Best bank that allows you to make a bank transfer without blocking ?

[Solachesis]

17 minutes ago, CaptCaveMan said:

@SolachesisI just completed the switch to NatWest and got the £200 in less than a week after depositing the min amount.  I'm in the process of doing the same with first direct for the £175, basically a free Sovereign 😎

I'm keeping one of the accounts and will switch the other to Lloyds for their free £200 if the offer is still on the table by then.

The Mrs has started to do the same...

Yeah apparently first direct is the better of the banks, so made sense to do NatWest first 😆 and yeah I've already bought my "sovereign" knowing I'll top up the account again with said free money 

[gkoogk]

A  £300 transaction with Halifax won me a 45 min discussion with their fraud squad..a £15000 transaction with Revolut was done and dusted in 3.5 seconds lol...go figure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CaptCaveMan]

4 minutes ago, Solachesis said:

Yeah apparently first direct is the better of the banks, so made sense to do NatWest first 😆 and yeah I've already bought my "sovereign" knowing I'll top up the account again with said free money 

Ditto!

[NGMD]

2 hours ago, ZRPMs said:

All of it. Sorry I'm a bit pished at the mo. I just paid off a small mortgage. The bank didn't want me to pay it off and were advising me not too. Even though it was with a subsidiary of theirs. When you under stand that whilst I held the £35,000 in my account that remains on their balance sheet. Then the mortgage is also treated as a positive amount as I have to pay it back with interest. So effectively, whilst I owed the £35,000 to them and held the £35,000 in an other account. For liquidity's sake they had £70,000 on they balance sheets. Once I cleared the Debt with my funds they no longer have the £35,000 in my account or the call on the £35,000 mortgage. Multiply this buy tens or hundreds of thousands and you see the whole banking system is build on smoke and mirrors

  

 

God, I know that feeling-they fear people without debt and they’re always wanting a cut of your money.

Balance transfers, swop accounts for cash, switch mortgages etc….

Its not to help you, it’s for their coffers.

 

[Midasfrog]

5 minutes ago, NGMD said:

God, I know that feeling-they fear people without debt and they’re always wanting a cut of your money.

Balance transfers, swop accounts for cash, switch mortgages etc….

Its not to help you, it’s for their coffers.

 

It's getting more about control now I feel sorry for the younger generation . 

" Poor people in debt are easy to control " 

[NGMD]

Just now, Midasfrog said:

It's getting more about control now I feel sorry for the younger generation . 

" Poor people in debt are easy to control " 

If only I could ‘like’ that comment a thousand times.

[gji25]

When purchasing gold trough bank transfer as  @Solachesis    said, dont mention gold or coins in the reference box, just put your name.

Then in the what is the payment for.purchasing box put paying a friend and if asked for buying goods or what not, have you seen the goods, put yes .

[ZRPMs]

6 hours ago, Midasfrog said:

It's getting more about control now I feel sorry for the younger generation . 

" Poor people in debt are easy to control " 

"you will own nothing and be happy" in your 15 minuet city.

Another day, Let battle commence.

[flyingveepixie]

I've not experienced this blocking of transfers problem myself so far but I do find myself in conflict with banks and the banking system more and more for various reasons.

I have had problems in the past with transfers which were put on hold (not involving PMs) - specifically with HSBC, but only on the first two transfers I made from a new account I had opened with them. After that there was no further trouble and all transactions went smoothly until the time came to close the account and move on.

As for Halifax : I closed my account with them last year when they came up with the pronouns nonsense - I wont comply with that rubbish under any kind of circumstance so I told them to get lost.  Same with Paypal when that business about fining their customers £2500 for having the wrong opinions came to light last year.

As stated earlier in the thread by @Solachesis: **** banks and **** CBDC's.   I will do my utmost not to comply.

I used to do the regular switching thing too btw so as to relieve them of some of their ill gotten gain but I ran out of banks to switch to a couple of years ago.

Edited March 6, 2023 by flyingveepixie

[Orpster]

If I am paying anything over 2k by bank transfer I will send £1 first as my bank (also Halifax) never ever objects to that curiously.

Then once I have that person set up as a payee and they have confirmed receipt of the pound, I send the balance.  I also have PayPal and an account with Nationwide and another with Barclays but I have never had to revert to using them.  I do tend to prefer to use PayPal anyway for large transactions, I have it linked to a credit card I get cashback on

[CazLikesCoins]

11 hours ago, Bigmarc said:

Does anyone get a problem when using a credit card? I was listening to a podcast lately on a fraudster. He said you should use a credit card for everything as it gives you some level of protection when a bank if anything leaves you open.

