Transferring funds from one bank to another

wmb194

peter021072 said:

wmb194 said:

Isn't £1 below the minimum funding requirement of £1,000? It'll probably be bounced back to your current account and might not touch your Vanquis account.

This is beyond belief, every bank I've done this with accepts small test payments. Not only is the system set up so you can't enter the actual name of the real beneficiary (myself), neither can it accept a small payment to test if the transfer has been set up correctly. Surely a sensible precaution? 

I'll ring them up considering they want me to chance £1000.  Who needs dodgy crypto investments when you have this

If it's making you anxious then don't do it, find another provider.

As Geoff mentions and, IIRC, as people in other threads re Vanquis have stated when you send a below minimum payment to Vanquis it'll bounce the money back and send you an email to tell you what's happened. You can take from that that Vanquis was able to allocate the money to your account - Vanquis also sees your name on the incoming deposit.

Vanquis is fine, it's been around forever - it used to go by Provident Financial - and it also gives an option to fund your account by cheque. From the general T&Cs:

flaneurs_lobster

wmb194 said:

Vanquis is fine, it's been around forever - it used to go by Provident Financial - and it also gives an option to fund your account by cheque. 

Talking of providers giving you just some of the information you need to make a payment - how about if Vanquis were to say who to make the cheque payable to, or is that just far too obvious?

wmb194

flaneurs_lobster said:

wmb194 said:

Vanquis is fine, it's been around forever - it used to go by Provident Financial - and it also gives an option to fund your account by cheque. 

Talking of providers giving you just some of the information you need to make a payment - how about if Vanquis were to say who to make the cheque payable to, or is that just far too obvious?

The FAQs state Vanquis Bank Savings and your application reference number. If different, I'd imagine your account number would work as well.

https://www.vanquis.com/help/savings-help/faqs/#:~:text=You'll need to: * make it payable,RUGA-ZTJL-HBTJ, PO Box 967, Wallsend, NE28 5FD.

flaneurs_lobster

wmb194 said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

wmb194 said:

Vanquis is fine, it's been around forever - it used to go by Provident Financial - and it also gives an option to fund your account by cheque. 

Talking of providers giving you just some of the information you need to make a payment - how about if Vanquis were to say who to make the cheque payable to, or is that just far too obvious?

The FAQs state Vanquis Bank Savings and your application reference number. If different, I'd imagine your account number would work as well.

https://www.vanquis.com/help/savings-help/faqs/#:~:text=You'll need to: * make it payable,RUGA-ZTJL-HBTJ, PO Box 967, Wallsend, NE28 5FD.

Fair enough, just wasn't in the bit of their T&Cs you quoted upthread.

wmb194

flaneurs_lobster said:

wmb194 said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

wmb194 said:

Vanquis is fine, it's been around forever - it used to go by Provident Financial - and it also gives an option to fund your account by cheque. 

Talking of providers giving you just some of the information you need to make a payment - how about if Vanquis were to say who to make the cheque payable to, or is that just far too obvious?

The FAQs state Vanquis Bank Savings and your application reference number. If different, I'd imagine your account number would work as well.

https://www.vanquis.com/help/savings-help/faqs/#:~:text=You'll need to: * make it payable,RUGA-ZTJL-HBTJ, PO Box 967, Wallsend, NE28 5FD.

Fair enough, just wasn't in the bit of their T&Cs you quoted upthread.

Yes, it would be better if it was stated in the T&Cs as well. 

I used this cheque option for the first bond I opened with Vanquis and it was processed quickly but this was before Royal Mail’s service degraded so these days YMMV.

peter021072

In the end, Vanquis included the original £1 despite saying it would be rejected. Probably this was because they could see I had subsequently deposited more than the minimum amount. So it's all there now. 

Considering the multiple warnings banks make to customers before sending money electronically, and the mishaps which have happened with fraudsters impersonating others, I would expect all banks to accept a nominal sum (£1) to confirm all the details are working, and it is going to the correct account, which in this case it was. They should also include a field for the real beneficiary (the person's name). It's all basic common sense really.

I recently read that British bank stock valuations have exceeded the large % gains in the US stock market, so they can surely afford to recruit the best people in designing these systems.

flaneurs_lobster

peter021072 said:

I recently read that British bank stock valuations have exceeded the large % gains in the US stock market, so they can surely afford to recruit the best people in designing these systems.

They did, but I've been retired for some time now...

eskbanker

peter021072 said:

They should also include a field for the real beneficiary (the person's name). It's all basic common sense really.

I recently read that British bank stock valuations have exceeded the large % gains in the US stock market, so they can surely afford to recruit the best people in designing these systems.

It's nothing to do with stock valuations or quality of recruitment - initiatives like Confirmation of Payee entail significant stakeholder consultation between regulators, institutions, industry bodies, etc, and even once agreed, the detail of protocol and process design, plus all the system development and testing ahead of staged implementation, means that something that sounds like 'basic common sense' at a conceptual can take many years to introduce!

CoP has been in place for several years now for the major players but the smaller ones (like Vanquis) need additional functionality to handle the Secondary Reference Data (i.e. the use of a reference field to direct payments initially made to a holding account via a third party clearing bank) and, initially at least, resisted the pressure to invest.

wmb194

peter021072 said:

In the end, Vanquis included the original £1 despite saying it would be rejected. Probably this was because they could see I had subsequently deposited more than the minimum amount. So it's all there now. 

Considering the multiple warnings banks make to customers before sending money electronically, and the mishaps which have happened with fraudsters impersonating others, I would expect all banks to accept a nominal sum (£1) to confirm all the details are working, and it is going to the correct account, which in this case it was. They should also include a field for the real beneficiary (the person's name). It's all basic common sense really.

I recently read that British bank stock valuations have exceeded the large % gains in the US stock market, so they can surely afford to recruit the best people in designing these systems.

It's good it's all resolved. If you make your transfer from an account in your name then your name will be included on the deposit on Vanquis's side. The thing is names often aren't particularly unique so that's why you're also asked for an account reference number. They should also be able to see the sort code and account number your deposit came from and use that to match with your nominated account.