I really don’t know why we don’t use IBAN in the UK, it adds another level of checking so this sort of thing couldn’t easily happen by just transposing one digit.

Because the whole banking sector operates around sort code and account number, and to change that would be MASSIVE. Not saying it’s not a good idea, but the impact is huge.

Not saying it’s not a good idea, but the impact is huge

Other countries seem to have managed.

Other countries seem to have managed

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Again, I’m not saying its not a good idea, but it’s big change given the alternative is to simply take care when you’re inputting payment details.

There is a good reason why the system works as it does. If it was very easy for people to claim money back from claiming transfers were done in error then this would become a back door to people claiming all sorts of money back when in dispute for something (disputes being possibly genuine or not).

Banks have no place getting involved in disputes over payments so the system must work one way or another and it is only fair to let it work against those that make the error in the first place.

PS adding more numbers or details would not alter the fact that people will make mistakes.

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

The whole of the euro zone managed it in the last 12 months, it is laughable to claim that the UK’s banking system is somehow more sophisticated than the rest of europe.

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Hmmmm, I have an account in a European country and their banking system and customer care/accessibility to people who talk sense (in a language that isn’t theirs) makes my UK bank look like they have been at it for a matter of weeks, not 100 years…..

Admittedly I pay for the privilege but the difference is worth paying for.

uwe-r – Member

Banks have no place getting involved in disputes over payments so the system must work one way or another and it is only fair to let it work against those that make the error in the first place.

PS adding more numbers or details would not alter the fact that people will make mistakes.

The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It’s just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.

Regarding adding more numbers or details not altering the fact that people will make mistakes, you are correct.
But wouldn’t it be useful to have error detection built into the numbers (as it is with credit cards) to detect whether the numbers are correct or not, rather than have the attitude of “tough, you got it wrong”??

I found this article that explains how it works for credit cards:

https://plus.maths.org/content/take-break

It claims that the current system for credit cards can detect 97.8% of errors and adding a second check digit (instead of the one that exists in current credit cards) could not only detect the error, but correct it.

I am sure they said that there is some identifier with credit cards that means the wrong numbers won’t work together; i.e. if you get one number wrong, there is some kind of ‘code’ in the number that recognises you’ve made a mistake.

That would be the Luhn algorithm.

Do UK banks really not use a control digit to validate numbers? All Spanish banks do! Although they’re all moving to IBAN, which is basically the same as the previous account number with an “ES” on the front.

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Spanish banks are pretty good – there’s very little I have to do in person these days. In that sense it’s changed massively over the past 10-15 years.

The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It’s just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.

Only because it would cost them money to change. There’s no sinister motivation, problems like the OP’s just cost them money.

mogrim – Member

The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It’s just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.

Only because it would cost them money to change. There’s no sinister motivation, problems like the OP’s just cost them money.

Yes, of course. The bank don’t make money out of it, but it would cost them money to change the system so there is no incentive for them to do it.
But wouldn’t it be nice if they just did it to help their customers out and avoid these kind of mistakes ever happening?

There was NOT an error in the account number. Most transfers require just an account number and a sort code – provided both of those are legitimate then the transfer is made.

OP you may have a push back if you also provided an account name and that didn’t match

Of course there was an error in the account number. The problem was that the wrong account number was also a valid account number. As others have said it’s possible to create account numbers that cannot be transformed into other valid account numbers by making a simple error, but banks can’t be arsed to do that.

The addition of the account name does help prove it was a mistake. Shame it is not used as a check but it could get irritating if people spell a name wrong or miss out an initial etc. It would be nice if you put in the details and it checked and came back with “account in the name of….” For you to confirm but I guess this had privacy concerns.

There is a basic validation that checks whether the sort code and the account number are a valid pair, its called a modulus check.

But as the OP’s wife has discovered it will only flag if the account number is invalid for the sort code , or the sort code is invalid for the account number. If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you’re stuffed.

http://www.albany.co.uk/knowledge-centre/bank-account-validation-the-basics/

Moral of this story : before hitting submit, check, check and check again.

By the way – all cheques are cleared by hand , so there is a person checking that who the cheque is written out to , is the same as the account it is being attempted to be paid into. Automating this is more complex than you could possibly imagine (unless you’ve been trying to do it)

Of course there was an error in the account number. The problem was that the wrong account number was also a valid account number. As others have said it’s possible to create account numbers that cannot be transformed into other valid account numbers by making a simple error, but banks can’t be arsed to do that.

But who is to say the wrong account number couldn’t also be a valid combination ? I see @julians has just posted the same.

This error has nothing to do with First Direct, the OPs issue/case is with the receiving individual. The OP deliberately sent the money to the account number he specified.

By the way – all cheques are cleared by hand , so there is a person checking that who the cheque is written out to , is the same as the account it is being attempted to be paid into.

They’re really, really not.

The person handling the initial deposit (say a bank branch clerk when you hand over the cheque(s) and the paying slip) should check that the cheques being deposited are in the name of the account being credited, that the total of the cheques equals the deposit amount, that they’re in date, that they’re signed, that the amount in figures matches the amount in words etc etc.

In reality, they will check the amount and probably the name. Probably. If it’s a massive wad of cheques against a single credit, like, say, from a business, they will check they all add up to the right total and they might, might, just might, check they’re all made payable to the right person.

Once the credit has been accepted, from that point it’s all automatic; the cheques go into the clearing system and debit the drawing accounts two days later. If they’re over a certain amount (say £5-10k), the drawing bank may check the signatures, dates etc when they get the cheque, but, again, they probably won’t.

Basically, given the volume of cheques being processed, it’s cheaper to sort out problems and complaints as and when they occur, rather than check every, er, cheque.

This error has nothing to do with First Direct, the OPs issue/case is with the receiving individual. The OP deliberately sent the money to the account number he specified.

Yes of course, and as has been said, this is a possibility because banks choose not to make account numbers in such a way that mistakes are harder to make.

If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you’re stuffed.

Dunno about a modulus check, but it’s not so hard to include a check that makes it difficult to type in a wrong but valid number. The simplest way would even be to duplicate the “root” account number, so your old account number is 1234, your new one is 12341234, so mis-typing a single digit will not give a valid number. That’s an immensely trivial example, but it illustrates the point.

At the point where the receiving party is informed that the money is not theirs(ie property belonging to another), sent in error, and they decide to keep it. They have appropriated it (assumed ownership) with the intention of permanently depriving you of the money. This matches the legal definition of theft. Try your local constabulary.

this is a possibility because banks choose not to make account numbers in such a way that mistakes are harder to make

Yeah, well, maybe, but to be honest it’s an argument I don’t really buy. It’s the requestor’s responsibility to make sure that the instruction they give is accurate, and the bank’s responsibility to act on that instruction accurately.

I’ll bet a few quid that the process to input the payment details went something like this:

“Please enter the sort code and account number”

*this is where you put the details in, carefully, and check them, before clicking the ‘Continue’ button*

“Please confirm the details are correct”

*this is where you can double check the details on the screen, which you gave, are correct, before clicking the ‘Finish’ button*

There’s then probably similar steps whan making the actual payment. Plenty of opportunity to check that the details are correct.

Also, we’re talking about entering a six-digit (probably split into 3 pairs of two) and an eight digit number accurately, so, with the most cursory level of concentration and checking on the part of the person entering the detail, the scope for making and/or not spotting an error should be pretty small.

julians – Member

But as the OP’s wife has discovered it will only flag if the account number is invalid for the sort code , or the sort code is invalid for the account number. If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you’re stuffed.

Well, not really. If you try and send to an impossible, nonmodulus account, it’ll not go anywhere. If you send it to a possible but not valid account number, it’ll be sent to that bank but it won’t go to an account- the bank will usually return it automatically (but not always, sometimes it needs a wee intervention) It’s a hassle but it’s not really a problem.

It’s only if you manage to type in a wrong number that’s also a valid account that you have a problem, and that’s unlikely- most possible account numbers aren’t in use. And of course modulus checking can never pick that up because it requires a real account.

Cheques aren’t manually cleared. Though there’s often a check at point of deposit.

The problem with namechecking is varied. For example- you might do a transaction but want money paid to someone else’s account. You might be known by different names. So there’s legit and everyday reasons why there would be mismatches in name. There’s also a lot of scope for everyday errors- names or references in the wrong place. That’s a lot more common than getting an account number wrong (and it being an active account).

But mostly, it’s just down to the fact that there are billions of electronic clearing transactions every year, so it’s just impractical.

Hey, it’s my banking buddy 🙂

darkplunger – Member
At the point where the receiving party is informed that the money is not theirs(ie property belonging to another), sent in error, and they decide to keep it. They have appropriated it (assumed ownership) with the intention of permanently depriving you of the money. This matches the legal definition of theft. Try your local constabulary.

Er, not quite. The recepient needs to have appropriated the money dishonestly to fall within the statutory definition of theft.

If they take no steps to return it, that’s not the same as actively spending it. They are likely to be a constructive trustee (i.e. holding the funds for the OP) but until they spend it it’s arguable they haven’t appropriated it, just received it.