You can do a chargeback on most things with a cc if things go wrong, goods lost during delivery, unhelpful buyers refusing to deal with faulty goods ect. Safer than a debit card imo.

[CazLikesCoins]

11 hours ago, Solachesis said:

I just put my forum name on every reference 

I don't suppose 'Caz likes coins' will cause many issues lol.

[MBTPSilver]

Can't speak to gold but I've done a few bank transfers for silver through Lloyds without any issue, and a recent car purchase that I thought might throw up some issues but also went through smoothly. If it's a new payee I normally just have enter a secondary authorisation code which is fair enough.

[paulmerton]

Just now, CazLikesCoins said:

You can do a chargeback on most things with a cc if things go wrong, goods lost during delivery, unhelpful buyers refusing to deal with faulty goods ect. Safer than a debit card imo.

You can also do chargebacks with a debit card, but a chargeback is not something the bank has to facilitate for either a debit card or a credit card, and may depend on their ability to get the money back from the seller.

The real reason that credit cards are a safer bet is because the Section 75 stuff I mentioned earlier (which is not the same thing as a chargeback) lets you reclaim the money directly from the card provider as if they were liable for the breach of contract, regardless of whether they are able to get it back from the seller. 

[CazLikesCoins]

12 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

You can also do chargebacks with a debit card, but a chargeback is not something the bank has to facilitate for either a debit card or a credit card, and may depend on their ability to get the money back from the seller.

The real reason that credit cards are a safer bet is because the Section 75 stuff I mentioned earlier (which is not the same thing as a chargeback) lets you reclaim the money directly from the card provider as if they were liable for the breach of contract, regardless of whether they are able to get it back from the seller. 

I find using chargeback on a debit card a rigmarole. What with phoning the bank and spending five hours explaining the issue only to be put through to someone else who asks the same questions. Then, after you've exhausted yourself, leaves a long silence followed by a sigh, and then tells you to fill in an online form. The size of a novel. I prefer my credit card's m.o. It's as if they're waiting for an aggrieved customer to phone up with a charge back complaint. I can almost hear them opening the kennels and letting the dogs loose and pumping a shotgun and shouting hell, yeah! Suffice to say, I find credit card company's easier on th stress levels to help with my charge backs. Not that I have many. But when you have some arrogant retailer not knowing consumer law, casually mentioning the goods were charged to a credit card and I'll now invoke the right of charge back, usually gets a better response  

[paulmerton]

3 minutes ago, CazLikesCoins said:

I find using chargeback on a debit card a rigmarole. What with phoning the bank and spending five hours explaining the issue only to be put through to someone else who asks the same questions. Then, after you've exhausted yourself, leaves a long silence followed by a sigh, and then tells you to fill in an online form. The size of a novel. I prefer my credit card's m.o. It's as if they're waiting for an aggrieved customer to phone up with a charge back complaint. I can almost hear them opening the kennels and letting the dogs loose and pumping a shotgun and shouting hell, yeah! Suffice to say, I find credit card company's easier on th stress levels to help with my charge backs. Not that I have many. But when you have some arrogant retailer not knowing consumer law, casually mentioning the goods were charged to a credit card and I'll now invoke the right of charge back, usually gets a better response  

Haha, yeah, and chargebacks still have their place for anything that costs less than £100. The bonus of claiming it back from the card company when you can is that you can escalate it to the financial ombudsman if they don't play ball, and it's naturally the best way to go if the seller has gone bust.

[CazLikesCoins]

Just now, paulmerton said:

Haha, yeah, and chargebacks still have their place for anything that costs less than £100. The bonus of claiming it back from the card company when you can is that you can escalate it to the financial ombudsman if they don't play ball, and it's naturally the best way to go if the seller has gone bust.

Exactly. Don't like the new perfume/aftershave you've opened? Chargeback! Dog won't eat the new crunches you bought him? Chargeback! Got the runs from a dodgy vindaloo from the new restaurant down the road? Chargeback. I'm being silly but it does haves its uses.  

[paulmerton]

8 minutes ago, CazLikesCoins said:

Exactly. Don't like the new perfume/aftershave you've opened? Chargeback! Dog won't eat the new crunches you bought him? Chargeback! Got the runs from a dodgy vindaloo from the new restaurant down the road? Chargeback. I'm being silly but it does haves its uses.  

I've never had to use it in my life fortunately!

But I have had to make a section 75 claim once, and oh my god it was messy. The bank kept insisting on handling it as a chargeback and wouldn't do anything until I could prove I'd exhausted all avenues with the retailer (who wasn't doing anything), which was not necessary for this type of claim. By the time they understood they had to give me my money back rather than trying to help me get it back from the retailer, they said they would only do so if I signed an NDA over the settlement.

