Be extra careful if you bank online.

[philinux]

A slip of the finger could be costly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188381/My-7-000-just-vanished-How-slip-finger-cost-life-savings.html

[DingusFett]

Pretty easy to double check the details before confirming the payment.

[Catbells]

Many thanks. I've forwarded this link to a few people who aren't too good with computers to let them know how much trouble and heartache a simple typo can cause.

[philinux]

Pretty easy to double check the details before confirming the payment.

The problems can start if the person you are paying has given you the wrong account.

I send a small amount first. I did this recently with a new savings account I'd set up.

I think with large amounts the advice to go into the branch is sensible.

[SJR Dorset]

When I set up a new payment I always send a very small payment first to check I have entered the details correctly.

[philinux]

When I set up a new payment I always send a very small payment first to check I have entered the details correctly.

+1 like £5.

[Paqman]

Daily Mail? I'd take everything in the article with a huge pinch of salt.

[philinux]

Daily Mail? I'd take everything in the article with a huge pinch of salt.

True but the advice is good.

[Grenage]

It's the Daily Wail, everything is an outrage!

I triple check the details of any account to which I'm sending money. I agree that banking hasn't really caught up with the times; it seems like a coat of paint on an archaic system.

[mike acker]

It's the Daily Wail, everything is an outrage!

[snip] banking hasn't really caught up with the times; it seems like a coat of paint on an archaic system.

ROF,LMAO :P

all they have done is to automate manual procedures from the 1950s. the main error they are making is in failing to understand and adopt the proper method of authenticating digital transmissions|messages|documents|transactions|soft ware transmittals| etc

hint: PGP|GnuPG

[Mikeb85]

The online Banking I've used with the banks here (Canada) make this next to impossible. To transfer money online you need to first add the account, wait days for confirmation, then it will give you that account's details (number, branch, owner) and add it to your 'list' of payees, and only then can you actually transfer any money.

[philinux]

The online Banking I've used with the banks here (Canada) make this next to impossible. To transfer money online you need to first add the account, wait days for confirmation, then it will give you that account's details (number, branch, owner) and add it to your 'list' of payees, and only then can you actually transfer any money.

Sounds like a good system apart from the "days" waiting.

[jockyburns]

Here in the UK the banking system is an absolute shambles though. These days with electronic transfers etc, a customer should be able to pay a cheque in to their bank account and have access to the money within a few hours. (remember it's all done electronically anyway) However, if I pay a cheque (let's say a tax refund from the Inland Revenue), I have to wait 5 working days for the funds to clear.

[Mikeb85]

Sounds like a good system apart from the "days" waiting.

Yup. If you want an immediate transfer you need to go to a teller, or fax a transfer request with the details.

[ugm6hr]

Sounds like a good system apart from the "days" waiting.

But no greater delay than sending a small transaction to check details first... which I would always do.
As an aside, Santander comes off looking terrible in the article. Not surprised.

[vexorian]

Would it be so difficult to just make the user input the account number twice?

[Paqman]

Here in the UK the banking system is an absolute shambles though. These days with electronic transfers etc, a customer should be able to pay a cheque in to their bank account and have access to the money within a few hours. (remember it's all done electronically anyway) However, if I pay a cheque (let's say a tax refund from the Inland Revenue), I have to wait 5 working days for the funds to clear.

That's pretty standard everywhere.

As I understand it cheques do get physically sent to clearing houses to be processed, so there's bound to be a delay. Five days is a bit OTT though, I agree.

[jockyburns]

Paqman, I'm led to believe that historically, banks used to send the cheques back to the originating bank, for them to be cleared. Nowadays, it's all done electronically. What the banks actually do, is pay this money into a holding account and then process it about 3 -5 days later to the account the cheque is written out to. The banks then get interest on this money for the few days the money is in the holding account. Not a lot of interest, I hear people say,,,, But , when you consider the amount of transactions held in these holding accounts (which could be in the region of millions of pounds), then interest certainly does add up. Where does this interest go ?? To the shareholders of course. ;-)

[kurt18947]

Paqman, I'm led to believe that historically, banks used to send the cheques back to the originating bank, for them to be cleared. Nowadays, it's all done electronically. What the banks actually do, is pay this money into a holding account and then process it about 3 -5 days later to the account the cheque is written out to. The banks then get interest on this money for the few days the money is in the holding account. Not a lot of interest, I hear people say,,,, But , when you consider the amount of transactions held in these holding accounts (which could be in the region of millions of pounds), then interest certainly does add up. Where does this interest go ?? To the shareholders of course. ;-)

Imagine that :lolflag: In the U.S. it's called "float". Checked used to be physically transferred between Federal Reserve Bank districts for clearing. That stopped a few years ago. There was a whole network of small aircraft driving around in the middle of the night moving paper.

[HermanAB]

Howdy,

I have found that money can even disappear into thin air during a transfer between two banks. I once sent an amount and could not find the amount received. Eventually, I found that an amount with similar digits was received, but with the decimal shifted left a few places, turning it into a ridiculously small amount. It took a long time on the phone to get that fixed.

So amazingly, the banks do not check the transfers end to end. I suppose that money can also appear out of thin air the same way if the decimal would get shifted right. Of course, I would never be so lucky.

[lisati]

One would think that with the bulk of processing done electronically these days there'd be a smaller delay before cheques are cleared. AFAIK part of the delay is so that if there's different bank or branch involved, the delay gives the other bank/branch a chance to manually review accounts where a problem has been flagged.

I don't know about other countries, but it used to be a common practice here in New Zealand for accounts to be numbered in such a way that some common errors (e.g. transposed digits) are quickly spotted before a transaction is completed.

[mastablasta]

strange... as i know here it won't process if the recipients address and account don't match.

additionally you need to confirm the data 2 times. one on input and one in confirmation.


as for cheques - if they are form abroad it can take 2 weeks and up to a month for them to be processed. as they get sent arround for confirmaiton. ofcourse local cheques have shorter time of processing due to the banks being closer to eachother.

[Paqman]

Cheques are last century's solution anyway. I wrote about two or three last year, and I'm sure the people who wanted to be paid that way could have adapted to another method if they had to.

They were due to get axed here in the UK, but there was a bit of an outcry from old biddies so we're stuck with them for now.

Just bin 'em I say, they're archaic.

[Grenage]

When I was in college, and worked at Safeways, I used to cry* when I saw people looking for a cheque book.

*Obviously, it was a manly, internal cry.

[mastablasta]

Cheques are last century's solution anyway. I wrote about two or three last year, and I'm sure the people who wanted to be paid that way could have adapted to another method if they had to.

They were due to get axed here in the UK, but there was a bit of an outcry from old biddies so we're stuck with them for now.

Just bin 'em I say, they're archaic.

Google pays with cheques... wish they switched to something else.

anyway they were abandoned here for quite some time but lately they were introduced. Mostly as it's preety easy to use them as short term credit. You just write them a bunch with different date on (for exmapel one every month). no need to get any bank permission, employees guarantee. extra credit fees and such. anyway i used to have them but not anymore. I guess they would be usefull again for short time credit.


otherwise as means fo money transfer (for example to cover a proforma invoice) they are really archaic.