First direct frustrations

JP715038075

Having banked with FD for years, today i choose to pay a sum off on an MBNA MC, logged on and went through all the security checks for the payee through the drop down menu, filled in the details, clicked pay.... Simple or so I thought.

I received a text message from FD fraud dept saying they wouldn't pay the bill until i had called the Fraud dept, ok called them and went through answering all of the security details again... Until

Q. What is the payment for ?

Now i know this goes on when taking cash from the bank, but through an online payment system?, the girl on the phone said it was so they were confident the money wasn't being scammed from my account, confusing as the account details were already subject to a DD in my account and the details are set on their dropdown payment bar, are they suggesting MBNA are fraudulent?

The money has left the account and hasn't been returned as yet, they are holding it for 24 hours

Why do we have to tell anyone where we choose to spend our money especially if the payment account is a registered banking / credit card payment account.

Any ideas, they were no help on the phone just followed the script of its policy, wouldn't escalate above a member of the complaints dept

lindabea

I had exactly the same scenario with First Direct as you did.  In fact, mine was perhaps one step better.  I had been transferring the regular payments from my other bank account (third party) to my FD current account to fund my Fd reg saver.  When my reg saver matured, I tried to transfer the matured funds back to my third party current bank account.  They of course stopped it and like you, had to call the fraud dept to be asked all sorts of stupid questions, like Has someone made me do it and who gave me the account details of the bank account I was transferring to.  Crazy or what  

Absolute pathetic behaviour.  I know banks need to be careful these days, but there is a limit to how much stupidity I can tolerate.  Needless to say, I have closed my account.      

masonic

Yes, it is normal for that question to be asked when evaluating a payment for risk, and it should not be a problem to disclose that you were paying off your credit card. You could then confirm that you've carefully checked the reference you supplied matches your credit card account, and that you've made previous payments via DD to the same account details. That is usually sufficient to satisfy even the most stringent checks.

lindabea said:

I had exactly the same scenario with First Direct as you did.  In fact, mine was perhaps one step better.  I had been transferring the regular payments from my other bank account (third party) to my FD current account to fund my Fd reg saver.  When my reg saver matured, I tried to transfer the matured funds back to my third party current bank account.  They of course stopped it and like you, had to call the fraud dept to be asked all sorts of stupid questions, like Has someone made me do it and who gave me the account details of the bank account I was transferring to.  Crazy or what  

Absolute pathetic behaviour.  I know banks need to be careful these days, but there is a limit to how much stupidity I can tolerate.  Needless to say, I have closed my account.      

People do this, which is why they check. There is a current running thread over in Savings & Investments where an OP is trying to pay for a breakthrough medical device using bitcoin and seems unwilling to see it is an obvious scam. It's not always stupidity. Some may have genuine issues that make them vulnerable.

lindabea

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

clairec666

I had problems with Cooperative marking a transaction as suspicious because I'd made three separate payments to another account (in my name) within a few hours. Irritating, but I'd rather they erred on the side of caution.

masonic

There's not really an excuse for a delay in releasing the payment once the fraud team are satisfied with the transaction.

If you'd previously set up the account in question and obtained a Confirmation Of Payee match, plus a history of prior payments, then it is puzzling why they would flag a subsequent transaction. I've never experienced this, except when sending a £1 test payment, then a larger amount in quick succession (not even that in recent times). With many more savings accounts now enrolled in COP, there should be a substantial reduction in this sort of thing. Would still expect it though for non-COP matched transactions, or those matched to a third party.

In terms of who to blame, that would be the regulator and legislators, who have set the hurdles banks need to go to in order to discharge their liability. You cannot expect banks not to do this.

Lightning360

This isn't really something unique to First Direct. You'll likely hear stories from all banks like this.

lindabea

clairec666 said:

I had problems with Cooperative marking a transaction as suspicious because I'd made three separate payments to another account (in my name) within a few hours. Irritating, but I'd rather they erred on the side of caution.

Erring on the side of caution is a good thing, but stopping a payment for no apparent reason that any fraudulent activity is taking place is not a good thing.  I'm afraid I do not tolerate incompetence or anyone not taking due diligence in their job.       

lindabea

masonic said:

There's not really an excuse for a delay in releasing the payment once the fraud team are satisfied with the transaction.

If you'd previously set up the account in question and obtained a Confirmation Of Payee match, plus a history of prior payments, then it is puzzling why they would flag a subsequent transaction. I've never experienced this, except when sending a £1 test payment, then a larger amount in quick succession (not even that in recent times). With many more savings accounts now enrolled in COP, there should be a substantial reduction in this sort of thing. Would still expect it though for non-COP matched transactions, or those matched to a third party.

In terms of who to blame, that would be the regulator and legislators, who have set the hurdles banks need to go to in order to discharge their liability. You cannot expect banks not to do this.

Masonic, your first paragraph expresses my sentiments exactly.  I also agree with you that it is the regulators that are to blame in as much that they set unrealistic and badly drawn procedures without much thought,  However, it is the banks who exercise those procedures, and what I'm saying, is that they should use some common sense before.  Unfortunately, this is what is lacking.  In my experience, having said to the fraud lady who took my call that it is my own account and it is being made with my own discretion and no one else, she still had to go through a scripted series of questions which was a complete waste of both our time.  And why it then took a day to release the payment is also beyond contempt.     

masonic

lindabea said:

masonic said:

There's not really an excuse for a delay in releasing the payment once the fraud team are satisfied with the transaction.

If you'd previously set up the account in question and obtained a Confirmation Of Payee match, plus a history of prior payments, then it is puzzling why they would flag a subsequent transaction. I've never experienced this, except when sending a £1 test payment, then a larger amount in quick succession (not even that in recent times). With many more savings accounts now enrolled in COP, there should be a substantial reduction in this sort of thing. Would still expect it though for non-COP matched transactions, or those matched to a third party.

In terms of who to blame, that would be the regulator and legislators, who have set the hurdles banks need to go to in order to discharge their liability. You cannot expect banks not to do this.

Masonic, your first paragraph expresses my sentiments exactly.  I also agree with you that it is the regulators that are to blame in as much that they set unrealistic and badly drawn procedures without much thought,  However, it is the banks who exercise those procedures, and what I'm saying, is that they should use some common sense before.  Unfortunately, this is what is lacking.  In my experience, having said to the fraud lady who took my call that it is my own account and it is being made with my own discretion and no one else, she still had to go through a scripted series of questions which was a complete waste of both our time.  And why it then took a day to release the payment is also beyond contempt.     

You cannot reasonably blame the bank for this. The scripted questions have been devised based on the level of proof needed by the regulator that the bank took all reasonable steps to prevent a fraud taking place. If banks do not comply, then they have to pay out. It is simply not worth the risk to have individual members of staff making judgement calls. Unfortunately, there is no opt-out where you can absolve them of liability because you know for sure the transaction is safe. So I fear your anger is misdirected and your actions ultimately unproductive. Moving banks is unlikely to improve your experience (save for the delay in the release of the payment).

lindabea

Incidentally, I can also add that it took FD 4 hours before they sent me a text msg to call the customer centre, and then after  going through security questions, I was put through to the fraud team, but it was some 20 mins before they answered.  I then had to go through security questions again.  How is that a productive use of time.  No wonder we have to endure long wait times when bank staff are engaged in such futile exercises.