This is an interesting thought, however I feel Monzo, starling and even chase have captivated those in their late teens and twenties!
1 Like
Lots has happened in the five years since that post!
2 Likes
Increasingly this is literally the only option. If youāre an elderly person in my hometown you have zero banks to go to in person. Online is it. This is often touted as a positive on this forum (or rather, āthe way the world is going so get on board or elseā).
Lloyds will have likely paid out as they didnāt meet standards of protecting their customers who are vulnerable. In-person bank transactions for far, far less have had police attendance as a protocol most banks adhere to to check there is nothing illegal going on.
There are idiots, but then there are very vulnerable folk who with the best intentions still havenāt got a grip of the very different world we live in now. They should be protected in ways āidiotsā are not.
7 Likes
From what the article mentioned, they did. They contacted the person, blocked some of the transactions, invited the person in for a face to face chat. Sadly this person was completely taken in.
I am somewhat torn between whether the bank was right to refund the person especially once youāve contacted the person, tried to meet face to face and they still ignore everything.
What more measures should the bank have taken and when are you overreaching or overstepping the mark?
Should vulnerable people have a second person to authorise payments and how would the vulnerable react to that?
3 Likes
So itās fairly common for other agencies to get involved or family members to be involved if thereās even a slight suggestion that there might be vulnerabilities at play.
Any bank worker will know what to do when an elderly person comes in and tries to transfer their life savings without an adequate reason. They will likely initially call the police, particularly if there is anyone with the customer who doesnāt quite sit right with them. Further investigations will ensure safeguarding is in place before releasing funds.
This is incredibly common and regular stuff for (at least) physical banks. Bank workers should know exactly what to say when calling the police, for example, and operators know exactly what to do. Itās that common that there is an agreed and pretty common system in place.
A vulnerable person ignoring face to face meetings with this much at stake should be a block until a welfare check has been completed.
2 Likes
I think was largely done online, rather than in branch. If this person was vulnerable and the controls are as suggested, how were they not stopped from transferring any money.
Hence why I think they refunded.
This is an issue that will need to be addressed as bank branches close. A lot of vulnerable people are safeguarded by a physical presence of a human (who often might know them well) who has the ability to just āsenseā when something doesnāt sit right.
Lloyds will have abided by all their policies probably. Because a lot of the actual safeguarding comes from within a branch from staff members who have a relationship with their customers. There they have a process that goes beyond just insisting on something until they give up. They literally do not allow something to happen until they are satisfied that itās genuine and of no concern.
I donāt use bank branches myself, but for a certain demographic itās important because money is a central part of our lives; and they just havenāt been exposed to a lot of the scams and such that most newer generations have grown up knowing what to look out for/avoid.
The Nigerian prince emails we can all laugh at. But they are still a thing because enough people fall for them. Otherwise they would cease. It seems incredible that anyone would believe such things but they do.
4 Likes
Hard agree with all this: But as that demographic dies off, and those of us who havenāt been into a branch for decades (or maybe ever) become more vulnerable, how do banks safeguard us?
Who knows? In theory there is nothing to stop similar concerns being raised online too. I suspect itās just down to things being automated based on risk. Things flagged should be then looked at by a human but even then they might not have the same ability to spot a scam as someone who might know the customer personally.
If Mrs Morris is known by her local Lloyds bank to have no sons and all her life savings are just Ā£1,000 then they might flag a Ā£1,000 transfer to a Mr Smith as suspicious but a computer, and indeed a human completely removed from the situation, might let it go through given on the face of it nothing is untoward.
That being said, when we are getting into the hundreds of thousands like in the article we really ought to be putting a complete stop to them until more checks have been done. To me, Lloyds should have stopped this way before it got to the outcome it did. You donāt need to know the customer to flag a 70 year old transferring such sums.
2 Likes
Itās a tricky one. Some banks have it where if you do a few transfers to the same person you have to wait for a few minutes before it let you do it again.
Years ago I was selling a high priced camera and the guys card blocked until he rang in to confirm that yes it was him etc.
Ive never had that for years with transfers but maybe some sort of cap which requires a call in after it triggers.
It would be a pain for some, but not sure what else banks can really do
Youāll always get people inconvenienced by any checks. In most cases itās resolved quickly. In some cases itās annoying but might take longer.
I believe itās better that some genuine people are inconvenienced and vulnerable people are protected better than fewer genuine people being inconvenienced and vulnerable people are less well protected.
2 Likes
Me too. In fact I almost expect to have them double check things.
1 Like
Donāt know what other peopleās experiences with Lloyds however Iāve been banking with them for about 9 years now. I must say that in the last 2 years they stepped up their game with their mobile banking app. Slowly but steadily it delivers modern choices and options comparable to neo banks.
Security, notifications, card details and pin, card freeze, fraud prevention, open banking, credit score, etc.
3 Likes
Itās my favourite app. Itās easy to use, everythingās in a logical place, and it does everything I need.
Main thing that bugs about their app is the adverts they throw in-between accounts. Just looks untidy and not preferable for me.
They also have limited open banking support to mostly high street banks.
4 Likes
Iāve not seen that on iOS or at least not yet
Adverts is probably the wrong word, but other services etc the bank offer.
IE take out a look at loans. Check your eligibility on a credit card. Car insurance. Open a savings account.
All that shiz.
Wonāt let me a screenshot in android.
It looks like this just now:
Current account 1
Check your credit score
Current account 2
Unknown number scams on WhatsApp
Savings account
Check your upcoming payments
1 Like
The LBG apps (Lloyds and Halifax in my case) also have full pages for loans and things when opening the app and it always winds me up. Stop throwing info about taking loans in my face and just let me check my balance.
1 Like
They kept telling me local house prices and how much Iād need for a mortgage, Iām not even eligible for these things.
I change my settings, they stopped for a bit and then I just get account based stuff. Itās rubbish.
I get what you mean now, fortunately for me personally Iāve not found them a problem. Iāve certainly not had a full page advert.
Iāve found many banks offer loans adverts and some are more in your face than others. Barclays I found much worse for that. Starting Iāve never seen that but Monzo I did today, plus an email campaign.
For a legacy bank, Iāve been happy with Lloyds. Iām fickle though, Iām often playing around with which bank I use.
2 Likes