Natwest - Hidden procedures

[Pixifox65]

My problem with NatWest started in October 2013.

 

 

I saw I was overdrawn by £16K I only have an overdraft limit of £1,600.

As it was a weekend I transferred money from my savings account and called them as soon as I could to find out what had gone wrong.

The bank told me that my account had not been overdrawn and in fact had a healthy balance - I was confused?

 

When I saw the statement for this time period I saw that for the first time ever in 30 years

my statment transaction and processing dates were out of order and in some cases transactions had taken over 8 days to process!

 

 

I also noticed that the £16K I had transferred from my savings account to my current account to cover the overdrawn balance

had in fact been moved back and forth a few times (which I had not done).

 

I knew something had happened but I just could not figure out what?

 

I decided to put my statment transactions into date order and discovered that my account had gone -£16K at the time I had seen it on the screen.

I started to complain again.

 

Eventually I was given the following explanations.

 

1. The moving £16k was probably due to a bank ping back

- normally caused by not having enough funds in your account to transfer in the first place.

I checked this and at the time my savings account had £40k.

But I was not able to continue to complain about this as the bank claimed

that interbank account transfers could not be tampered with

and that it was either a ping or I had done this.

 

2. The explanation given by the bank regarding the overdrawn amount I had seen,

was that they had no record of my account being overdrawn during this month and my statment showed this.

 

 

I told them the transaction dates were out of order and they told me that the transaction can only be processed

when the merchant claims their money and they were not going to put them into date order.

 

 

I explained that I had used my debit card to make these transactions and that I had seen the available balance lower

by the amount at the same time of the transaction.

It was around this time I had a very disturbing piece of information from NATWEST.

 

When you use your debit card and authorise your payment the money leaves your available balance.

The merchant then has 6 months to claim their money,

HOWEVER, if they do not claim the money within 2 days the funds are returned to your available balance and can be respent.

It is down to the customer to ensure they have funds to cover the transaction.

 

I looked in the Terms and conditions and all sales literature I had from Natwest but there was nothing about this.

I checked their on line Q & A but this was not explained there either.

 

 

Natwest told me that it was not in their terms it was a banking process they follow.

How can this be right?

How can money you have already spent be returned to your available funds without your knowledge?

How can you check your account without knowing this key information.

I always thought that once you had made the transaction the money was gone.

 

The only way to have the money returned would be if something had gone wrong

and the transaction cancelled and/or a claim made to the bank!

 

The Financial Ombudsman said that they had suggested that the bank should inform their customers about this process

but could not enforce them to do so only the FCA could do that.

 

 

They also said that the bank had followed their procedure correctly and there was no case to answer.

I said I wanted to see which transactions had been returned and then processed so I could check myself.

 

 

The FOS said that there is no record of this it is all done by an automated system.

I asked how the FOS knew they had folllowed the procedure correctly and got no answer.

 

The FCA told me that they do not take on individual cases.

 

I have lost £16K through this but dont know how or if I can do anything about it!

I would like to warn as people about this so people dont find themselves with unwelcome bank charges.

 

I would welcome any advice or help anyone can offer.

[dx100uk]

so you are down by £16k because of an overdraft, that wasn't really there

and they are saying tough?

 

 

dx

[Pixifox65]

Yes I am down by £16K but I am not sure how this happened.

 

 

If you put the transactions into date order it looks like my account was allowed to go this much overdrawn when my limit is £1,600

(could this have been a decimal point mistake).

 

 

Why was my account statement in such a strange order?

 

 

Was it a time delay due to the merchant?

 

 

I asked them and they told me that they pay a higher premium for a system which takes the money at point of transaction,

however this point made no difference to the bank or the FOS.

 

 

Where was the safeguards which prevent you from overspending - not enough funds to make a transaction.

Why wasn't I contacted and told my account was running into debt.

 

 

My on screen balance was very healthy and to wake up to such an overdrawn amount was shocking and upsetting!

 

 

To return unclaimed transactions after two days without informing the customer or marked on the statement

as a payment pending feels dishonest and misleading.

 

 

During this time period there were numerous incoming and out going transactions,

if there had been only a few then the return of funds would have been easier to see.

 

 

If this loss was due to my spending the money I had already spent due to their hidden procedure is it really fair to say that it was my own fault?

 

 

I wonder what would have happened to me if I did not have the money in my savings account to cover this !

