bank refusing cash withdraw

born_again

[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.

So which bank is this then?

Nasqueron

[Deleted User] said:

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).

Banks were bailed out by government either buying shares or giving loans, which all had to be (and were) repaid. NatWest is the main one they still have, unfortunately we've largely sold them for ideological reasons 2010-2024 even though it was at a loss for the state. The banking crash was the fallout of the US markets and reckless traders in investment

PocketWatchMan

Emily_Joy said:

[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.

Sorry, but somebody very clearly needs to pay attention to the banking laws and statements made by the Bank of England. When you put your money into a bank account - it is theirs. 

GeoffTF

Emily_Joy said:

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.

In over 50 years banking, I have never had any real difficulty in getting money out of my account. Sometimes, there has been a technical failure, and I have to use another card. I very rarely use ATMs nowadays, but they sometimes run out of money, and you have to use another one. Online systems sometimes go down, but I have not been affected by that. I have been asked questions on a very few occasions when making very large payments (more than most people earn in a year). The bank has been satisfied with my answers, and the payments have then gone straight through. If you are at all prepared, it is very unlikely that you will encounter any real problems making payments.

Shakin_Steve

jimjames said:

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

I obviously don't have as many accounts as you but I could get over £1000 a day. But my point was more about keeping a wodge in reserve, rather than needing to get it in one go.

Emily_Joy

GeoffTF said:

Emily_Joy said:

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.

In over 50 years banking, I have never had any real difficulty in getting money out of my account.

Me neither, though I am much younger than you. However, reading one of the Ombudsman's decisions quoted on this thread makes me worry that my UK bank could refuse to transfer the funds I hold with them into my German account until I visit the branch and speak to the UK police(!) and as a result I will not be able to pay for accommodation in Germany and it will cause all sorts of complications. The easiest solution to me seems to be to take cash next time I go - at least this way I know for sure I have necessities covered. 

GeoffTF

Emily_Joy said:

GeoffTF said:

Emily_Joy said:

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.

In over 50 years banking, I have never had any real difficulty in getting money out of my account.

Me neither, though I am much younger than you. However, reading one of the Ombudsman's decisions quoted on this thread makes me worry that my UK bank could refuse to transfer the funds I hold with them into my German account until I visit the branch and speak to the UK police(!) and as a result I will not be able to pay for accommodation in Germany and it will cause all sorts of complications. The easiest solution to me seems to be to take cash next time I go - at least this way I know for sure I have necessities covered. 

I do not know anything about you, but I expect that your fears are unfounded, provided that you are sensible. Talking to your bank may help. Most people pay with UK no fees credit or debit cards for short trips abroad. If you want to transfer a large sum to an account with a bank in Germany, the bank might ask questions, but you are unlikely to have trouble once they have established that the account belongs to you. The bank would not be liable for compensation under the APP fraud rules:

https://www.psr.org.uk/information-for-consumers/app-fraud-reimbursement-protections/

Hopefully, you have not given your bank reason to suspect that you are a scammer, money launderer or sanctions buster! The police are not usually interested in financial crime. Lloyds Banking Group is keen to get their customers to fill in forms in branch. Santander is keen to do everything over the telephone. I do not know about the other banks. Some of them do not have branches, but I do not know whether that is good or bad.