Bank Insisting I tell them why I am making a Payment to my Daughter

[Gaggley]

I usually do my banking online but thought it would be easier to set up a standing order by calling First Direct today. After going through security, I was asked a number of questions about whether I had been forced to do this, had I been told to download software, was anyone watching me online etc. This is irritating, as it is incredibly unlikely that anyone who was being scammed would say yes, but I answered them none the less.

I was then asked how I had been given the bank details. I said that I had made the transfer before, but still had to give specific details as to how my daughter had given me the bank details, that I had successfully made manual transfers to multiple times over many years. After we'd got past this, I was then told I had to tell them why I was paying money to my daughter. I declined to answer, and was prevented from setting up a standing order. Complaints department confirmed that this was their procedure and they were knowingly preventing me from moving my own money around.

I asked them how much fraud they could quantify had been prevented by these arbitratry measures, they could not answer. But if I had done this myself online, then I would not have to justify my own decisions, could just do it at the drop of a hat. Bloody annoying. But a real problem for people who can't manage to use online services, who are forced to give up their privacy by rules like this.

Does anyone have a bank that will allow you to make transactions over the phone without justifying how they spend their own money, as I would like to switch to them?

Because people who are genuinely being defrauded wouldn’t make something up.

How do you know. Presumably someone being genuinely defrauded wouldn’t know. What’s the bank going to do when an old dear says the money is for a builder, even if the builders ripping them off.
if someone’s being coerced then they’re likely have someone with them when the transfer is being made, they will lie.
I just don’t think the bank have the power to do anything beyond refusing to transfer, which is likely more an inconvenience to the other 99% of customers that arent being defrauded. Totally pointless and an invasion of privacy. I’m not sure why people are so willing to accept this level of intrusion.

Can anyone give me faith in going straight to self-serve ATM inside the bank and put my £400-£500 in the envelope - and payment receipt- and leave? I just don't want Qs about my own money which came from the same account it will be going back in and they have records!

That poster pointed out it’s £500k per person if you leave your home in her post so not sure why you’re being snippy?

Not to be rude but if you’re unable to set up a standing order online that tends to indicate you aren’t very tech savvy and therefore the sort of person who might need extra protection from potential fraud.

Also, the questions could be to do with anti money laundering as banks have a legal duty in this regard. There is no way a bank would hand over £20k in cash no questions asked so the poster who said that is bullshitting.

Unlikely you’ll be questioned over this amount unless you’re doing it often.

FD are perfectly responsible & correct to ask of you what they did. I’m glad they are as tight on phone transaction security as they are. They are top class for customer service too.

It’s a sign of the crap times we live in unfortunately.

If you’re not happy with their processes, you can move accounts elsewhere. Easy peasy these days.

It's just ridiculous tick boxing isn't it? My vulnerable dad was approached by a roofer because, the usual, a tile was loose on his roof. I was away on holiday. By the time I got back, he had scaffolding up and 4 travellers pretending the roof needed replacing. He had been frogmarched numerous times to Lloyds in Stratford ('i'll take you, mate') to withdraw money to the tune of, ultimately, 19k. They asked all the same questions, to which he said all the right answers, because he couldn't see he was being scammed. They, unbelievably, let him take out thousands in CASH. He is late 80s, deaf and partially sighted. We had no recourse, now he has lost his life savings and the scammers are obviously gone. The questions are pointless.

Thank you. I will probably do it once this year and maybe once next year.

Can anyone please give me confidence to use the ATM self-service inside the bank? anyone used it without issues? The branch I need to go to on a Saturday also only operates ATM self- service so will use that. I think I can afford to lose £400. And there is always the first time to use something- self-service, surely!

I wish you had worked for Lloyds when my dad was scammed last year.

Surely this is because of the widespread wellknown "mum" scam where someone gets a "hi mum" text message then a plea for help and money. Banks will be on high alert for bankers who are mums transferring money to their children. Be annoyed at the bank if you want OP but personally I'd be more annoyed at the scammers.

Please complain to the bank and ultimately the ombudsman as this is appalling and shouldn’t be happening.

People accept it because they also want to be able to complain to the bank when they are defrauded, and ask for their money back

Every single thread here from someone realising they or their parent/friend/relative has been scammed has the majority of replies saying ‘complain to the bank and get them to refund the money’

So it’s totally fair that banks need to take some precautions

I had it recently moving money to DH to cover a new car. It was coming from our joint account to his sole account with the same bank, and there was nothing stopping him doing the transaction except he was driving and I was in the passenger seat.

But for 20 seconds inconvenience, you know the bank is making sure all is above board. It’s really not an imposition unless you’re doing something dodgY

Someone on this thread pointed out they saved a bank customer from getting scammed over buying a car that didn't exist.