[Klandestine]

I explained that I had used my debit card to make these transactions and that I had seen the available balance lower

by the amount at the same time of the transaction.

It was around this time I had a very disturbing piece of information from NATWEST.

 

When you use your debit card and authorise your payment the money leaves your available balance.

The merchant then has 6 months to claim their money,

HOWEVER, if they do not claim the money within 2 days the funds are returned to your available balance and can be respent.

It is down to the customer to ensure they have funds to cover the transaction.

 

I looked in the Terms and conditions and all sales literature I had from Natwest but there was nothing about this.

I checked their on line Q & A but this was not explained there either.

 

 

Natwest told me that it was not in their terms it was a banking process they follow.

How can this be right?

How can money you have already spent be returned to your available funds without your knowledge?

How can you check your account without knowing this key information.

I always thought that once you had made the transaction the money was gone.

 

This is simply how card transactions work. And it works the same way at every other bank.

 

Most retailers are good and will claim the money before the available balance is "reset" which is probably why you have never noticed this before.

 

And even then some retailers won't even place an authorisation hold (affecting the available balance) and the amount will just appear as a line on your statement at some point.

 

There is nothing dishonest and misleading about this. The banks and retailers will probably argue that you are responsible and liable for keeping track of your spending.

[Pixifox65]

So why are they not prepared to tell people about it - this could have been avoided if I had been aware of it but all the information they supply applies that using the card is like using cash BUT that is not true even now they have added an icon description to the available balance column this says the following:-

 

The 'Balance' column shows how much money you have in your account now.

 

The 'Available' column shows how much money you can take out of your account - it includes your up to date balance, plus any overdraft you're allowed and takes account of any pending payments, such as Point of Sale transactions (items you have bought recently which are not yet showing on your statement), coming out.

 

An example: If you have £350 in your account with a £100 overdraft, the 'Balance' column would show as £350 and the 'Available' column would show as £450.

 

If you then spent £50 on your debit card at a retailer, those funds are no longer available and the 'Balance' column would still show as £350 but the 'Available' column would show as £400.

 

 

FYI there are banks that return the payment with a payment pending indicator I have only found this out since this happened to me and by asking lots of people of which I would say around 95% were shocked and had no idea whilst the other 5% had been caught out by this and moved banks these people are the ones who have found banks which have the payment facility. I wonder how many ordinary people (those who do not work within the industry) know about this procedure.

 

I would like to ask you how you knew that this is the way that card transactions work, did you experience this, did you read it or do you work in finance with insider knowledge. Do you agree that the banks should make their customers aware of this procedure?

[Klandestine]

So why are they not prepared to tell people about it

 

Probably because it isn't set by them. The authorisation hold process is managed by Visa, MasterCard or American Express (of course, depending on which type of card you have).

 

FYI there are banks that return the payment with a payment pending indicator I have only found this out since this happened to me and by asking lots of people of which I would say around 95% were shocked and had no idea whilst the other 5% had been caught out by this and moved banks these people are the ones who have found banks which have the payment facility.

 

What is a payment pending indicator?

 

Like I said, card transactions work this way because of Visa, MasterCard or American Express, so they will work in exactly the same way at every single bank.

 

I would like to ask you how you knew that this is the way that card transactions work, did you experience this, did you read it or do you work in finance with insider knowledge. Do you agree that the banks should make their customers aware of this procedure?

 

I'm a frequenter of this forum and also other consumer forums. When someone creates a post asking for help and advice I simply do some research and investigate further and just discover the relevant information.

[Pixifox65]

Where is this information?

 

I think you need to stop repeating/quoting what I have said and perhaps tell me where I can find this information about debit card transactions. Then perhaps you or I can pass it onto the FO as they could not find anything.

 

You ask what I mean by Payment Pending Indicator, Perhaps you should research the HSBC Bank for a clear answer - But I will try and explain. Your transaction is entered onto your on line statement with the words payment pending written in the transaction description.

 

Whether it is standard for banks, visa etc It should be common knowledge , every single customer should know about this! It should not be something that you find out about the hard way then have to research. The Terms and Conditions are very detailed and I can see no reason why this process is not part of them?

 

As I have always said, if I had be aware of this process then I would have checked my account differently and I want to change this so nobody falls fowl like I did.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Pixifox65
more information to add

[dx100uk]

so where is this ruddy £16k

 

 

dx

[RKSG]

Hi Pixifox, This is RG from another forum where we have already exchanged some posts. As you have posted more details here I am even more intrigued by your case.

