"Chris Green" wrote in message
...
Robin wrote:
On 10/05/2017 09:35, Chris Green wrote:


It has to be quite a bad typo to cause this sort of error though as
there are (I believe) check digits and such in account numbers and
sort codes.

'Fraid not in the basic 8+6 digits in UK banking.

There is in IBANs.

Isn't there?! What a stupid system, one digit wrong and your money is
down the pan.

Not if the bank has enough of a clue to check that the
account number and account holder name matches.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Andy Burns wrote
Roger Mills wrote

I don't think you'll have *any* protection either way - so it
doesn't make a lot of odds.

At least sending a cheque by post, you confirm some some of
connection with the address you have,

But the only connection could be some spiv and con
man who can go thru the letterbox with no one living
there and pocket and cash the cheque when it turns up.

and you avoid the possibility of you ****ing up the sort code
/account number and sending the money to a random stranger!

Which is no use to them to loot that account.

ITYF that the two problems suggested are not connected

Then there is no point in bringing that up.

The second suggestion isn't connected with fraud by the other party
but a generic problem even if the person you are paying has the bona
fides of Her Majesties Government.

There is no generic problem with someone else knowing
the sort code / account number of your account.

the stated risk is you typing in the wrong number and the money going to
the wrong person completely

Any bank with even half a clue checks that the number matches the stated
recipient name.

In your jurisdiction, perhaps

in mine - not a chance

You've more chance of being told you've won a prize draw with a free trip
to the ISS

If your banks are so completely incompetent, the obvious
thing to do is send some trivial amount, check that the
intended recipient got it, then send the rest

"The Peeler" wrote in message
eb.com...
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:44:08 +1000, Rot Speed blabbered yet again:

In your jurisdiction, perhaps

in mine - not a chance

You've more chance of being told you've won a prize draw with a free
trip
to the ISS

If your banks are so completely incompetent, the obvious
thing to do is send some trivial amount, check that the
intended recipient got it, then send the rest

...and then make the typo during your second transaction! BRILLIANT, Rot!

don't be silly

you set up a new payee from your account

and then try it out for 10 pounds, before using it again for the substantial
amount (after checking the first transfer worked, of course - preferably by
a different mechanism than the account numbers were given to you)

tim

"The Peeler" wrote in message
web.com...
On Thu, 11 May 2017 11:07:43 +0100, tim... wrote:


If your banks are so completely incompetent, the obvious
thing to do is send some trivial amount, check that the
intended recipient got it, then send the rest

...and then make the typo during your second transaction! BRILLIANT,
Rot!

don't be silly

you set up a new payee from your account

Yes, but that would be a prerequisite in that case. Usually not done if
you
know it's unlikely you'll transfer to that address a second time.

but you are transferring to it a second time

That's inherent in the trial transfer.

It's just lazy not to do it this way if you are worried about getting it
wrong

No-one to blame but yourself if you don't do this

tim

In article . com, The
Peeler wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 11:07:43 +0100, tim... wrote:


If your banks are so completely incompetent, the obvious thing to do
is send some trivial amount, check that the intended recipient got
it, then send the rest

...and then make the typo during your second transaction! BRILLIANT,
Rot!

don't be silly

you set up a new payee from your account

Yes, but that would be a prerequisite in that case. Usually not done if
you know it's unlikely you'll transfer to that address a second time.

That must depend on the bank. both my private account and one I look after
fo a charity automatically save the recipient details. I can delete them
myself if I don't want to keep them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 08/05/2017 10:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Pay a deposit then the rest on arrival after everything is as described?

Best solution.
That way the trust is a two-way thing.

On 11/05/2017 11:30, charles wrote:
In article . com, The
Peeler wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 11:07:43 +0100, tim... wrote:

you set up a new payee from your account

Yes, but that would be a prerequisite in that case. Usually not done if
you know it's unlikely you'll transfer to that address a second time.

That must depend on the bank. both my private account and one I look after
fo a charity automatically save the recipient details. I can delete them
myself if I don't want to keep them.

All the online bank accounts I have ever used save the recipient details
of previous transactions for future use by default.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/05/2017 09:45, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/05/2017 11:30, charles wrote:
In article . com, The
Peeler wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 11:07:43 +0100, tim... wrote:

you set up a new payee from your account

Yes, but that would be a prerequisite in that case. Usually not done if
you know it's unlikely you'll transfer to that address a second time.

That must depend on the bank. both my private account and one I look
after
fo a charity automatically save the recipient details. I can delete them
myself if I don't want to keep them.

All the online bank accounts I have ever used save the recipient details
of previous transactions for future use by default.


With RBS you must first "create" a recipient, confirm it with their
encryption device and your Visa debit card, and only then can you
transfer money to them.