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?

I think so too, hence I don’t want to risk mine.

@SpidersAreShitheads banks can't deal in the proceeds of crime. They have to rule out things like money muling. It may be overzealous in your view but how would you suggest they check?

I bank with Santander and they ask all that information on Internet banking, then they send you a verification code. It does drive me nuts and I have been known to swear but at the same time it's good to know safety is in place.

I worked in a bank for 5 years and can personally remember one situation where an older couple were withdrawing large amounts of cash regularly. We asked all the questions and they kept saying it was for their granddaughter. I sat down with them and my manager as I just had a niggling concern and after a very long time it transpired that it was their neighbour who was saying she was short on cash and asking them for cash. They were a Christian couple and believed that they were not being scammed and it was their duty to give to those in need. We eventually persuaded them to call their daughter and it turns out that they had given the neighbour £7000 from their account in another bank.

@Poivresel, I still was not able to exchange more than £20k per day how ever I exchanged money. Exchange rate was better than than it is now. I got a bargain on the house but it was a quick sale so I had to just go for it.

I'm with Barclays both Personal and Business and very pleased with their balance of letting you control your own money but looking out for you. Their online banking is very good, I can set up my own standing orders online no problem, at most you get a pop up box with a warning, I can use my card abroad without having to inform them I'm away, they will contact you if something looks amiss, which I was very grateful for when I downloaded a scam parking app, they called me within five minutes; the only problem I find is that living rurally my nearest branch is 40 minutes away.

No, I absolutely agree with you that it's not the fault of the staff. They have a script to follow and they don't have the authority (or probably the in-depth knowledge of legislation) to be able to bin parts of it off as they see fit.

I think the issue here is the actual procedures of the bank. Nothing that could have been corrected on this single telephone call - it's a wider issue within the organisation with questions that could be reworded to feel less intrusive while still achieving the required aim.

Using the examples you gave - paying her builder in cash doesn't mean it's a tax scam. People aren't going to admit paying for drugs because they'd be worried about being arrested themselves. The OP had already confirmed that she'd spoken directly to her DD about the money.

I think that we're grasping at straws here to try and justify the reasons. Legislation requires checks to be proportionate - there will always be some possible wild scenario, it's impossible to cover everything.

If we're talking about preventing fraud (which seems to be the focus of this thread), the main points are that the bank needs to be certain that they're talking to the account holder, that the account holder knows who they're transferring money to, and that the account information has come from a trusted and verified source. The bank doesn't need to know how the daughter is going to spend the money to do that.

If they were checking for the proceeds of crime then they'd be checking the source of funds from the OP, which isn't the question that she's unhappy about.

They're asking why she's transferring money to a family member which wouldn't really make any difference to what you're referring to.

As I say, I think there's a line that needs to be considered when it comes to meeting the legislative requirements without being over-zealous and trampling on privacy.

My Dp and I bank with Santander.

Can normally set up and make one off payments or create Standing Orders online. However, making larger payments invokes the bank's protocols for security. I guess those are for mutual protection. Mine if I'm being scammed and the bank's so they can show they've done proper diligence if I might be.

I think I've hit that three times. Transferring half of an insurance payout on my Mother's death, paying off my mortgage and lending DD money for open bridging so they didn't lose their dream home after a buyer for the old place pulled out at last minute.

Each time the sum was over £50k. Each time the online xfer was paused while I called them. I explained why/wherefore each time. On each occasion I was told to cut the call off and they would recall me on my registered number.

All Done/Dusted. Making low value transfers after setting up the payee meant that the two involving family members had a footprint before I started.

If, as I thought they said, the OP had already moved several tens of £k including to builders etc in the same timeframe then there will, quite reasonably, be flags on the bank's systems.

Just one of those things. Not worth getting het up over. Tell them the SO is to help her get something she wants or needs but cannot afford.

Anything the banks can do to make it harder for customers to be scammed has to be a good thing. I'm happy to spend a few mins answering questions if it supports a process which might protect me or someone vulnerable.

Depends if its Natwest!

Dec 2021 - NatWest has been fined more than £264m for anti-money-laundering failures that involved black bin liners stuffed full of cash being deposited, and sums so large that one branch’s two floor-to-ceiling safes proved “inadequate” for storing it all.
The Bradford jeweller Fowler Oldfield’s predicted annual turnover was £15m when first taken on as a client, but it ended up depositing £365m with the bank over a five-year period, including £264m in cash.

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen

One of the branchmanagers when we were in trying to persuade them to let us move some of our own money to another savings institution told us that they are ‘ incentivised’ to hang on to as much deposit as they can ( he gave us a bankers draft for the money, I suspect he was planning to leave)

Someone is lying.

I had a relative who was in the early stages of Huntingtons disease, neither he nor his relatives suspected this disease ran in the family. He was targeted by a female 'friend' who managed to steal thousands of pounds. Once his family realized he was becoming ill and pushed for a diagnosis, the extent of the fraud was uncovered. The Garda refused to prosecute because he had given her the money.

Protections such as this could have stopped the fraud earlier.

Whilst annoying, there are lots of scenarios, such as this one, that are difficult to anticipate but they protect your money, not just the banks. That said, I see little wrong with the banks protecting their interests in this way. If everything is above board, there's no actual issue here.

I do think it's outrageous that London is a money laundering centre, estimated at £125bn last year. If better checks can out a dent in that, I'm all for it.

Banks are headache inducing on a good day, so I have sympathy for your frustration.

This https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xsLJZyih3Ac&vl=en about scamming the scammers is entertaining big but really opened my eyes to how they prey on the elderly, weaponise empathy and how much stigma there is for being a victim of a scam.

Banks play an important role in stopping this.

OP, I am with you 100% on this. Banks seem to be overreaching into unnecessary waters all the time. Yours is not the first story of this kind I have heard.

Don't bother with Nationwide - they are a nightmare. Nearly every online purchase I make requires a verification code, and these are to well established, well-known UK companies, nothing dodgy. It drives me bonkers.

I couldn't be bothered to get my knickers in a twist over this.

Banking is annoying. The End.

I personally think your being difficult.. either just tell them or make something up. Rather they did checks than didn't

The “Hi mum” scam is absolutely rampant and they’re doing the right thing by checking

It may seem like over kill but banks have to be seen to do as much as possible to prevent people being scammed.
I worked in a bank for 8 years (including 6 months on telephone banking) and you’ve no idea the number of ways fraudsters convince people to willingly send them money and how much some people have lost.
Yes it may be an inconvenience but if just one person who is being scammed/coerced into making a payment can be identified from one of these questions its worth it. They’re asking you what its for as this could flag up that someones impersonating your daughter (the classic please send money i’m stuck somewhere/have had my bag stolen with phone/cards in it etc etc) or someones possibly about to scam your daughter or a fraudsters given you a story to tell the bank so payment goes through, the list of common scams is huge and once a scenario works they keep using it until banks pick up on it and red flag it.
As for the complaints team to be honest they are usually just trained to deal with complaints so that they are handled the way the bank ombudsman needs them to be- often they’ve got no experience of any other departments workings so probably can’t tell you much about fraud prevention (the bank also doesn’t want anyone to know the hows and whys of fraud prevention so that information doesn’t get into fraudsters hands to enable them to further evade the system).
What you have to remember is banks are all about profit so they wouldn’t ask unnecessary questions and keep you on the phone any longer than possible unless it was absolutely necessary as time is money- the person answering the calls probably hates asking them all but won’t be able to proceed without getting answers for them, will get calls checked at random so will face disciplinary action if they don’t ask them (and get a satisfactory answer) and couldn’t care less why your transferring money to your daughter.

I don't know your age, but elder abuse is absolutely rife sadly.

Had a similar thing happen to me this week. But it was online! It was frustrating - but happy that banks are trying to help us not to get scammed.

I do understand why banks do checks like these - there was programme a few years ago where scammers targeted an elderly man and were charging him ridiculous amounts for very simple jobs. I can't remember the exact amount/job but he went to the bank to withdraw something like £10k and when they asked him what for he said to have the gutters cleared. After a bit of chatting the bank staff realised he was being scammed and the police were involved. If questions save one vulnerable person from losing all their money I'm happy to answer them.

However I was nonplussed the other week when HSBC wouldn't let me pay cash into my husband's First Direct account! We don't have a joint account so the cashier suggested paying it into mine then she could transfer it - I'm not sure how that is supposed to prevent whatever they were trying to prevent as the net result was the money went into his account but was just more of a faff.

You can disregard it but it does protect vulnerable people as well. My father had a payment for refused for payment of a car. It was a scam.

For you there was no scam so it seems futile but for others it’s not.

This is such a weird thing to get mad about.

Money laundering laws changed a little while ago. Banks already ask as standard whether you have been coerced into sending money, and generally check that you’re not being scammed. But now, if it’s a substantial sum of money being transferred they have to comply with money laundering laws as well, so if it’s over a certain amount they have to ask for extra details. I deposited a cheque and a substantial amount of cash in my bank recently from my partner because we’re having a wet room installed and the company want bank transfers. When I paid it in I questioned as to where it had come from, and why. Intrusive, but the ultimately the bank are liable.