 

 

I am a bit confused though as to how you are £16,000 out of pocket. Did you spend this amount or did it just disappear from your account?

Edited October 12, 2014 by RKSG

[Klandestine]

Where is this information?

 

I think you need to stop repeating/quoting what I have said and perhaps tell me where I can find this information about debit card transactions. Then perhaps you or I can pass it onto the FO as they could not find anything.

 

You ask what I mean by Payment Pending Indicator, Perhaps you should research the HSBC Bank for a clear answer - But I will try and explain. Your transaction is entered onto your on line statement with the words payment pending written in the transaction description.

 

Whether it is standard for banks, visa etc It should be common knowledge , every single customer should know about this! It should not be something that you find out about the hard way then have to research. The Terms and Conditions are very detailed and I can see no reason why this process is not part of them?

 

As I have always said, if I had be aware of this process then I would have checked my account differently and I want to change this so nobody falls fowl like I did.

 

The Visa Operating Regulations. It's a hefty document and only the international version is publically available: http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/visa-international-operating-regulations-main.pdf

 

I did try and research what you meant by "Payment Pending Indicator" and I couldn't find anything. But I do understand what you mean from your explanation. However, that feature would not have helped in your situation. This pending payment description on the statement would also have disappeared if the retailer didn't claim the funds in time.

 

Good luck to you. But I honestly think it would be easier to educate others to budget and keep a record of their spending (even if it is just rough estimates in a notepad) rather than just relying on what their available balance shows.

[Pixifox65]

Hi Klandestine

 

You say hefty its over 1000 pages perhaps you could tell me which section I should read.........

[Pixifox65]

Hi RG

 

 

If you are confused then just imagine how I feel! LOL

 

 

I went to bed with healthy funds in my accounts and then woke up with the overdrawn balance. I transferred the money from my natwest savings account to cover the minus figure. Then everything went even more confusing. The bank denied that my current account had been overdrawn, the £16k I transferred bounced between current account and savings account eventually stopping in the current account with a zero balance.

 

The bank statement for this time period showed transactions out of date order and long delays in processing in some cases more than 8 days! The merchant who was involved told me that they pay a higher premium to have the money collected at the time of transaction. I then thought it would be a good idea to put the transactions in date order and this showed my account would have been overdrawn several times by more than my limit.

 

I contacted the bank again to ask how this could have happened, I asked them how could I spend more money than I have in my account - If the funds are not there isn't the card refused? So why was my account allowed to go this much overdrawn? The Bank told me again that my account had not been overdrawn they then told me about their process this implied that I had used the same money probably more than once.

 

I could not believe it - how was this lawful! They were then very quick to tell me that it was my fault as it was my responsibility to ensure there were enough funds to cover payment which had been authorised. There even pointed out that responsibility was clearly stated in their terms and conditions. I told them I had ensured that my available balance had enough funds to cover what I was using in a transaction and to cover the bills I had to pay. When I made the transaction I saw the funds leave my account BUT I did not know these funds could be returned to my available balance after 2 days.

 

There were a lot of incoming and outgoing transactions during this month, my personal life and work circumstances had changed there were many things I needed to use my money for and I thought that the available balance was showing the money that was available to spend. Every piece of information I had did not state this procedure so I ask them to tell me where it was written. They came back and told me that it was not written anywhere it was just a process they followed. If I had known this I would have checked my account in a different way but as I did not I thought the bank should take steps to ensure their customers were informed. This was going to lead many to receive unnecessary bank charges.

 

How can it be your responsibility if information about how your account is managed is misleading or concealed from you? The information icon for the available balance on the internet banking website states:-

 

The 'Balance' column shows how much money you have in your account now.

 

The 'Available' column shows how much money you can take out of your account - it includes your up to date balance, plus any overdraft you're allowed and takes account of any pending payments, such as Point of Sale transactions (items you have bought recently which are not yet showing on your statement), coming out.

 

An example: If you have £350 in your account with a £100 overdraft, the 'Balance' column would show as £350 and the 'Available' column would show as £450.

 

If you then spent £50 on your debit card at a retailer, those funds are no longer available and the 'Balance' column would still show as £350 but the 'Available' column would show as £400.

 

 

It does not state anything about the funds being returned after two days!!!!

 

 

I feel cheated, it feels wrong not to make this process common knowledge and don't understand why they will not do it. My statement from them is such a mess I am not able to work out exactly what has happened. I do not know what funds were lost due to the lack of knowledge about this process but feel at the very least I should have a proper apology and this information should be made available to all customers. AND yes of course I would like to have some compensation for the loss of funds caused by their failure to inform.

[dx100uk]

you have been cheated in fact probable fraud in a way.

 

 

you are £16k down.

 

 

can you not simply get the statement for the savings account

and ask the simple question

 

 

on XXXXdate,,, I transferred £16k from my saving account o my current account

 

 

can you please tell me where that £16k has gone please?

 

 

if the bank had accidently given you £16k

 

 

I'm sure if you said to them

I don't know, they have you in jail !

 

 

dx

[RKSG]

Hi Pixifox, I believe that people are sympathetic to your plight. However it is still not clear what your complaint is.

Are you saying that NatWest has mislaid £16k of your money or are you saying that their process misled you as to what your available balance was?

If you complaint is the latter then you have not actually lost £16k. Your loss will be bank charges, fees and interest. This is a serious issue but is likely to only amount to perhaps a few hundred pounds at the most.

If your complaint is the first scenario then you must obtain full bank statements as suggested by dx and raise a complaint with NatWest limited to tracing the missing money.

Once this is cleared up you can then pursue the issue of unfair bank charges and a failure of NatWest in their duty of care to you. Your statements would enable you to put a value on this.

Please be assured that I am genuinely trying to help but I find it hard to believe that NatWest have lost £16,000 of your money. If I am wrong then I do apologise and wonder if you should involve the police.

[Klandestine]

This is how card transactions generally work:

 

• You use you card to buy something
  
• The retailer places what is called an authorisation hold. This reserves the amount and only affects your available balance. At this stage no money is actually debited from your account, your account balance remains the same and the transaction does not appear on your statement.
  
• Usually a few days later, the different organisations involved settle up. The money is now "claimed" and is actually debited from the account and the account balance also reduces to reflect this. The transaction will appear as a line on your statement - the date will appear as the date the money was "claimed", although the description may state the date on which you actually used your card to buy something from the retailer.
  

 

The problem that Pixifox has faced is that these authorisation holds are automatically expire after a few days and the available balances will therefore increase again. But the retailer will still claim the money at a later point. So Pixifox is saying that transaction information was concealed from her and this means that he/she has then overspent to the tune of £16,000 and that for the same reasons he/she doesn't feel responsible for this.

 

In any case, the bank will argue that you are responsible for managing your own spending. The authorisation holds which reduce your available balance are there to help with this but shouldn't be relied upon.

[Pixifox65]

Klandestine

 

This is what has happened

 

I used my card

 

I saw the available balance go down

 

I believe the money has gone

 

The merchant tells me that is exactly what did happened, they pay a higher fee to have money claimed at the point the transaction is made.

 

Because I do not know the process of the transaction falling off

the system and the money being returned to my account.

 

 

Then why and how would I when the bank, their terms and conditions, their help section, their sales literature etc etc do not tell me??

 

That would lead any customer to overspend and to find unnecessary charges being placed onto their account.

 

I have never said that the whole amount of £16k was lost due to this,

if you re-read my entries you will see that there was also the £16k being pinged between my natwest accounts.

 

 

You may also remember that my online account showed this same sum as a minus figure when my account only has an overdraft of £1,600.

 

 

I know the bank denied my account was ever overdrawn

but if it wasnt then why did the on line account show this.

 

 

I still believe that if the online account showed this then there must be a record somewhere!

I find it very strange that when the payments are placed into transaction date order

and the pinging caused my account to go overdrawn several times during this month

so why wasnt I called by the bank?

 

You stated that the international 1000+ page document you sent me informed people about this process

I asked you to point out where you had read this

 

 

however it feels like you are still trying to make me feel small and have not sent me this information

- I have tried to find it but as of yet I have been unsuccessful.

 

If I had been made aware that a debit card transaction should be treated like a cheque then of course that is what I would have done.

 

 

I have now spoken with lots of people and the only ones who were aware of this were in the

 

The definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defines it in three classes

—fraud by false representation,

fraud by failing to disclose information,

and fraud by abuse of position

[Pixifox65]

I pushed the button too soon!

