter, you see, it's my money and I'll do what I want with it.

GeoffTF

[Deleted User] said:

Not sure what problems I have.

If all your banking transactions all go straight through without any problems, why are you bothering to post here?

[Deleted User] said:

There are no 'clear rules'.

The regulator does not have clear rules, but the bank will have clear rules for their front line staff. Those rules will change from time to time, and may be a little different for different banks. Nonetheless, the front line staff will just be following a fixed procedure. They will not be empowered to exempt you from the checks. Ranting about it will just flag you up as an obstructive customer, and that is not going to help at all.

[Deleted User]

GeoffTF said:

[Deleted User] said:

Not sure what problems I have.

If all your banking transactions all go straight through without any problems, why are you bothering to post here?

Because I'm not a narcissist, and don't post only about issues that affect me?

GeoffTF said:

[Deleted User] said:

Not sure what problems I have.

If all your banking transactions all go straight through without any problems, why are you bothering to post here?

[Deleted User] said:

There are no 'clear rules'.

The regulator does not have clear rules, but the bank will have clear rules for their front line staff. Those rules will change from time to time, and may be a little different for different banks. Nonetheless, the front line staff will just be following a fixed procedure. They will not be empowered to exempt you from the checks. Ranting about it will just flag you up as an obstructive customer, and that is not going to help at all.

I'm afraid that starts misinformed and becomes unhinged. There is no consistency between how customers are treated, even in the same branch, let alone across branches or across banks. And I don't know why you're talking about ranting? Is 'ranting' posting an opinion you disagree with? In which case I now see why you asked me that first question.

kaMelo

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
Some of us are not bothered. We politely answer the questions and the payment goes through.

I'm sure that's true. Some people would surrender their privacy then chuck themselves off a cliff if the government told them it was for their own good. That aside, if you read even the posts in this forum you'd know that jumping through their hoops is often not enough to gain access to your money.

GeoffTF said:
It is not when the bank has to pay compensation if you are being scammed, or if there is any possibility of money laundering.

That is simply not true. There is no requirement for banks to compensate customers for misuse of cash resulting from bank withdrawals. Their involvement runs to a duty of care and the rare occasions where customers are forced to withdraw cash under duress and the bank ignored clear evidence to that effect.

Well you'd think that was the case but sadly it's not.  A not too dissimilar situation to yours, for not invoking the banking protocol an allowing the customer to withdraw £3,500 to pay a tradesman the bank were forced to refund the money.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4745909.pdf

As opposed to the bank who did invoke the banking protocol who were forced to pay £150 compensation.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5222421.pdf

Given the liabilities of the banks involved it's no surprise to find that banks now are over protective. compensation sums for over protection are much lower in value than refunds for failing to do what the regulator expects of them.

For what it's worth I agree with you in priciple, that people should take personal responsibility, however  'it's always someone else's fault/responsibility'  is the new default position which makes banking much more onerous for everyone.

[Deleted User]

kaMelo said:

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
Some of us are not bothered. We politely answer the questions and the payment goes through.

I'm sure that's true. Some people would surrender their privacy then chuck themselves off a cliff if the government told them it was for their own good. That aside, if you read even the posts in this forum you'd know that jumping through their hoops is often not enough to gain access to your money.

GeoffTF said:
It is not when the bank has to pay compensation if you are being scammed, or if there is any possibility of money laundering.

That is simply not true. There is no requirement for banks to compensate customers for misuse of cash resulting from bank withdrawals. Their involvement runs to a duty of care and the rare occasions where customers are forced to withdraw cash under duress and the bank ignored clear evidence to that effect.

Well you'd think that was the case but sadly it's not.  A not too dissimilar situation to yours, for not invoking the banking protocol an allowing the customer to withdraw £3,500 to pay a tradesman the bank were forced to refund the money.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4745909.pdf

No, what I said is correct. I gave the exception of duress, and the example you cite had duress established by the bank yet ignored. That's why compensation was paid. A bank has no compulsion to compensate in the instance of cash withdrawals, provided basic checks are made, unless there is evidence of duress or other criminality.

..she says that she told the staff member that she was getting a lift home from the builder and she was

“not happy with the work it was very untidy but you get what you pay for

...the builder was outside the branch Mrs R had stated that she was not happy with the work, she was relying on the builder to get home and she was paying in cash. 

kaMelo said:
Given the liabilities of the banks involved it's no surprise to find that banks now are over protective. compensation sums for over protection are much lower in value than refunds for failing to do what the regulator expects of them.

For what it's worth I agree with you in priciple, that people should take personal responsibility, however  'it's always someone else's fault/responsibility'  is the new default position which makes banking much more onerous for everyone.

Most of the blame can be apportioned to the government, as I've said. They have imposed these rules on banks, and championed the system of online transaction, so that people don't lose trust in the banking system. Because when that happens, the economy suffers and, more pertinently, people are more difficult to control. Where I do blame banks is for their incompetent and blatantly uncaring implementation of these rules, as you can see in the second example you posted.

As for the issue people not taking responsibility, that is very true. It's always someone else to blame. But that's only tangential to the reasons for these rules. They have nothing to do with protecting people in the moral sense (mostly stupid people, but still), that's merely a byproduct of the key aim of control of the population.