[KleinerVogel]

I wonder if the people having issues with their bank when trying to make payments are using a authenticator device or not? I have personally not had any issues yet when paying for things, my bank uses one of those card readers which you enter your pin number in and then enter the number from the place you're buying from, then it throws another number at you to enter into the website you're trying to purchase from. That normally satisfies my bank that I am really me.

 

[Solachesis]

Just now, KleinerVogel said:

I wonder if the people having issues with their bank when trying to make payments are using a authenticator device or not? I have personally not had any issues yet when paying for things, my bank uses one of those card readers which you enter your pin number in and then enter the number from the place you're buying from, then it throws another number at you to enter into the website you're trying to purchase from. That normally satisfies my bank that I am really me.

 

My bank doesn't do those, but it's not a case of them worrying that it isn't me; biometrics to log in, and then enter my password to send large amounts, it's that they don't trust me to not be giving my money to a con artist 

"Yes I know the seller" 

"Yes I've seen the item" 

"Thanks for your answers, but we need to call you to ensure you're not going to be the victim of a scam" 

[KleinerVogel]

14 minutes ago, Solachesis said:

My bank doesn't do those, but it's not a case of them worrying that it isn't me; biometrics to log in, and then enter my password to send large amounts, it's that they don't trust me to not be giving my money to a con artist 

"Yes I know the seller" 

"Yes I've seen the item" 

"Thanks for your answers, but we need to call you to ensure you're not going to be the victim of a scam" 

Ah I see, so it tends to happen with private sales between you and another person, and not so much for registered online businesses? I can kind of understand why the banks go the extra mile to check with you, they get customers being scammed every day by all kinds of cons and scams. They must have paper work coming out of their ears dealing with all those scams, they probably just see it as protecting the customer rather than not wanting you to take the money from the account.

 

I get that it's really frustrating for people who know they are not getting scammed and are just trying to conduct their private business with another person. I'd be annoyed too probably. I suppose it's a fine balance with trying to prevent people getting scammed and giving the customer doing genuine private sales a smooth experience.

[ShineyMagpie]

15 hours ago, Bigmarc said:

Does anyone get a problem when using a credit card

The other problem with this is, I can be seen as a "cash" purchase so gets silly interest ontop

[silkworm]

I personally use Wise and Revolut - both I think these days require facial ID which I hated giving - this will likely be used to give to HMRC if asked for. It was the same with the Exchanges, all suddenly started wanting proof of ID so they can link all your transaction accounts - something which CBDC's will solve for them and it can easily come with loads of caveats - like expiry limits to stop you saving, stop you spending outside of your Covid region etc along with full transparency of your purchases to levy upcoming carbon tax.

We all need to use cash where possible and boycott businesses that are cashless.

[Bratnia]

Reporting "suspicions" of money laundering and the likes of banks are not supposed to raise suspicions that the person is being investigated.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA, Sections 335 to 336D under Part 7) prohibit the financial institution from carrying out a transaction until they have sought ‘Appropriate Consent’ from authorities. To do so without the appropriate consent the financial institution could be found guilty of a money laundering offence if it moves the ‘criminal property’ without requesting what is known as a Defence Against Money Laundering (DAML) first.

Where a DAML has been made, the transaction(s) in question cannot proceed, and the account may remain blocked until either appropriate consent has been granted by authorities or a specified time has lapsed without authorities refusing consent. 

As is common, when there is ambiguity such as what is 'suspicious' banks will tend to err on the side of caution in order for the institution to be less inclined to be found guilty of moving 'criminal property'.

Similar to HMRC nowadays, even the likes of opening letters requesting repayment of a over-payment are threatening. With street camera's and tracking etc. it would seem the UK is a Open Prison where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent.

No matter which alternative payment option you use, the directional trend is such that even the presently 'better' methods will at some point also 'fall into line'.

Not good policy, as the tendency when you treat individuals as being guilty is for them to be directed into acting criminally.

[Bratnia]

I know near zero about bitcoin, but it strikes me that as the Pound and UK banking system moves to being non-fungible that alternatives will rise to favour. One option might be for a 'app' that maintains a bitcoin short position to the amount of bitcoins you hold, so its value remains consistent (non-volatile value) - making it the same as Pounds/cash (stable value, but earns/pays no interest). Spend 0.1 bitcoin and the app reduces your short bitcoin by 0.1 value, receive 1 bit coin and the app adds 1 bit coin worth of short bitcoin value.