Maoraigh wrote:
PS. I thought the staff were employees, not volunteers. Rise is said to be due to wage increases.
The LAA does have full time paid staff.
I’m sure some of the rise factored in the cost of the fraud (but they should be able to get a substantial amount back – the money NatWest transferred hours AFTER being informed that it was fraudulent), but given most LAA fees haven’t changed in several years and the current rate of inflation, it’s inevitable there would be a rise of the magnitude in the email they sent out.
It has something like ~20 staff, IIRC. You can’t run something that size with volunteers, even if it is a member’s association. It does quite a lot, turns over a fair bit, and has a quasi-regulatory function devolved from the CAA.
I think scam is a better description than fraud and I don’t see how the bank can be to blame. The money was transferred totally willingly by an employee – albeit a very naïve one. The CEO has fallen on his sword.
Graham wrote:
The money was transferred totally willingly by an employee – albeit a very naïve one.
@Graham, apparently, (“it is understood that …”?) the LAA has informed Natwest about the fraud/scam and the payments were stopped, but then they were released again for an unknown reason by the bank. I think whatever was release AFTER the client notifies Natwest is on the bank, not the client.
They weren’t ‘stopped’ as I understand it. One or more (but not all) of the payments were made after banking hours which in that particular instance (type of account, amount, I dont know) means it doesn’t fully go through until the next morning. That’s all. Given they were going to another bank, there was almost certainly nothing NatWest could do to stop it completing.
I repeat, it wasn’t any sort of theft or unauthorized account access. It was totally willingly transferred by an authorised user of the account. No different to handing cash over to someone.
After the money laundry laws were changed and my main bank switched to a credit card supplier which I knew is bad (and he proved to be), I started to email my travel itinerary to my personal contact at the bank in advance. Since I and they know that the card will be blocked, calls to the 24×7 hotline got easier, most of the times. Btw, there is no ‘going through to the bank’ as the credit card institute is exactly for that – processing the payment without the bank being online (thats why the card does have its separate limit).
Regarding LAA: I got my Permit today, and at the old cost, having paid during the holiday. Excellent service as there would have been a lot of applications over their holiday shutdown.
Graham wrote:
Given they were going to another bank, there was almost certainly nothing NatWest could do to stop it completing.
You’d be surprised. I’ve seen a case where a recipient, located in a mildly exotic location, released his end of the deal upon seeing the money in his account at his bank (located in his country) on his (printed!) bank statement. Then a few days later, the money was gone. Upon inquiry, the receiving bank explained that the sending bank (located in a first world country) had called back / “requested” the return of the funds, explaining that they had released (sent) the money in error. To say that the recipient was livid is an understatement.
What was the “error”? Well, that the sending bank hadn’t properly followed their internal (notably AML/FT) process to send funds to such an exotic location. When the error was theirs, they found a way. When the error is the customer’s, they stonewall you with “the recipient must willingly return the funds”.
Yes; the concept of “cleared funds” is not well defined. A bank transfer is definitely not final, although in the 1st World it can usually be relied on.
A key factor is the time elapsed after the transfer. I’ve had orders from obvious African fraudsters, and pretending I didn’t realise, I asked them for a bank transfer. After some weeks it is likely to be “final”. Credit cards are of course going to be stolen.
My Halifax card worked the following day. Interesting it was blocked when buying a €270 ski pass, at about 7:20 am UK time, and didn’t get unblocked all of that day. Halifix (and all other banks here) are not contactable except via a chimp script call centre. Even if you write to their head office or whatever, the letter will go nowhere. Another card also got blocked on that ski pass purchase but got unblocked later that day.
The anti fraud systems these banks use are weird. Even €5 transactions were blocked.
It’s interesting that I’ve never had a card blocked — neither when travelling or when buying abroad. I haven’t heard about acquaintances having cards blocked either. The “worst” thing that’s happened to me is that the credit card company blocked a card for internet payments in a manner that I could reverse myself.
Do bank practises and/or authorisation procedures really differ that much between countries? Or is it simply that some card companies are “worse” (or more paranoid) than others? I would expect that at least in the EU there would be some harmonisation. For my cards authorisation using PIN (or CVC + electronic ID for online transactions) is virtually always required unless the amount is very small.
For my cards authorisation using PIN (or CVC + electronic ID for online transactions) is virtually always required unless the amount is very small.
That’s a key detail!
Both mine got blocked when using them via google pay, with NFC in the phone. Immediately afterwards, the Halifax one worked (for €5) if inserted into a card reader + PIN.
In the UK, I can use NFC up to about £150, usually.
Other thing I noticed is that a decline is less likely when using the card itself in wireless mode, than when using the card in the phone (google pay). I can see some “software activity” there.
Perhaps an attempt to use a card via google pay / apple pay triggers some more critical transaction evaluation.
