Moving large amounts of cash savings from one bank to another

MarkFromCornwall

JSmith321 said:

I have quite a lot of savings in one bank and due to interest changes I wish to move to another bank with much a much better interest rate. I found I have a limit of £20K per day I can transfer so have to move my savings over several days. During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard. Out of interest (no pun intended) what do others do who wish to transfer large sums of cash. Thanks

If subsequent payments are for similar amounts to the same payee it's much less likely that they will attract the attention of your bank's fraud department.

If you fear a call, do the transfer at a time when a call won't inconvenience you too much, and do it during the working day to minimize any delays.

Large transfers make me nervous!  That's the main reason why I avoid having huge sums with any one bank.

wmb194

JSmith321 said:

Of course all this would not be necessary if the bank in question offered a competitive interest rate. The system is almost designed to deter customers from transferring to better interest rates. It's become like musical chairs with risk and potential fraud involved in each move.

Having to chase the best savings rates is nothing new. Even in the not so old days we wrote cheques with high values. If it's an option, you could try this.

Chief_of_Staffy

I normally transfer a small sum initially, like £100, to check the details are correct, then schedule transfers on successive days. That way I only have to log on twice.

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Bigwheels1111

Contacting the bank ahead of time does not work.
Moving it in one go or small chunks makes no difference.
I had to move £250,000 in 3 payments on the same day.
To fund 4, 5 year fixed rate savings accounts.
Called the bank FD and got them to make the transactions.
After 2 hours nothing arrived.
Called them and asked is it a fraud check.
No, No was the answer. Plus they would not put me through to fraud department.
Well this went on all weekend.
On Monday I called, while waiting in the queue to be answered, a text arrived. 

We have been trying to contact you , re fraud. This was a lie obviously.
They put me through this time and funds were moved.
Now for the fun bit.
Complaint time.
You cost me £137 of interest at 5%, time and effort on phone calls and attitude of call handlers.
£137 was in my account within minutes, £50 good will and complaint was opened.
60 days later another £100 was given for bad attitude of staff.

3 months or so ago 20 reg saver Standing orders were not paid, on the 1st.
one call,  SO paid and bit of compensation I was happy again.

It’s just the was it is.
If you’re not happy complaining works. Well pays.

flaneurs_lobster

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

Chief_of_Staffy

flaneurs_lobster said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

It wouldn't save me anything unless I was being negligent or complicit. There should be no inconvenience in the absence of these two factors as the bank is obliged to correct the record, effectively immediately. It's not my money that's gone missing, it's theirs. Unfortunately you're likely correct in practice, in that the false narrative we're consistently told is that the bank holds our money and if someone 'takes it' from our account we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return it, often mandating that we prove our innocence in the matter as opposed to the other way around.

flaneurs_lobster

Chief_of_Staffy said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

It wouldn't save me anything unless I was being negligent or complicit. There should be no inconvenience in the absence of these two factors as the bank is obliged to correct the record, effectively immediately. It's not my money that's gone missing, it's theirs. Unfortunately you're likely correct in practice, in that the false narrative we're consistently told is that the bank holds our money and if someone 'takes it' from our account we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return it, often mandating that we prove our innocence in the matter as opposed to the other way around.

Exactly this, you are undoubtedly blameless and will be returned to your current financial position eventually but best to be given the opportunity to stop the grief happening in the first place.

eskbanker

Chief_of_Staffy said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

It wouldn't save me anything unless I was being negligent or complicit. There should be no inconvenience in the absence of these two factors as the bank is obliged to correct the record, effectively immediately. It's not my money that's gone missing, it's theirs. Unfortunately you're likely correct in practice, in that the false narrative we're consistently told is that the bank holds our money and if someone 'takes it' from our account we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return it, often mandating that we prove our innocence in the matter as opposed to the other way around.

Where (specifically) has this false narrative been consistently told?  I don't recall seeing it anywhere on here, for example....

Chief_of_Staffy

eskbanker said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

It wouldn't save me anything unless I was being negligent or complicit. There should be no inconvenience in the absence of these two factors as the bank is obliged to correct the record, effectively immediately. It's not my money that's gone missing, it's theirs. Unfortunately you're likely correct in practice, in that the false narrative we're consistently told is that the bank holds our money and if someone 'takes it' from our account we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return it, often mandating that we prove our innocence in the matter as opposed to the other way around.

Where (specifically) has this false narrative been consistently told?  I don't recall seeing it anywhere on here, for example....

In the language used by the banks and across all popular media. There is no 'specifically', it's ubiquitous. Find me an instance where this is not the case. The onerous and intrusive anti-fraud procedure is sold to the customer on the entirely false basis that if a criminal gains access to your account, they can steal your money. That's what almost everybody believes. Perhaps not on these boards, but in the wider population.

eskbanker

Chief_of_Staffy said:

eskbanker said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

JSmith321 said:

During my first transfer I was contacted by the fraud department which I appreciate is a valuable safeguard.

For them. It's of no benefit to you.

Of no benefit if the transfer is legitimate, getting a chance to stop a fraudulent withdrawal on another occasion will at least save you a bunch of grief and inconvenience.

It wouldn't save me anything unless I was being negligent or complicit. There should be no inconvenience in the absence of these two factors as the bank is obliged to correct the record, effectively immediately. It's not my money that's gone missing, it's theirs. Unfortunately you're likely correct in practice, in that the false narrative we're consistently told is that the bank holds our money and if someone 'takes it' from our account we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return it, often mandating that we prove our innocence in the matter as opposed to the other way around.

Where (specifically) has this false narrative been consistently told?  I don't recall seeing it anywhere on here, for example....

In the language used by the banks and across all popular media. There is no 'specifically', it's ubiquitous. Find me an instance where this is not the case. The onerous and intrusive anti-fraud procedure is sold to the customer on the entirely false basis that if a criminal gains access to your account, they can steal your money. That's what almost everybody believes. Perhaps not on these boards, but in the wider population.

You're the one making the claim that something's been said, so it's not up to me to prove that it hasn't been! 🙄

If your assertion that "we must rely on the goodwill of the bank to return money if someone 'takes it' from our account" is ubiquitous and "used by the banks and across all popular media", it shouldn't take long for you to find some examples....