We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Santander - and maybe other banks requiring renewed verification for mobile banking
Comments
-
Nationwide says:
"Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) is a security rule. It adds extra checks when you buy things online. It proves that you are the real card owner. This rule stops scammers from using your card."
That certainly benefits the customer. I have Nationwide debit and credit cards. I have had any problems with either, and Nationwide gives me free money. Nationwide applies the same checks as any other card issuer.
And full disclosure would mandate they state they are there primarily to keep the bank's own money safe.
The primary reason is to keep my money safe. Nonetheless, Adam Smith wrote: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". It is good for banks to make a profit in a competitive market.
1 -
It could be argued that an ISA, or taxable saving account, or GIA generate income (interest or dividend) whether or not you withdraw it, and conversely, money withdrawn from any of them is not income but repayment of capital, possibly with a capital gain or loss.
Yes indeed. Some of us could argue for all sorts of widely differing numbers. Unless the bank is more specific, we can only give them the numbers that we believe are the most appropriate. The bank is asking this question to help them identify possible money laundering.
0 -
Checks take minutes, not days
Banks are on the hook for you giving away money to conmen so of course they want to ensure it's legitimate
Modern phones from reputable providers have support for 5-7 years, by which time the phone is likely on its last legs anyway. Again, as banks are often liable if you give money away, they chose not to allow you to have an insecure device. Same as your insurance requires locks on your door, not a piece of string
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
The government made banks liable when gullible/greedy customers give money away in get rich quick scams. The banks are therefore protecting themselves and trying to stop their customers giving away their money to scammers, therefore it is not a lie
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I did this recently and it was very easy and did not take long. I did not have to provide any documents.
0 -
I agree, it doesn't take very long if you have valid Government-issued photo ID to hand. It can cause anxiety though if people don't have these, and decline to get it on the grounds of not driving, or not going on a plane (even for UK internal flights you need a passport). I can't say I have much sympathy for such self-boycotting.
1 -
That quote is accurate. I didn't suggest every piece of information given out by the banks is incorrect.
"That certainly benefits the customer." - Not to any meaningful degree. Rather it limits the bank's liabilities and increases profit. Unless the customer has been negligent with their bank details there's no benefit to him or her.
"The primary reason is to keep my money safe" - This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not your money. Your money is not at risk, nor could it possibly be.
It reminds me a bit of an episode of Paddington Bear I watched as a kid in the 70s. Paddington goes into a bank and deposits £5. Later he returns and withdraws his £5, yet because it's not the same note he gave them originally, he complains. The bank was meant to keep his money safe yet here they were trying to give him someone else's money.
0 -
Strong Customer Authentication is not relevant to people giving their money away in scams.
On that matter, as I've said before, the legislation is abjectly unfair. If some 70 year old pred pays thirty grand to a 21 year old 'beauty queen' so that she can fly over from Sweden and, well, do what we imagine he wants her to do, he'll have the money back in his account within the week, but the customer who works all of their lives, saves up for renovations on their house to find that the tradesman disappears with their money leaving them on a building site, might as well whistle for a refund.
0 -
Perhaps best not pay all up front then - the builder example is not much different as a con than the fake love interest, both were conned into giving money away.
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Did not need any docs.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.1K Spending & Discounts
- 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards