Name checks to begin on bank payments

[mc2fool]

The problem with that is that, in my case at least, the great majority of payees in most of my accounts are myself, i.e. my savings and current accounts with other banks. At the moment I take advantage of the fact that the name isn't checked and name them appropriately, e.g. "SAN 123 AC", "BOS 87654321", "LSB IAI3" (Lemon Savings Bank Instant Access Issue 3), etc, etc.

However, once the payee name is checked and I have to put in the real name, i.e. mine, then unless the banks implement a separate identifier to appear in the list of payees that one chooses from, then I will just have a long list of "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", etc.

I suffer from the same problem. I must admit it had not occurred to me to use the payee name for this purpose, and I instead use the payment reference field, which is not ideal but better than nothing.

Ummm ... do your banks show you the payment reference in their list of existing payees? All of mine don't show you that until you select one.

It's also problematic as some savings accounts don't have "direct" accounts numbers but require you to send funds to a common sort code & account number and put your individual account number in as the reference.

[swill453]

Ummm ... do your banks show you the payment reference in their list of existing payees? All of mine don't show you that until you select one.

My main bank (First Direct) shows account name, reference, sort code and account number in the list.

Scott.

[chas49]

The problem with that is that, in my case at least, the great majority of payees in most of my accounts are myself, i.e. my savings and current accounts with other banks. At the moment I take advantage of the fact that the name isn't checked and name them appropriately, e.g. "SAN 123 AC", "BOS 87654321", "LSB IAI3" (Lemon Savings Bank Instant Access Issue 3), etc, etc.

However, once the payee name is checked and I have to put in the real name, i.e. mine, then unless the banks implement a separate identifier to appear in the list of payees that one chooses from, then I will just have a long list of "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", "mc2fool", etc.

I suffer from the same problem. I must admit it had not occurred to me to use the payee name for this purpose, and I instead use the payment reference field, which is not ideal but better than nothing.

Ummm ... do your banks show you the payment reference in their list of existing payees? All of mine don't show you that until you select one.

It's also problematic as some savings accounts don't have "direct" accounts numbers but require you to send funds to a common sort code & account number and put your individual account number in as the reference.

Prompted by this, I went to look at my Nationwide online banking because I recall having the same problem (differentiating between several accounts with the same payee name). It seems that things have changed because Nwide now show the payee name and the description in brackets (if there is one). Annoyingly they only do this on the "make a payment" screen. If you go to the "manage payees" screen it shows the payee name and the reference instead of the description - and there's enough room on that screen to show both!

[Stompa]

Ummm ... do your banks show you the payment reference in their list of existing payees? All of mine don't show you that until you select one.

No, most don't, which is why yours is a better system (for now!). You still have to select them, but it seems marginally easier to just check the name in the reference field rather than check account numbers.

It's also problematic as some savings accounts don't have "direct" accounts numbers but require you to send funds to a common sort code & account number and put your individual account number in as the reference.

Yes, I realise that.

[Stompa]

You also gave them your address and postcode...

No, that's the point, I didn't. I was using my card to make a payment on someone else's behalf. So they had their address and postcode, not mine.

Well if that's the case then the merchant (or merchant's system) decided to accept it despite the card processor warning the merchant (or merchant's system) that the address and postcode verification has failed.

(I used to run a business that took online card payments and I implemented the interface between our website and our card processor, and if we got any such warning the transaction would be put on hold pending manual eyeballing...)

It struck me as very odd at the time. FWIW it was the NHS website for ordering prescription prepayment certificates.

[Itsallaguess]

Now I wonder if anyone has a link to the internet archive's save (if any) of the thread on TMF where Fools were claiming this was "impossible" ('cos of "Fred Bloggs" for "Frederick Bloggs esq")

Well it can't have been easy, otherwise it wouldn't have been so newsworthy all these years later that the blighters have managed to actually improve things!

and were proposing that each bank account should have a cryptic hash value that one would also need to enter (in addition to sort code and a/c no) when transferring to that account.

I'm not sure the wording being used was 'would also need to enter', and I seem to remember that it might have been more to do with an additional layer of cross-confirmation if people wished to use it and (thought..) that they knew it.

If you're saying that this would have been a great additional benefit had it been implemented early on in the online-banking process then I'm afraid I'd have to very much agree with you....

You do wonder what the people involved were thinking when they didn't come up with such additional confirmation-checks when they were initially designing the online-banking systems....surely this isn't rocket-science??

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Lootman]

I've certainly successfully made an online purchase where the only info I provided was card number and CVV. No other info about the cardholder was requested.

You also gave them your address and postcode, which are both checked as individual data, and your IP address, which goes into country validation.

Regarding IP address, I've successfully performed online card transactions when out of the country. So it is not clear to me that card issuers necessarily do anything with that country information. After all, cards are supposed to be capable of being used globally, and I notice that the requirement to ring your card issuer when you go overseas has been dropped some time in the last year or so.

Of course, with a VPN you can arrange to be perceived as never having left the country anyway

[mc2fool]

Regarding IP address, I've successfully performed online card transactions when out of the country. So it is not clear to me that card issuers necessarily do anything with that country information.

Try using it from Nigeria

Country of issue of card vs country of use is most definitely a factor that is taken into account for fraud prevention but that doesn't mean it's an absolute factor as, obviously and as you say, their use internationally is one of the selling points of credit/debit cards.

As I said, I used to run a business that took online card payments and I implemented the interface between our website and our card processor, and a lack of "country match" was one of the things that would contribute to the card processor raising a caution/warning/rejection on the transaction.

[mc2fool]

The topic is discussed on BBC Money box this week. It's the first article, starting at 0m45s and runs for about 6 minutes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000sr4

[AleisterCrowley]

The problem with that is that, in my case at least, the great majority of payees in most of my accounts are myself, i.e. my savings and current accounts with other banks. At the moment I take advantage of the fact that the name isn't checked and name them appropriately, e.g. "SAN 123 AC", "BOS 8765432....

I suffer from the same problem. I must admit it had not occurred to me to use the payee name for this purpose, and I instead use the payment reference field, which is not ideal but better than nothing.

I vary the amount slightly and use the pence to identify the account.
Rather than £200 a month to various savings accounts I may transfer £199.90/£199.96/£199.98 etc, knowing that the .96 is Halifax and so on

[mc2fool]

The problem with that is that, in my case at least, the great majority of payees in most of my accounts are myself, i.e. my savings and current accounts with other banks. At the moment I take advantage of the fact that the name isn't checked and name them appropriately, e.g. "SAN 123 AC", "BOS 8765432....

I suffer from the same problem. I must admit it had not occurred to me to use the payee name for this purpose, and I instead use the payment reference field, which is not ideal but better than nothing.

I vary the amount slightly and use the pence to identify the account.
Rather than £200 a month to various savings accounts I may transfer £199.90/£199.96/£199.98 etc, knowing that the .96 is Halifax and so on

How does that help you easily select the correct payee when you want to make a transfer to another of your accounts?

It's surely only potentially useful to identify the account a transfer went to (and/or came from) when looking at statements after the transfer has happened, no?

[Slarti]

I foresee problems with companies paying out of accounting software where, because they knew it was not used, they weren't to careful about filling in the account name, on their system, when the account was set up.

Also, what about joint accounts?
EG Mr Slarti Bartfast & Mrs Trillian Bartfast
Payments come to Slarti Bartfast or Trillian Bartfast, very rarely to both.

Also, the name field on most payment systems is not as long as the bank account name can be, so there must be thousands of abbreviated account names out there.

Just thoughts.
Slarti

[AleisterCrowley]

I suffer from the same problem. I must admit it had not occurred to me to use the payee name for this purpose, and I instead use the payment reference field, which is not ideal but better than nothing.

I vary the amount slightly and use the pence to identify the account.
Rather than £200 a month to various savings accounts I may transfer £199.90/£199.96/£199.98 etc, knowing that the .96 is Halifax and so on

How does that help you easily select the correct payee when you want to make a transfer to another of your accounts?

It's surely only potentially useful to identify the account a transfer went to (and/or came from) when looking at statements after the transfer has happened, no?

Yes, that's what I use it for. I don't need to select payee as the SOs are up and running

[swill453]

I foresee problems with companies paying out of accounting software where, because they knew it was not used, they weren't to careful about filling in the account name, on their system, when the account was set up.

Also, what about joint accounts?
EG Mr Slarti Bartfast & Mrs Trillian Bartfast
Payments come to Slarti Bartfast or Trillian Bartfast, very rarely to both.

Also, the name field on most payment systems is not as long as the bank account name can be, so there must be thousands of abbreviated account names out there.

Just thoughts.
Slarti

It's not an intrinsic part of the banks' payment system, more of an add-on layered on top. So will probably be not used in the accounting software case.

Joint accounts will be handled ok. If it's an exact match to one of the names the receiving bank can, at their option, accept it without question. Alternatively they could respond with the full account name and ask the payer if they want to proceed.

Scott.

[Slarti]

I foresee problems with companies paying out of accounting software where, because they knew it was not used, they weren't to careful about filling in the account name, on their system, when the account was set up.

Also, what about joint accounts?
EG Mr Slarti Bartfast & Mrs Trillian Bartfast
Payments come to Slarti Bartfast or Trillian Bartfast, very rarely to both.

Also, the name field on most payment systems is not as long as the bank account name can be, so there must be thousands of abbreviated account names out there.

Just thoughts.
Slarti

It's not an intrinsic part of the banks' payment system, more of an add-on layered on top. So will probably be not used in the accounting software case.

Joint accounts will be handled ok. If it's an exact match to one of the names the receiving bank can, at their option, accept it without question. Alternatively they could respond with the full account name and ask the payer if they want to proceed.

Scott.

Also, it is only when setting up a new payee or amending an existing one that this will kick in, so it won't affect most people very often.

Everything already set up should be fine.

Slarti

[JuanDB]

I work in and around this industry and have had some involvement in the CoP service.

The primary motivation for the introduction of CoP is the rise of approved push payment or APP scams. At present liability sits entirely with the consumer for an incorrect payment to a correct beneficiary account. Where the consumer has little to no information that helps them determine whether the account details entered belong to the intended beneficiary it is increasingly difficult to leave liability with them. CoP gives tools to the consumer to allow them to ascertain whether the account belongs to the intended beneficiary, and passes liability to the payment service provider where CoP is not completed and leaves it with the consumer where they ignore an incorrect beneficiary and proceed to payment.

The planned UX seems a bit clunky but it’s undoubtedly a useful and necessary service.

As someone else mentioned this is not a bank service but what is known as an overlay service designed by what is now called Pay.uk, the newly renamed uk payment scheme operator.

Thanks,

Juan.

[gnawsome]

I really can't believe it's taken so long for the banks to get their house in order regarding this, but it sounds like things are at last going to improve from the middle of 2019 -

The name of someone receiving a payment will be as important as their banking details for the first time from next summer, in an attempt to combat fraud.

At present, anyone wanting to transfer money enters the intended recipient's name, account number and sort code. However, the name is not checked. Under plans from the UK's payments operator, the sender will be alerted if the name does not match the account.

Banks have been accused of dragging their heels in introducing the system. It is designed to combat cases when fraudsters mimic a genuine business and attempt to trick people into sending money to an account controlled by the con-artist.

How Confirmation of Payee will work

When setting up a new payment, or amending an existing one, banks will be able to check the name on the account of the person or organisation you are paying.

• If you use the correct account name, you will receive confirmation that the details match, and can proceed with the payment
  
• If you use a similar name to the account holder, you will be provided with the actual name of the account holder to check. You can update the details and try again, or contact the intended recipient to check the details
  
• If you enter the wrong name for the account holder you will be told the details do not match and advised to contact the person or organisation you are trying to pay

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45900955

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

EXCEPT that Santander will not allow payments to be made unless I/you provide a a mobile phone number. Yes just checked and the message says ONE TIME PASSCODE...
I know, I wearied many with my previous complaints about this and have been waiting for the Ombudsman's final decision (further delayed) before updating but this thread seems to validate my argument that a better way exists for making online payments.

[mc2fool]

EXCEPT that Santander will not allow payments to be made unless I/you provide a a mobile phone number. Yes just checked and the message says ONE TIME PASSCODE...
I know, I wearied many with my previous complaints about this and have been waiting for the Ombudsman's final decision (further delayed) before updating but this thread seems to validate my argument that a better way exists for making online payments.

Uh? One has nothing to do with the other.

The name checks that this thread is about are to help ensure that the payment is going to the right person, i.e. that it's really them.

The mobile phone passcode is to help ensure that the payment is being made by the right person, i.e. that it's really you.