I don’t understand why in this day and age there’s even such a thing as waiting on the line. Just give me a callback, let a computer make sure I’ve picked up, then hand it back to the operator.
2 Likes
This is a ridiculous misconception. All banks will freeze your accounts if they have to, and none of them will be able to say anything to you if they have suspicions. Arguably Starling are the most open about it and actively request documents. Good luck speaking to someone at a conventional bank if they have concerns. You’ll probably hear in a number of weeks’ time
5 Likes
The only issue I’ve had with locked payments or the like is with a High st bank - often for minuscule sums of money to which you must be read a patronising script. Can takes ages to call - be they refuse to help if you say the wrong thing…
Branches can’t really alter things if the fraud department get a whiff
1 Like
“as because they have this annoying habit of locking your money up for months, whilst the 2 people they employ in AML slowly work their way through”
Blame this on the NCA. No disclosure allowed and they determine when accounts can be unlocked when they have an AML report on hand. Often asking for extensions to agreed timescales too.
30-40 minute wait times are a disaster for retail banks now. The issue I see is that paying most of your staff £18-21k is going to be a problem for recruiting and retention. Staff then being treated like shit by customers just makes for a bad compounding mix.
And then personal banking has fewer profitable revenue streams, if any left. Cost cutting seems like the only way up for most banks.
2 Likes
Yes, exactly!
A few weeks ago HSBC blocked a payment of mine, read the script to unblock my internet and mobile banking access (and confirm it was a genuine payment), then asked if I still wanted to make the payment.
When I said I did, they made me hear them read the whole script again! It was like the Spanish Inquisition, and took ages - this was calling a whole day later, as I made the payment in the evening and their department had closed 5 minutes after I tried calling the first time, so I waited on hold only for the line to go dead!
1 Like
I can and do, although the banks are also to blame. Activity that could never possibly have warranted an NCA report still gets “caught” in their algorithms and there is a “guilty unless you can prove innocence” attitude.
You also know it hasn’t been NCA referred, as once you call and go through their hoops they do unlock the account immediately- which, as you point out, wouldn’t be allowed if you were the subject of a “real” investigation.
I’m still at a loss as to how it’s ever possible to do certain normal activities without a red flag being raised. For example, setting up an account which happens to not have CoP support as a new payee is now very difficult at every bank - yet a large number of smaller providers of savings accounts, especially, don’t support it.
Even CoP has somewhat been made redundant. The MO now is for fraudster to convince customers to open accounts and give over control to the fraudster. Open banking is being used as a way to abuse CoP in the same way.
The AML checks could do with some common sense. There is something of a basement dwelling feeling to the way many banks handle it.
Revolut has been one of the best in my own personal experience. Checking payments at the point credit which has been unusually simple and quick to sort.
To be honest, I feel somewhat like I’ve been defrauded (by a bank) every time I get my account blocked and have to call a call a bank.
You get badly treated, and it is stressful, and you wonder if you are going to get your money back! The whole time, you are treated with distain as though it’s “your fault” that you’ve done something which has triggered the system - not unlike victims of scams feeling ashamed and like it’s “their fault” for being drawn in.
That comment is tongue-in-cheek, but only slightly!
Could you reword this - I don’t follow sorry!
I think it meant asking about suspicious credits (money coming in), rather than debits.
Ah yeah. I’ve only ever had two payments in queried & never any out - but I think it can happen.
One in was my own and it was resolved in 50 seconds via chat - no lie - don’t see how this could be improved upon. The other from my partner took a day or so - no longer than experiences I’ve had with BAM!
Biggest issues I’ve ever had with Rev have been around Direct Debits - but it’s going alright presently.
1 Like
My feeling is, if they are going to block access to my money because they think the way I’m using it is suspicious, they should allow me to call them 24/7 to sort that - like you usually can with a lost or stolen card.
Far too many banks have very limited hours for “the fraud team”, so much so it’s difficult to speak to them if you work normal working hours yourself!
Especially when you have to factor in enough time for 30+ minute hold times!
Yeah it’s a pain and it manifests itself in different ways - all of which are problematic.
1 Like
I also think the idea that Revolut have 2 compliance officers is a little barmy - don’t they have more European customers than HSBC?
1 Like
A lot of fraud and AML controls happen as money is attempted out of an account. Especially fraud checks.
With Revolut, they started checking the validity of payments immediately as they credited an account. It’s a mix of automated and human interaction.
I have been genuinely impressed with how Revolut have handled it.
1 Like
I’m not sure the “2 people they employ in AML” is far off! I’m almost tempted to do a few freedom of information requests to find out how many banks are understaffed in compliance. It’s a tough area to recruit… I know directly of at least one bank that has regulatory findings, basically for lack of staff…
Yes, but arguably RBS and other incumbents have a lot more data to work off of “what is standard usage” as they hold 10+% of the entire UK market. So they’re less likely to lock you out to begin with.
This happened to me recently too.
I made a transfer from my personal HSBC account to my joint Starling account. Bear in mind I’d already verified the name on the account as being my own, they still asked me if I knew the account holder and whether someone had asked me to do it, etc.
I get the whole point of fraud detection, but they didn’t seem to understand the concept of “I’m transferring money to my account, with my name on it”, which was annoying.
Like @Seb, I then had to listen to the whole script about being asked to transfer to another account, at least twice.
Just glad that’s the only time it’s happened to me!
(Apologies - a bit late to the conversation here 
)
A lot of that will be to do with the requirements of the App Scam Code I imagine - that and fraudsters asking victims to transfer money into “safe accounts” (in their own name) at other banks.
1 Like
Neither did the guy I spoke to.
As soon as I said that, the undertone was that I must be lying as “fraudsters can coach customers on what to tell the bank”. At that point, I was thinking “well, why ask customers to call you to confirm in the first place, if you aren’t even going to believe what they say under the assumption they could be lying?” but I just maintained calm so the guy would think I wasn’t trying to hurry him (which would, probably, have got him thinking that there was even more chance I was being scammed)!
The whole thing cost me a day’s interest too, but I couldn’t be bothered to moan about that in the end.
In my case, they were very insistent that I retrieved the account details for my other account from a trusted source - I did say that I had read them off the front of a statement, which wasn’t actually true but satisfied them.
1 Like