The bank doesn't know if you went to see the car, did background checks on it and then had a test drive before going to pay for it in full. However if you tell then they won't have a problem with you taking the money out or doing an online transaction.

I've brought cars from dealers and they are used to people having to talk to their bank before their transactions are allowed in their offices.

Not Barclays! I don't even bank with them and they're the bane of my life at the moment, re-verifying IDs of loads of businesses that I deal with!

Wouldn't mind so much but half the time they tell my clients that their records are wrong. When we check, the records are correct and it's someone at Barclays that doesn't know what they're talking about!

What's the point of doing ID re-verification if they don't understand the rules themselves??

This is correct but the combined nil rate band for spouses is £1 million which is what the OP was alluding to.

@Gaggley I switched to Starling as they have no fees on foreign transactions. App only but there's an online chat for any help you need. They've been great so far.

Don't switch to NatWest - they will slowly destroy your soul.

Someone on this thread pointed out they saved a bank customer from getting scammed over buying a car that didn't exist.

The bank doesn't know if you went to see the car, did background checks on it and then had a test drive before going to pay for it in full. However if you tell then they won't have a problem with you taking the money out or doing an online transaction.

I've brought cars from dealers and they are used to people having to talk to their bank before their transactions are allowed in their offices.

If I've taken a large sum of money from my bank account, I wouldn't expect the bank to cover me in those circumstances and I doubt I would have much come back with the bank, it would be a police matter.
The person saved through these invasive questions, could equally have been save by a random conversation with the bloke behind the coop counter, it was just pure luck.
I don't need the bank to hand hold for me, I'm not a child.

I think we all accept that the questions banks ask are annoying but essential as they protect the most vulnerable individuals from being scammed.

However, the OP isn't objecting to questions being asked. She was happy to answer all of those.

The question about why she was transferring money to her daughter doesn't protect anyone. The OP had already confirmed that she had been given the details personally by her DD and that she had made transfers to the same account in the past.

Genuine question - having passed all of these previous questions and checks, what possible answer could the OP have given that would have prevented the transfer?

The question that she failed on was why she was transferring the money to her DD. Possible answers - because I want to, because I'm paying for her buy a new car, I'm giving her money for a house deposit, I'm paying for her food bill....the possibilities are endless.

I'm not sure what reason the OP could have given to that question which would have blocked the transfer?? Bearing in mind she had already passed a whole raft of security questions already relating to the authenticity of the request and the account...

If there is no answer to that question that would have blocked the transfer then that means the bank has no legitimate reason to ask the question. Security questions should be proportionate and reasonable - it's not carte blanche to demand that you provide answers to any question they see fit.

So for me, that's the crunch - what answer to that one single question would have stopped the transfer? I can't think of anything because surely it's up to the OP to give her DD money for whatever she wants?

Banks have to comply with money laundering regulations. There can be criminal sanctions for bank employees if they don't. The people to aim your ire at are not the bank staff or telephone call handlers but the Regulators.

I agree - I suspect that a customer refusing to answer questions about a transaction is likely to be a red flag for suspicion of money laundering.

ML requirements don't specify that a customer has to disclose the reason why they are transferring funds to a family member.

That's a bank's own internal procedures, it's not required by AML rules.

Just do it online then?

You realise we are all paying to replace money lost to scams right?

I had similar with Santander recently to pay for a small bathroom renovation. I work in financial services and understand the regulation and issues but the questioning felt like a police interview not a caring fraud prevention call!

People accept it because they also want to be able to complain to the bank when they are defrauded, and ask for their money back

Every single thread here from someone realising they or their parent/friend/relative has been scammed has the majority of replies saying ‘complain to the bank and get them to refund the money’

So it’s totally fair that banks need to take some precautions

I had it recently moving money to DH to cover a new car. It was coming from our joint account to his sole account with the same bank, and there was nothing stopping him doing the transaction except he was driving and I was in the passenger seat.

But for 20 seconds inconvenience, you know the bank is making sure all is above board. It’s really not an imposition unless you’re doing something dodgY

Absolutely complain to bank , if you've got payment protection on a bank card after making an internet purchase, that's what it's there for.
Being defrauded of a large sum, or any sum of cash is a police matter, I wouldn't expect the bank to cover that and I doubt they would.
I would also expect the banks to be able to identify suspicious bank accounts, if they are regularly receiving large sums of money from random strangers, I would want them to monitor those closely, not average Joe buying currency for his holiday, or a used car for his kids. No common sense.

1. To pay her builder in cash.
2. To buy drugs.
3. I've been asked to give her this money by someone else...

All v unlikely but banks aren't resourced to deviate from the script on a case by case basis. The front line staff asking these questions are likely junior with no formal AML training or qualifications.