bank refusing cash withdraw

[Deleted User]

kaMelo said:

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

As an aside, the compensation awarded in this instance was little better than a slap in the face. It barely even covered her out of pocket expenses, let alone her time. When the taxpayer is forced to bail out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions due to their incompetence and outright criminality, it's disgraceful that we get treated like this, and almost beyond belief that some people still cheerlead for them (I'm not referring to you).

artyboy

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
I am tempted to say that if that is how you come across, it is not surprising you have problems

Not sure what problems I have, but the fact you think it acceptable that a bank should maliciously deny a person access to their own funds for failing to display the requisite level of sycophancy and capitulation to authoritarianism underlines my point.

The irony that your language is actually underlining @geofftf s point rather than your own is clearly lost on you. If you don't like the current rules, don't blame the banks, blame the government, or find a country with a culture more aligned to yours that you can be happy in. 

Otherwise, you might as well shout at the tide when it is coming in.

[Deleted User]

artyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
I am tempted to say that if that is how you come across, it is not surprising you have problems

Not sure what problems I have, but the fact you think it acceptable that a bank should maliciously deny a person access to their own funds for failing to display the requisite level of sycophancy and capitulation to authoritarianism underlines my point.

The irony that your language is actually underlining @geofftf s point rather than your own is clearly lost on you. If you don't like the current rules, don't blame the banks, blame the government, or find a country with a culture more aligned to yours that you can be happy in. 

Otherwise, you might as well shout at the tide when it is coming in.

Ouch! I bet that nerve hurt when it was struck.

kaMelo

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

The point is, given the bank was found liable to refund the customer in that scenario, the next time a similar scenario arises, you for example, if when questioned the bank have any doubts over the validity of the answers then they are simply not going to take the risk, they would rather block and invoke the banking protocol. The liability of the bank is much reduced in doing so. I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't, but it's where we are given the current regulatory expectations of financial institutions.

[Deleted User] said:

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.

Whilst I'm sure there was/is some Government involvement that is due to the pressure placed upon it from consumer groups such as Which who launched a super complaint to the FCA in 2016 over APP fraud, Most newspapers have financial journalists who have been campaigning for extra protection and of course Martin Lewis too.  Why were they doing so? because people who had been scammed were very vocal in complaining to these groups.  I'm pretty sure that banks would rather not be so involved in questioning people's spending habits, it takes time and costs them money to do so and even when banks do things by the book people still make complaints and take them through to the ombudsman believing they have no responsibility for their own situation. 
We may not like it but that's where we are, if you are so unhappy then complain to your MP.

artyboy

[Deleted User] said:

artyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
I am tempted to say that if that is how you come across, it is not surprising you have problems

Not sure what problems I have, but the fact you think it acceptable that a bank should maliciously deny a person access to their own funds for failing to display the requisite level of sycophancy and capitulation to authoritarianism underlines my point.

The irony that your language is actually underlining @geofftf s point rather than your own is clearly lost on you. If you don't like the current rules, don't blame the banks, blame the government, or find a country with a culture more aligned to yours that you can be happy in. 

Otherwise, you might as well shout at the tide when it is coming in.

Ouch! I bet that nerve hurt when it was struck.

...and this is why engaging with people that shout at the tide is best avoided. 

I'm out. 

GeoffTF

artyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

artyboy said:

[Deleted User] said:

GeoffTF said:
I am tempted to say that if that is how you come across, it is not surprising you have problems

Not sure what problems I have, but the fact you think it acceptable that a bank should maliciously deny a person access to their own funds for failing to display the requisite level of sycophancy and capitulation to authoritarianism underlines my point.

The irony that your language is actually underlining @geofftf s point rather than your own is clearly lost on you. If you don't like the current rules, don't blame the banks, blame the government, or find a country with a culture more aligned to yours that you can be happy in. 

Otherwise, you might as well shout at the tide when it is coming in.

Ouch! I bet that nerve hurt when it was struck.

...and this is why engaging with people that shout at the tide is best avoided.

I'm out. 

Precisely, it is a waste of time.

[Deleted User]

kaMelo said:
The point is, given the bank was found liable to refund the customer in that scenario, the next time a similar scenario arises, you for example, if when questioned the bank have any doubts over the validity of the answers then they are simply not going to take the risk, they would rather block and invoke the banking protocol. The liability of the bank is much reduced in doing so.

You're talking about something beyond what was being discussed. GeoffTF declared, without evidence and quite wrongly, that banks are obliged to refund on cash withdrawals. I corrected him and explained that only in certain very limited circumstances might this occur, including where duress was evident yet ignored. You posted an example of a bank being found liable for refund and I pointed out that it was exactly because of the reason I had cited - that duress was present yet ignored by the bank. That was the only point I was making.

What you say is right, though, and I addressed this too. Rather than perform the task properly, using qualified staff trained in risk assessment and advanced customer liaison techniques, they prefer to muddle through it, messing up one day, over-correcting the next and generally covering their own backsides. And what of the customer? The second example you posted demonstrates the typical level of care the customer receives, and the dignity with which they're treated.

kaMelo said:Whilst I'm sure there was/is some Government involvement that is due to the pressure placed upon it from consumer groups such as Which who launched a super complaint to the FCA in 2016 over APP fraud, Most newspapers have financial journalists who have been campaigning for extra protection and of course Martin Lewis too.  Why were they doing so? because people who had been scammed were very vocal in complaining to these groups.  I'm pretty sure that banks would rather not be so involved in questioning people's spending habits, it takes time and costs them money to do so and even when banks do things by the book people still make complaints and take them through to the ombudsman believing they have no responsibility for their own situation. 

We may not like it but that's where we are, if you are so unhappy then complain to your MP.

Extra protection is a great idea but that would be a generous interpretation of what we have. There are innumerable improvements that can be made before this level of authoritarianism, at national level and at banking level, and indeed if such improvements were made it would probably render much of the current protocol moot. I transferred some funds from one major bank to another major bank last week and it couldn't even verify the latter bank. The banks seemingly aren't able to implement a basic verification system, even between themselves, yet apparently they're qualified to judge the validity of a customer's personal purchase.

As I say, the legislation came from the government. That is one major disaster the banks can't take credit for. But ask yourself whether protection that disproportionately benefits the reckless, the greedy and the outright idiotic is any kind of success. When the vulnerable old lady pays her savings over to a builder online, then that builder takes the money and runs, what protection does she get from the government or the banks? A big, fat zero. But if she had the brains of a louse and the ego of a rockstar and sent the money to 'Brad Pitt' on his oil rig, she'd get the whole lot back within five days. Do you think such a situation is fair, or is it something that might genuinely be discussed with an MP (mine being Tim Farron, who is very much of the mindset that people should be protected when they are disadvantaged in the course of doing the right thing).

boingy

ZeroSum said:

...the idea of a decent chunk of cash sitting under a mattress earning no interest isn't going to sit well in here.

And yet, for some folks, that will be the end result if the banks continue to make it harder to deposit, withdraw and transfer funds. A bank that makes it difficult for you to use your money is missing the whole point of banks.

35har1old

boingy said:

It should not take 15 minutes of phone  interrogation to determine whether a customer is making a legitimate transaction. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable would presumably be happy for a shop to search their bag(s) at the exit and for a cop to search their car every time they park. The vast majority of people are not being scammed.

Shops already do

35har1old

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.

So do you pay your son cash