|
|
Post by batchoy on Jan 25, 2014 18:40:53 GMT
Not content with paying you nothing on your deposits they now want proof of how intend to spend it before they allow you to withdraw it and wont let you have it if you can't: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717 |
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 25, 2014 21:27:26 GMT
Just let my bank try that on!! Guaranteed "close all accounts" amid a loud noise in the bank so all can hear and plenty of promises of online bad publicity!
I withdrew £4400 at the counter last year without notice (to pay cash for a paint job on a boat) and LTSB did not ask any questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jan 26, 2014 9:25:11 GMT
Unbelievable! Fraud protection gone mad..?
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jan 26, 2014 10:20:35 GMT
Unbelievable! Fraud protection gone mad..? Fraud protection??? Treating everyone as a 3 year old, no make that a 1 year year old. Thought this part just about summed it up '....the bank wants to make sure it's the right way to make the payment....'.
Sounds about right then.
|
|
|
|
Post by westonkevRS on Jan 26, 2014 12:07:02 GMT
It isn't fraud management, it is probably linked to anti-money laundering regulations. It might have changed from my banking days, but £5k transactions in cash was always the threshold. Staff in branches were personally liable for a fine and potential jail if the transaction was subsequently linked to money laundering. The regulations make clear that staff and the bank could be liable. Hence the annual video training of all bank staff and apppointment of a MLRO. These rules are probably to protect staff from themselves, I.e. ensure large cash transactions (>£5k or multiple withdrawels or deposits) are questioned. It for our own protection from drug barons and terrorism!  |
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Jan 26, 2014 13:55:59 GMT
Yeah, we all hate the banks-that's a given, but could this be case of trying, in a clumsy way, to inhibit the fraud inflicted on vulnerable people by 'boiler rooms' and other phone scammer types?
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Jan 26, 2014 14:02:26 GMT
Its not just cash withdrawals it also cheque deposits. Winding up the estate of a relative my fellow executors and I were faced with either having to take time off work to go en-mass to the bank to arrange chaps payments (and pay for the privileged) or meet up one weekend and write the cheques. We chose to do the latter, and on the following Monday I presented my cheque to the cashier at my bank. She took one look asked me to excuse her and departed, at which point I was promptly escorted from the counter to a side room by several members of staff who seemed to appear from nowhere. In the side room I was subjected questioning over the source of the money, this only ceased when I pointed out the name of the paying account on the cheque, "The Executors of xxxx Deceased" followed by my name and that of the other executors, and was able to show the probate documents, death certificate and my driving licence which I happened to have with me. The second executor had the same thing happen to him (different bank) but as he could not prove his identity nor the death and probate he had to leave minus the cheque and return another day with suitable proofs. The third simply paid the cheque in without issue (different bank again).
The crazy thing about it was that the excutors' account was with the same bank (different branch) to the one where I was attempting to pay the cheque in so they could have looked it up on their computers and their policy is not to open executors accounts until probate is granted so it was not as if it was any old account, also the bulk of the money in the executors account had come from accounts that had been held with the bank to start with.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Jan 26, 2014 14:15:42 GMT
Its not just cash withdrawals it also cheque deposits. Winding up the estate of a family member my fellow executors and I were faced with either having to take time off work to go en-mass to the bank to arrange chaps payments (and pay for the privileged) or meet up one weekend and write the cheques. We chose to do the latter, and on the following Monday I presented my cheque to the cashier at my bank. She took one look asked me to excuse her and departed, at which point I was promptly escorted from the counter to a side room by several members of staff who seemed to appear from nowhere. In the side room I was subjected questioning over the source of the money, this only ceased when I pointed out the name of the paying account on the cheque, "The Executors of xxxx Deceased" followed by my name and that of the other executors, and was able to show the probate documents, death certificate and my driving licence which I happened to have with me. The second executor had the same thing happen to him (different bank) but as he could not prove his identity nor the death and probate he had to leave minus the cheque and return another day with suitable proofs. The third simply paid the cheque in without issue (different bank again). The crazy thing about it was that the excutors' account was with the same bank (different branch) to the one where I was attempting to pay the cheque in so they could have looked it up on their computers and their policy is not to open executors accounts until probate is granted so it was not as if it was any old account, also the bulk of the money in the executors account had come from accounts that had been held with the bank to start with. Using your imagination is discouraged when working in a bank - otherwise they'll start imagining themselves on a beach somewhere with our money...
|
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on Jan 27, 2014 16:43:46 GMT
Using your imagination is discouraged when working in a bank - otherwise they'll start imagining themselves on a beach somewhere with our money... Not only is imagination discouraged, but you also are not encouraged to use your initiative, even as a manager. At the time when I was made redundant from a mainstream clearing bank in 1993 after a takeover, I was a manager of an international banking unit which looked after the import/export transcations of customers in a region of the UK. Trading under the bank's earlier name managers had been allowed, even encouraged, to use their discretion in relation to customer requirements. We were highly trained, reasonably well paid (but we were lucky to get 2% bonuses), and were expected to use our knowledge constructively. After the takeover, a lot fewer managers were needed because their knowledge was of little relevance. If all you had to do was follow a rule book then you could get a chimpanzee to do it. So many of us were made redundant. I might add that under the new regime most of us could not get out quickly enough. So don't be surprised about the banks as they now are. The rigid laws suit them down to the ground and are entirely consistent with their own inflexible philosophies which mean they can employ modestly paid front-line staff, while reserving fantastic money for the 'top'. All part of the de-skilling of the workforce.
|
|
