Confirmation of Payee
Discussion
Just had an email from my bank saying that when I make any online payments the payee name will now be checked.
Sounds like a right PITA especially when it comes to TA business etal. If the name does not match then payment wont be sent and the bank wont offer any advice you have to contact the payee directly.
If it almost matches then they will show you the actual name and you have to confirm its ok.
All sounds a bit cake and @rse to me!!!
Sounds like a right PITA especially when it comes to TA business etal. If the name does not match then payment wont be sent and the bank wont offer any advice you have to contact the payee directly.
If it almost matches then they will show you the actual name and you have to confirm its ok.
All sounds a bit cake and @rse to me!!!
As far as I know, all banks are moving over to this apparently more rigorous system. I have received several notices about this. I will assess whether it is a PITA when the system comes into use shortly.
The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
It seems remarkably simple and is IMO an overdue improvement. The old system has been crazy where a single keying error among 14 meaningless digits could send your money to a wrong destination when you'd easily have spotted the error with a name displayed.
You don't have to type in an exact name - it's a supporting mechanism rather than a fundamental element of the payment machinery. You type the sort code and account number of a new payee and the screen then shows the name (or possible names to choose among if more than one) associated with that account. If it looks like the wrong name you've got the opportunity to make any corrections or go away and check.
You don't have to type in an exact name - it's a supporting mechanism rather than a fundamental element of the payment machinery. You type the sort code and account number of a new payee and the screen then shows the name (or possible names to choose among if more than one) associated with that account. If it looks like the wrong name you've got the opportunity to make any corrections or go away and check.
rockin said:
It seems remarkably simple and is IMO an overdue improvement. The old system has been crazy where a single keying error among 14 meaningless digits could send your money to a wrong destination when you'd easily have spotted the error with a name displayed.
You don't have to type in an exact name - it's a supporting mechanism rather than a fundamental element of the payment machinery. You type the sort code and account number of a new payee and the screen then shows the name (or possible names to choose among if more than one) associated with that account. If it looks like the wrong name you've got the opportunity to make any corrections or go away and check.
This. It’s useful rather than annoying, and will protect the vast majority of retail customers from simple errors due to mis-keying, and possibly from scams.You don't have to type in an exact name - it's a supporting mechanism rather than a fundamental element of the payment machinery. You type the sort code and account number of a new payee and the screen then shows the name (or possible names to choose among if more than one) associated with that account. If it looks like the wrong name you've got the opportunity to make any corrections or go away and check.
The Leaper said:
As far as I know, all banks are moving over to this apparently more rigorous system. I have received several notices about this. I will assess whether it is a PITA when the system comes into use shortly.
The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
Surely that's right though? If you make a transfer, it's your responsibility to ensure it's going to the right place, the bank just action what you ask, they aren't there to hold your hand and check everything you do.The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
Don't see any issue with this and it's also baffeling when it's taken so long to happen, surely even back in the advent of digitisation of banking in the 80's it should have been possible?
I assume the confirmation of payee for a company will be the name of the business and not Linda from the accounts department of the firm.
I assume the confirmation of payee for a company will be the name of the business and not Linda from the accounts department of the firm.
The Leaper said:
The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments..
What you've described is already the case - if you mistype a sort code and account number and these happen to be valid, the bank will make the payment and are under very little obligation to sort it out for you. They can request reversal of the payment, but the other party may or may not oblige...As a result, this will allow customers to perform an extra check before sending money, hopefully eliminating this risk.
eybic said:
The Leaper said:
As far as I know, all banks are moving over to this apparently more rigorous system. I have received several notices about this. I will assess whether it is a PITA when the system comes into use shortly.
The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
Surely that's right though? If you make a transfer, it's your responsibility to ensure it's going to the right place, the bank just action what you ask, they aren't there to hold your hand and check everything you do.The cynical side of me suggests that this is a manoeuvre by the banks to put more responsibility on the payor to ensure payment is directed to the right payee, and any slip up is the payor's fault, not the bank's, so they will be less likely to be covering misdirected payments.
R.
untakenname said:
Don't see any issue with this and it's also baffeling when it's taken so long to happen, surely even back in the advent of digitisation of banking in the 80's it should have been possible?
Think this is part of the new open banking standards, which also allow you to see details of your accounts held with other banks all in one place.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff