"I lost £193,000 but the bank offered me £25 in compensation"

[chomalungma]

www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lost-my-193000-inheritance-with-one-wrong-digit-on-my-sort-code

I don't even know where to start with this.
A solicitor was sending an inheritance to a client. The client gave the right details, but the wrong sort code.

The bank transferred the money. The mistake was realised but the bank was unable to get the money back and the person who got it started spreading it around and refused to refund it,

Turns out that one of the solutions is to ensure that the name matches the account as well. This is all to do with bank transfer fraud.
This won't happen until March next year.

In the meantime, he went to court to force the bank to reveal the name of the customer. Barclays fought it - but eventually they had to. He did eventually get the money from the customer via the court.

The bank refused to pay the legal fees for what the client had to do. But when contacted by the Guardian, they did. All £46,000 of them.

It's too easy to make transfer errors - even if you check carefully. Banks should check carefully to ensure that the bank account is the same name as expected and there should be a system if money is put in the wrong account and the bank knows there's been an error.

The banks ought to follow their own advice to check and double check! Cannot believe they can just waive their own responsibility.

If you are in fact a technical wizard but choosing to be provocative by making faux naive comment

Nothing naive about saying that banks have lots of money in profits so they can invest in new systems.

Obviously it takes a long time as it's a big project that needs to be handled carefully - but the fundamental satatement that there is a lot of money available is a perfectly reasonable statement.

And I'm saying that it isn't money that's the barrier.

@ExpletiveFairylighted The banks will send a statement if you request one, some banks charge for it but it’s about £5 which is a drop in the ocean compared to the amounts most people receive from the inheritance.

If they really, really, really can’t send us a bank statement we’ll give them a cheque but most people want a bank transfer, and even if they want a cheque they still have to provide 3 proofs of address.

Comments suggesting the problem could be solved by simply investing in new computer systems didn't indicate an appreciation of the disruption that would be involved, so didn't reflect any understanding of technology

The problem WILL be solved by investing in new technology.

There was no need to talk about the disruption - as it's always going to be an issue with big IT system changes - look at the TSB issue - but banks do invest in new technology all the time.

It's not like that should be a barrier to doing something because there might be disruption.

When you key in the sort code, acc no and name you'll get one of 3 possible responses. Match, No match and Partial Match. If the name is very similar then you'll get a "did you mean ....". This will be used for example if the account is called Initial Surname and you type in first name surname.

And I'm saying that it isn't money that's the barrier

Barriers can be overcome though.

Otherwise nothing would ever change in the banking system or in any other complex IT system.

It just needs to be very well planned.

If there is no match you'll still be able to proceed with the payment however you'll be liable for any losses.

Babybel my friend immediately requested a posted bank statement but her bank (one of the big high street ones) told her it could take 10 days to process.

It's not like that should be a barrier to doing something because there might be disruption

Yes, but they need to identify a suitable time - that is, a time when there aren't other mandatory changes going through (such as confirmation of payee itself) or deadlines to meet regulatory requirements.

It is being done. Its been planned and banks are paying for it. It's almost complete and you'll see it on your banking apps within the next 3 months.

Thanks Bartlet. I have already noticed them piling on the "are you sure, you are liable" messages when I set up a new payee.

Yep. You'll see it v shortly. I'm really quite excited about it. This is the best project I've worked on in a long long time. It'll make a big difference to many people and save awful cases like the man in the original post.

@ExpletiveFairylighted yes, that’s how long it takes to get a bank statement posted out, I’m not sure what your point is?

I did it once, it was £550 so not that amount but it was a lot to me. I never got it back 😔

Yes, but they need to identify a suitable time - that is, a time when there aren't other mandatory changes going through (such as confirmation of payee itself) or deadlines to meet regulatory requirements

As DS would say, No Shit Sherlock.

But yet - it is being done and is coming soon.

Known about this for some time. When I do bank transfers I always send £1 and only then, if it transfers properly, transfer the rest. It creates a pre made pathway.

Shitty of the bank, and not terribly clever of the sender either.

Just that the banks don't make it easy to get paper statements any more Babybel. My friend was asked for one at the very last moment in her house sale and it caused a lot of added stress when she was told it was going to take 10 days.

Obviously if she had known about the requirement she could have requested it sooner, but at the last minute it was a bit of a nightmare.

I'm a solicitor. I think the legal industry is pretty lax about this sort of thing. Solicitors don't do the transfers. We fill out transfer forms (often manually) that go to accounts who then make the transfer.

The scope for making mistakes is huge. I once missed a digit off of an account number and lost millions in the ether. Luckily my client was the bank and they got the money back pdq. Unlike this case though it didn't actually get paid into another customers account and was instead sat in a holding pen.

The legal industry is pretty hot on phishing now and you are meant to speak to the client to confirm details. I completely agree that test transfers should be made first before sending large amounts of money.

It's very important this sort of thing gets press so that people know how important it is to check and double check account numbers. I actually think the banks should be generating technology that the person who is to receive money generates a code that is supplied to the person paying the money as an additional check.

@ExpletiveFairylighted that’s what your friend says, but every firm I’ve worked for requests the ID documents up front, people forget to send them ( ie don’t actually read the letter they’ve been sent) then we request them again but people still don’t send it or have 59 different excuses as to why they don’t have any ID and they shouldn’t have to provide it anyway, and by this time the transaction is nearly complete and they have to run around like a blue arsed fly trying to get their ID together.

There’s been a fair number of people in here who have had (sometimes large) amounts of cash put into their accounts. It’s quite worrying to think that the system isn’t as secure as it could be. I jokingly say to DH in the mornings ‘fingers crossed that someone has paid in £1 million’! From this thread it may not be outside of the realms of reality 🙄 I just hope the new measures will help to tighten things up.

That’s why I always arrange to transfer a token amount first and get receipt confirmed to ensure the details are right.

I don’t think this is the bank’s fault.

They're not saying the original error was the banks fault, but their response was inadequate.

In this case it was the solicitor who transferred the money, not the individual.

My kids have made mistakes like this, twice when paying in cheques and once when receiving a large bank transfer of funding from their uni. Fortunately the wrong details have never added up to somebody else's account and the money has just been in limbo till claimed properly. When paying legacies recently when I was an executor, I paid £1 first and then when they confirmed receipt of that I paid the rest.