You can no longer pass cash into someone else's bank account - am I the last person to know about this?

[AbbyGal]

Tried to pay Ds's birthday money into his account but in case of money laundering, I wasn't allowed and had to pay it into mine and then transfer it across to him.

Apparently this has been a thing for a couple of years - the cashier said it was a real issue for their elderly customers who now have to come in themselves.

Just thought it might be useful info for someone.

It's an argument in favour of doing all transfers on line.

Does your DS have his own account? Have the people who gave you cash do a transfer into his account. Saves you s visit to s bank, too.

Simples

I would presume you couldn't pay anything into anyone else's account tbh

You always used to be able to do that. It was seen as common sense that anybody could pay IN but only the account-holder could withdraw.

Why not just use the machines in the bank if the clerks won't do it

You usually have to have the bank card to do that. Some children's accounts don't issue a bank card under a certain age; and it doesn't help if a kind grandparent who isn't online wants to pay in a birthday or Christmas gift, or maybe a bit of unexpected treat money for a GC at uni or similar.

Does your DS have his own account? Have the people who gave you cash do a transfer into his account. Saves you s visit to s bank, too.
Simples

It's simple for most of us, but assuming that deliberately excludes a wide section of the community from being able to access banking. Plenty of older people are not online, or are online but are much too scared to ever trust online banking, for fear of being scammed or making a mistake and losing their money into a black hole. Their (unfounded but understandable) fears shouldn't just be discounted.

Give it another generation or two and online banking (and, sadly, probably the non-existence of cash) will be the everyday norm for everybody in all age-groups; but we can't just sweep all of the current old people to the edges of society and pretend they, their needs, their circumstances and their concerns simply don't exist, whilst they're still very much with us and valued members of our society.

Online banking has been available for over 20 years. It’s not some new fangled invention!

Banks are a joke now. ‘If you’d like I can help you do this online?’ If I wanted to do it online I wouldn’t have come in!!!!

Dh had £10 in 20p a few years so and Nationwide wouldn't let me pay it into his account, it was nuts.
Paid it into my account instead, so all good!

Online banking has been available for over 20 years. It’s not some new fangled invention!

And cash (in one form or another) has been available for thousands of years!!

True, but I wouldn't say it's been anything like universally used for anything like that long. And even so, an 85yo now was already 65 when internet banking was first available, so had still lived for 65 years without it.

Change is often difficult, especially for the elderly; and technology hasn't really been changing at such a lightning speed for all that long, so plenty of folk would have reached retirement age before it even began to really take off at the speed we see it now. For some, it's an inability to use it; but for many, they just don't see the need and what it will bring to their lives that they've managed quite successfully for well over the first half of them without it. Yes, it works for big banks and governments, but these people are (theoretically) meant to serve us: not the other way around!

I think a lot of digital natives - and even people who have never not had the internet in their adult lives - can't really understand many older people's views on modern digital internet-based technology. I'm at a kind of 'tipping point' age where I have quite a good view from both perspectives - and I can see how what is such an essential, integral part of young people's lives is of no or little interest to many (by no means all) considerably older (not talking 60yos here) people's lives.

Banks are a joke now. ‘If you’d like I can help you do this online?’ If I wanted to do it online I wouldn’t have come in!!!!

Yes, when you've tried to do it online and it says you will need to call them or go into a branch; and then, all the time you're on hold or in the physical queue, you're bombarded with messages saying "Hey, stupid, why don't you do this online - it's so easy!"

I paid some in today. £300 into DS account, at the village post office. How odd.

I used to pay one bill in cash at the Halifax.....now they put the money into my account and then pay the bill from there...so they can trace it.

Right, so it's ok then for the bank clerks (or indeed any employee)to go against their employers policies and/or the regulations and face any concequences of that because life carries risk? And they're in the wrong job should they not want to risk said job by going against their employers/regulatory bodies rules?

The issue is the policy (if it exists, and it was a question in my first post, that if a clerk may face the concequences, it's understandable that they don't want to do that and get themselves into trouble, posters since have said the bank's and regulatory bodies set the rules) not the person tasked with carrying it out.

I doubt very much whether "I was using my common sense" would wash in a hearing over breaking policies or regulatory rules. You break the policy or rules and you face the concequences.

There's a fair few policies I don't personally agree with at my work place because they fly in the face of common sense and good customer service as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not going to take them on and risk my job, that's not being paranoid, it's being sensible.

Fwiw I agree that it's wrong that you can't pay money in for someone who can't themselves and all your points on why, but I also understand why a bank clerk wouldn't want to put themselves in the position of being personally liable for breaking policies and regulations, and I think most people do too, and wouldn't be willing to put themselves in that position while expecting someone else to.
It's just easier and for some reason socially acceptable to call people jobsworths and tell them that they're in the wrong job if they're not willing to do it - that's what I disagree with.

Like you said yourself, I doubt that the people making these rules up would be happy to be on the recieving end of it and have their salaries passed around other people before they got to them, and that the motivation is about closing branches (been on the other side of that!) And moving to more money saving profit making ways to do things that reduce the amount of people needed. It's not fair on the people who need these services, but it's also not fair to blame the people who have absolutely no input into these decisions either just because they're standing in front of you.

