We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
e-ISAs - generally nervous
Options
Comments
-
masonic said:clairec666 said:Albermarle said:And often you don't get a normal account number and sort code which can feel a bit unsettling.
It can, but if my memory serves me correctly I can not recall any thread on this forum, where money has been lost permanently due to this.
In most business it is normal to pay into the sellers/suppliers bank account, rather than sending them money directly.I'm not really understanding the problem. In the old days you had some accounts with six digit sort codes and eight digit account numbers, and others requiring a roll number or reference. A mistake with either numbering system would result in a misdirected payment and there was no confirmation of payee. The solution was to send a small test payment and confirm this was received before sending a larger payment. It didn't matter whether or not it was a "normal" account number. The only way to avoid the situation was to use a savings account with the same bank as your current account so that you could make an internal transfer (also this was often quicker than a 3 working day BACS clearing cycle).Now we have Confirmation of Payee, which has even been extended to accounts that require a roll number or reference, with savings accounts assigning account names based on reference field. So this is a problem that resides in the past. In fact, banks seem to prevent you sending payments to accounts where you have not specified sort code, account number and reference where it is required, and will throw up warnings if they cannot verify the name on the account matches.1 -
clairec666 said:masonic said:clairec666 said:Albermarle said:And often you don't get a normal account number and sort code which can feel a bit unsettling.
It can, but if my memory serves me correctly I can not recall any thread on this forum, where money has been lost permanently due to this.
In most business it is normal to pay into the sellers/suppliers bank account, rather than sending them money directly.I'm not really understanding the problem. In the old days you had some accounts with six digit sort codes and eight digit account numbers, and others requiring a roll number or reference. A mistake with either numbering system would result in a misdirected payment and there was no confirmation of payee. The solution was to send a small test payment and confirm this was received before sending a larger payment. It didn't matter whether or not it was a "normal" account number. The only way to avoid the situation was to use a savings account with the same bank as your current account so that you could make an internal transfer (also this was often quicker than a 3 working day BACS clearing cycle).Now we have Confirmation of Payee, which has even been extended to accounts that require a roll number or reference, with savings accounts assigning account names based on reference field. So this is a problem that resides in the past. In fact, banks seem to prevent you sending payments to accounts where you have not specified sort code, account number and reference where it is required, and will throw up warnings if they cannot verify the name on the account matches.1 -
friolento said:clairec666 said:masonic said:clairec666 said:Albermarle said:And often you don't get a normal account number and sort code which can feel a bit unsettling.
It can, but if my memory serves me correctly I can not recall any thread on this forum, where money has been lost permanently due to this.
In most business it is normal to pay into the sellers/suppliers bank account, rather than sending them money directly.I'm not really understanding the problem. In the old days you had some accounts with six digit sort codes and eight digit account numbers, and others requiring a roll number or reference. A mistake with either numbering system would result in a misdirected payment and there was no confirmation of payee. The solution was to send a small test payment and confirm this was received before sending a larger payment. It didn't matter whether or not it was a "normal" account number. The only way to avoid the situation was to use a savings account with the same bank as your current account so that you could make an internal transfer (also this was often quicker than a 3 working day BACS clearing cycle).Now we have Confirmation of Payee, which has even been extended to accounts that require a roll number or reference, with savings accounts assigning account names based on reference field. So this is a problem that resides in the past. In fact, banks seem to prevent you sending payments to accounts where you have not specified sort code, account number and reference where it is required, and will throw up warnings if they cannot verify the name on the account matches.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards