bank refusing cash withdraw

MattMattMattUK

boingy said:

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.

Banks would love to not have to bother with KYC, with anti-fraud checks, with refunding people who send money to fraudsters etc. because it costs them time and probably hundreds of millions every year to operate. They do not do it for fun, they do it because the government forces them to.

[Deleted User]

35har1old said:

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

They shouldn't, because it's illegal without consent.

35har1old

lee49 said:

the amount was 5k, the bank royal bank of Scotland but via a NatWest branch. I ordered the money and had valid ID. the demanding an invoice for what I was using the money for.  yes Typo FCA not fcc

Could not have paid by DC

35har1old

[Deleted User] said:

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).

Did you go ahead with the transfer or where you prevented 
Did it tell you why it failed to match

[Deleted User]

35har1old said:'

Did you go ahead with the transfer or where you prevented 

Did it tell you why it failed to match

Yes, I went ahead and transferred it. The point I was making is that the banks cannot even implement a basic verification system. When I looked at the second bank's blurb I found that it says 'We are not part of the bank verification scheme'. It did not explain why. Perhaps they haven't got around to it yet, or just don't deem it particularly important.

Shakin_Steve

35har1old 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.

So do you pay your son cash

You, or anyone else, will never know 🙂

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:
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...

[Deleted User] said:

35har1old said:'

Did you go ahead with the transfer or where you prevented 

Did it tell you why it failed to match

Yes, I went ahead and transferred it. The point I was making is that the banks cannot even implement a basic verification system. When I looked at the second bank's blurb I found that it says 'We are not part of the bank verification scheme'. It did not explain why. Perhaps they haven't got around to it yet, or just don't deem it particularly important.

Which major bank were you transferring funds to?  The Confirmation of Payee implementation was phased, to get the (small number of) bigger players onboard before rounding up the larger number of smaller players, so there shouldn't be any of the major banks not in the loop by now....

jimjames

lee49 said:

born_again said:

lee49 said:

My bank decide they now require an actual invoice for the funds that I wish t withdraw.  this cannot be right, provide right ID, order in advance  as requested.. this must be over reach its a bank policy not fcc regulation thus they surely cannot enforce it

So can we take it they asked what the money was for & you told them it was to pay for some work being done?
I which case a invoice would be a reasonable request. Given the number of rouge traders about.
What your gender or look like has nothing to do with this.
I have spoken to people from all walks of life, who have fallen for this type of stuff. 

wow I am shocked, it seems the fact it is my money does not resonate with you.  why would an invoice be reasonable request it has nothing to do with them, 

Draw it from a cash machine? No questions asked by that

jimjames

Shakin_Steve said:

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.

If you have multiple bank accounts you could do £5000 in a day. Having previously paid a builder for work in cash I needed to do just that and there definitely wasn't an invoice to show

Emily_Joy

[Deleted User] said:

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).

I don't quite see how it is supposed to support faith in the banking system when it seems quite easy to get money that are legally yours in, and not so easy to get money out. The funds are only useful to me if I can do something with them.