I agree with everything said about this being wrong, but I disagree with placing the blame personally on someone and using personal jibes such as jobsworth in these situations.

@Maverickess wholeheartedly agree

I'm not saying somebody is a jobsworth IF they've been told to refuse ALL attempts to pay in by anybody but the account holder. If that is their employer's policy, then that's that. I'm saying that, if they're told to be aware of potential situations, that is not the same thing at all. If they're told to be on their guard for potential money launderers, that doesn't mean automatically refusing a parent wanting to pay in what, to any money launderer would be a piffling amount, into their own child's account. They could always ask for ID or similar (e.g. the child's birth date) rather than outright refusing.

As I said upthread, if - as appears to be the case - it's up to the clerk's discretion, point-blank refusing a £50 (or less) deposit into a child's account from somebody quite possibly with the same surname and/or easily able to confirm any basic details about the child, it's as ridiculous as a checkout assistant refusing to sell David Attenborough a bottle of Merlot without seeing his ID - or, for a proper equivalence, without even asking for ID before outright refusing the sale.

It also doesn't make sense that, if somebody were, say, abusing their position of trust for a vulnerable elderly person, it would be the easiest thing in the world to take their bank card when they weren't looking (or tell them new regulations require that they show it for something or other) and just pay in cash via an automated machine, which banks are now urging people to do wherever possible.

As for children, who are too young to have an account that comes with a bank card, you'd have to be the most stupid money launderer in the entire world to try paying a sizeable amount in many, many visits, at £20 at a time, at the counter, into a 7yo child's account, and not expect anybody to notice or ask questions as to why a young child had suddenly become a millionaire.

It's funny that people mention Nationwide. They used to refuse to do bank transfers for me, or tell me it was very expensive. I had to do a thing called 'bill payments' that took ages so I used to go to the bank of the person I was paying and pay in cash there.
I didn't have online banking so there was no other choice.
It's crap if that option is no longer there.

My elderly friend told me this and I laughed. I get her bits and Bob's of shopping,she keeps a tally and every few weeks when.the weather is kind to us pays the cash into my account. Ludicrous. Criminal activity? 😫🤣

My DH puts money in mine and our DS's accounts all the time and has never had a problem. He goes into the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland. I hope their policy on this doesn’t change!

I had to go into a bank last week and I get the impression that their main aim is to keep people out .

You can certainly pay cash into children's savings accounts where you are the registered contact.
One of my friend works in the bank, it's not about amount and it's more about one rule for everyone. If cashier can accept £20 for someone else's account and decline next customer's cash transaction for £4000 to someone else's account, it's not fair. Bank policies must be fair to all customers.

Not exactly on the subject of transferring money or paying into a different account but last year I was in my local post office to buy some stamps and asked if they could swap a £10 for two £5 notes while they had the draw open.

The only way they would do that was if I paid the £10 into my bank account and then withdrew it in £5 notes.

Ds(18) has a PT job and he gets tips and fuel money in cash. He puts the cash in a pot and I transfer the money to him so he has it in his account to use. The notes I can easily use in supermarket, petrol station, but the coins are a pain.

He was going into town for something recently and I asked him if he could deposit £140 in pound coins that had accumulated and I had bagged, Bank of Scotland wouldn't let him make the deposit into my account.

So he took it to his bank, Nationwide to deposit (then transfer to me) and they would only take a max of 5 bags at a time.

I know if is all cost saving, or security cutting back on these services but it is a pain in the arse.

I work in the industry and the regulations are ridiculous. While they attempt to stop money laundering, you have FTX which was a money rinse operation so many levels and there doesn’t look to be any major ramifications for this.

I have no idea why you can’t deposit cash into another persons account if you can show your ID, such as your drivers license. If they need to investigate further, they have your ID on file linked to the account the deposit was made into.

Im also not sure how effective any of the money laundering rules are. It doesn’t stop the booming drugs trade I see going on all around me. If you want to move money earned from illegal activities, its pretty clear the criminals have it figured out already given their ability to continue bringing these drugs in from abroad.

My bank only allows cash transfer up to £20,000 anything above this I have to pay about £23 to transfer money to my financial adviser. My siblings can pay up to £50,000 without a penalty

I do remember however, the days when banks used to actually offer a service!!

Sadly, those days have long gone. And not just for banks.

I'm guessing ( no real idea though ! ) that the organized drug gangs have actual business premises that can be used for the dirty money they get and can pay it in that way.
Must be a way they get round it
We are slowly turning into a cashless society
Agree that banks and most places don't offer any customer service at all. If you complain it's met with lip service or someone reading from a script and they won't engage with you to resolve anything

If they have clear limits and apply them to everyone, then they are being fair.

So if it's cash deposits up to £X (unless special arrangements have been made (usually for businesses, comes with a fee) then that is fair.

What annoys me is that I can give DS a large lump sum at the start of the financial year with no scrutiny if I write a cheque and use the machine. But if I want to do it at the counter then it's photo ID and checks that I am not being coerced.

The value threshold where scrutiny comes in seems to be about £5k
I think it varies by amount for cash handling.

I try to use branch services because I want them to continue to exist.