Moving large amounts of cash savings from one bank to another

Chief_of_Staffy

eskbanker said:

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....

Correct, it didn't take long, about three seconds. Because no matter what link I click, there it is.

"Our Mobile and Online Banking Commitment gives you a peace of mind guarantee that we'll refund money taken from your account as a result of fraud... To protect you, we use: Fraud detection systems..." - Santander

'Commitment' - Couched in terms of them providing the customer with a helpful service.
'Money taken from your account' - Deliberately misleading. No money has been taken.
'To protect you' - a blatant lie given that the customer's funds cannot possibly be at risk.

"When you use our Online Banking services or the Barclays app, you're protected by our guarantee. This means that if you tell us a payment from your account wasn’t authorised and ask us for a refund, we’ll reverse the transaction as soon as we can" - Barclays

'Guarantee' - Thanks, Barclays, you really care.
'Ask us for a refund' - Why must we 'ask for a refund' in order for the bank to correct their records?  Again, language obviously designed to mislead. Anybody who did not know how banks work would read this as intended - If someone steals money from your account then Barclays will generously refund it.

But these are rhetorical questions. I'm not much interested in proving water is wet.

eskbanker

Chief_of_Staffy said:

eskbanker said:

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....

Correct, it didn't take long, about three seconds. Because no matter what link I click, there it is.

"Our Mobile and Online Banking Commitment gives you a peace of mind guarantee that we'll refund money taken from your account as a result of fraud... To protect you, we use: Fraud detection systems..." - Santander

'Commitment' - Couched in terms of them providing the customer with a helpful service.
'Money taken from your account' - Deliberately misleading. No money has been taken.
'To protect you' - a blatant lie given that the customer's funds cannot possibly be at risk.

"When you use our Online Banking services or the Barclays app, you're protected by our guarantee. This means that if you tell us a payment from your account wasn’t authorised and ask us for a refund, we’ll reverse the transaction as soon as we can" - Barclays

'Guarantee' - Thanks, Barclays, you really care.
'Ask us for a refund' - Why must we 'ask for a refund' in order for the bank to correct their records?  Again, language obviously designed to mislead. Anybody who did not know how banks work would read this as intended - If someone steals money from your account then Barclays will generously refund it.

But these are rhetorical questions. I'm not much interested in proving water is wet.

None of that says that we must rely on banks' goodwill to get money returned but I would agree that those do have the air of attempting to dress up regulatory obligations as discretionary services.

flaneurs_lobster

eskbanker said:

None of that says that we must rely on banks' goodwill to get money returned but I would agree that those do have the air of attempting to dress up regulatory obligations as discretionary services.

The words are written by marketeers, they will always try to use "warm" words and phrases rather than the more brusque and formal terms you might find in Terms'n'Conditions. 

So "pay you" becomes "give you" , "increase the interest rate" becomes "boost your savings" and so on, but your point about obligations being couched in terms suggesting discretion are well made.

mta999

I have moved large sums in one go before by writing a cheque