That’s why those people that end up with £64trillion in their accounts because some numpty pressed a 3 instead of a 4 don’t get pinged for stealing the nation’s finances when they hand it back.

If they take no steps to return it, that’s not the same as actively spending it. They are likely to be a constructive trustee (i.e. holding the funds for the OP) but until they spend it it’s arguable they haven’t appropriated it, just received it.

As Father Ted said, the money was just ‘resting’ in his account

I would view this differently. Initially the money arrived in the recipients account by mistake. There is no dishonesty at this point. However if it can be proven that the recipient has been informed that this money has arrived in his account in error and is the property of the sender and yet he still decides to keep it then he is certainly appropriating it and it could easily be argued that this is a dishonest act. Whether he spends it or not is surely irrelevant.

They’re really, really not.

The person handling the initial deposit (say a bank branch clerk when you hand over the cheque(s) and the paying slip) should check that the cheques being deposited are in the name of the account being credited, that the total of the cheques equals the deposit amount, that they’re in date, that they’re signed, that the amount in figures matches the amount in words etc etc.

ok, now your being pedantic about the difference between clearing and ‘bankers duties’. those checks (bankers duties) are still part of the overall clearing process and its done by ‘hand’ , ie a human has to check these elements before passing the cheque onto the next stage of the process.

anyway – not going to have an argument on the internet about this – the point I wanted to make is that fully automating the clearing process (ie from customer handing it in, to money appearing in the correct account) for cheques is massively difficult, and checking names on electronic transfers would be fairly difficult , but not quite as hard for similar reasons.

Fair enough, the point I was trying to make that, even with cheques, the names aren’t really checked, even if they’re supposed to be.

fully automating the clearing process (ie from customer handing it in, to money appearing in the correct account) for cheques is massively difficult, and checking names on electronic transfers would be fairly difficult , but not quite as hard for similar reasons.[/i]

Agreed

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Hahahahahahahaha Running on cobbled together IT systems that fall over for days at a time. I don’t think so.

A lot of differing opinions there thanks 😉

Me and the wife were talking about it last night – it had been ages since we’d heard anything off our bank.
She called today are we found out our fate.
On further questioning it turns out Fist Direct have known this since March 10th…no one told us. That’s pretty poor.
An employee she spoke to said he’d be pretty upset too with the outcome and the lack of communication from our bank. They are reopening the case and getting back in touch with ‘his’ bank – RBS.
Might be months again before we hear anything but things are in motion at least.

I know a lot of you have your opinion (thanks jambalaya) – we know WE made a very easy error to make.
At seems crazy that in spite of EVERY party involved knowing the situation, the system doesn’t allow for it to be put right…will update as and when/if anything happens.

Not quite as pissed off as I was earlier, but at the same time I’m not holding my breath.

Most other countries don’t have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

It can hardly be called sophisticated when there is no mechanism to get the OP their cash back…

It can hardly be called sophisticated when there is no mechanism to get the OP their cash back…

There is a mechanism, it’s just not as easy to use as Paypal disputes, and for very good reason.

rascal – Member

the system doesn’t allow for it to be put right…

The system does- just not the banking system. And with good reason, you need to be able to depend on the fact that money in your account will stay there.

The system does- just not the banking system. And with good reason, you need to be able to depend on the fact that money in your account will stay there.

Yep. Imagine if extracting money could be automated, imagine the OP would be more upset if someone’s error meant a large sum of money was ‘reclaimed’ from his account by mistake rather than the correct account. It could cause significant issues!

Good luck. We had a similar problem a few years ago, it took a couple of months or more to sort out and it was much simpler than your problem.

My partner paid for his mates stag do on his credit card and collected the money from all who attended, so it was quite large around £1k. When he came to pay his bill he already had his credit card set up with his bank, unfortunately, he also had my credit card info set up with his bank (both were Tesco). My details were from an old card that he’d put something on before he got his own card. He never checked the details when he made the payment and paid it against my card. We realised what he’d done quite quickly and he phoned Tesco, but they said he needed to speak to his bank to stop the payment, his bank said they couldn’t stop it and he needed to speak to Tesco.

Anyway, despite us both talking to Tesco on the same telephone call and on numerous occasions it still took far too long to sort out. The money eventually made it from a defunct account to my account but put me in credit. We had to pay Tesco again to clear his card otherwise he’d be charged a missed payment /interest. When they eventually took it off my account and paid it back to him, they charged me interest as they treated it as a cash payment or something. This also took ages to correct.