Needs more definition before I can really get behind it. I make several repetitive cash movements between my accounts (and my wife does the same) each month. These shouldn’t be in scope for this sort of block (same name confirmed payee, paid multiple times before) and I’d hope the rules will clarify this.
Looks like O2 are starting to roll this out, which should help cut out some of the scams we see --Brand ID and Call Defence: Nuisance calls and texts | Help & Support | O2
Brand ID lets you know when a genuine business is calling by showing their name on your screen, while Call Defence checks phone numbers to let you know if a call might be a scam or spam. It’s up to you whether you answer, but remember you should always be wary when giving any personal information over the phone.
That explains it.
I’m on Smarty/Three and received a call the other day with the company name on display. I was wondering how that had happened as the company wasn’t in my contacts.
I am on EE and got it. I thought it is part of new iOS 18 features
I think it should be cut to about 1k if not less.
That covers the vast majority of P2P transactions that wouldn’t be insanely negligent in nature.
If you’ve transferred 85,000 you should have a solicitor involved unless it’s to yourself.
Many victims believe they are transferring to themselves.
belief is likely to be unreasonable a lot of the time, in which case they shouldn’t be covered.
there can be a level of negligence where you deserve what happened
Extremely harsh.
Deserve is probably the wrong word, but you get what I mean.
Negligence to an extent where you are yourself responsible for it to an equal degree of the scammer
That’s a really tough call these days as some scams are extremely sophisticated.
Also worth remembering that as people who dwell on fintech-related forums, we’re probably not representative of the public at large. Most people are flying blind through a minefield of scams that are becoming more and more elaborate. The ones you hear about on daytime TV are probably the tip of the iceberg.
Also worth remembering that many people are still not using 2FA or a password manager. They will likely learn the hard way, but we should try to be compassionate and help them through it, not be critical because they’re not as nerdy as we probably are.
Just heard yesterday of someone who sent £175 (a lot for her) to Yondi Global to open a brokerage account that guaranteed to double her money. All this on the back of something on Facebook. Heard when she asked if it was legit as she couldn’t get through to them anymore.
It’s wishful thinking but do you really think what comes down to incompetence should be reimbursed to the tune of £85,000?
Banks have been hammering on about not doing things without knowing for sure. If people are in a position to be transferring that much money they should consult bank staff.
But of course with sophisticated scams, it never comes down to just that, does it?
I think banks are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can either be zealous in stopping what may be a fraudulent transaction, or it can let them go and have to deal with the consequences. Only recently Starling was criticised for what the complainant considered an over-reaction: MSN
…but if you are going to send a large one-off payment overseas, I would hope that the bank’s systems would spot it and shut it down.
I think maybe the middle ground is transactions over X amount need actionable dates on them and notice.
Probably also some evidence the bank can look into.
Like sending £50000 to a bank in Azerbaijan is probably a bit suspicious, but if you were sending £50000 to Azerbaijan you’d have some evidence of why you’d do that
For example, Azerbaijani residence permit/citizenship, a document or solicitors letter stating you were buying a house
Some form of evidence of you holding an account in Azerbaijan you were sending it to, maybe