 

The bank only told me about this process after I had been trying to sort this problem out for about 6 months,

and then they told me it was writen in their terms and conditions.

 

 

It was only when I insisted that they show me where that I was told that it was not written anywhere

and that it was just a process they follow.

 

 

This came after the denial that my available balance had even been overdrawn during October 2013.

Which came after them telling me that the movement of £16k between my accounts could only have been done by myself

and then they said it could have been a Ping caused by the accounts trying to move a sum of money which did not exist.

 

 

Well it had existed when I moved it as it had been sitting in the savings account for 10 months.

I only moved it to cover the minus figure in current account,

I did not move it between these accounts several times on the same day

and again during the next few days. but I cant prove that either!

 

When the merchant told me about how they collect their money this is what made me put the transactions into order

and this confirmed what I had seen on my online account

- which was now not showing this minus figure due to the way the transactions had been processed.

 

an 8 day delay explanation from the bank - Merchant late in claiming.

8 day delay explanation from the Merchant - impossible we claimed money at the point of transaction.

 

Merchant can only provide statement with transaction date.

Bank can only provide details of account as per stated process date.

 

I cant prove if pinging caused the loss,

I cant prove if Merchant or Bank has recorded my details wrong,

I cant prove that my account was allowed to go overdrawn as the statement doesn't show it and the bank deny it.

 

 

The only thing that I can prove is that I was unaware of the debit card process

because I had never had a problem before and it is not stated anywhere.

 

 

I cant even prove that the process has been carried out correctly

because the system is automated and no record is kept.

 

 

I cant check which payments may have been returned by a system drop off,

or if processing was just delayed etc Even though the FOS agreed with me

and were going to suggest that the bank should make this process available to us

all in written form they cannot enforce them to do so.

 

In brief I transferred money from my savings account to my current account in Oct 2013 so as not to get bank charges.

My current account ate it up and gave me a zero balance.

 

Are you as confused as I am?

[Klandestine]

Transaction Process

 

When you use your card the money does not actually leave/debit your account until your account balance (NOT your available balance) reduces AND it appears as a line on your statement.

 

The merchant may well pay extra to immediately place an authorisation hold which will affect available balance. But they do not "claim" the money immediately.

 

If the merchant doesn't claim the money in a timely fashion your bank may remove this authorisation hold after a few days because it simply doesn't know if the merchant is going to claim the money in the future or not. Most merchants claim the money quickly so, it's reasonable for the bank to assume to transaction has been cancelled and remove the authorisation hold after a period of time.

 

Liability

 

The authorisation holds and your available balance are a potential safeguard for preventing overspending.

 

I know you are trying to argue that because the authorisation holds were removed prematurely this led you to overspend.

 

But that doesn't shift the liabilty for your spending away from you and onto the bank. You are responsible for your spending and Natwest's terms and conditions do state words to that effect.

 

Transaction Order

 

The "transaction date" will be the date the money actually debitted your account - NOT the date you used your card. So the order on your statement is the correct order.

 

Ping Feature

 

I admit I have never banked with Natwest and I have never heard of this "ping" feature. But I do have accounts with numerous other banks though and I haven't heard of a similar feature either.

 

Fraud Allegations

 

Don't get carried away and misled by misinformed opinions from some other posters.

This situation does not fit any legal definition of fraud.

 

(See here for more info: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/)

 

Visa Operating Regulations

 

I'm not trying to make you feel small.

I'm just not sure what you want me to find for you.

[RKSG]

Excellent contributions from Klandestine, especially the most recent one.

 

 

I agree that the fraud suggestion is not appropriate here. However as this was suggested by one of the Site Team, dx100uk, I was interested to know something about the Site Team. I tried searching on this site but could not find anything.

 

 

I assumed that a post from a Site Team member would carry greater authority but in case it does concern me that Pixifox may read too much into the fraud comments..

[dx100uk]

yes well we know which side people are batting on don't we....

 

 

so where is his £16k gone...

 

 

dx

[Pixifox65]

TO SAVE MYSELF SOME TIME, I THOUGHT I WOULD ADD MY COMMENTS TO YOUR MESSAGE!

 

YOU QUOTED: When you use your card the money does not actually leave/debit your account until your account balance (NOT your available balance) reduces AND it appears as a line on your statement.

 

MY ANSWER: WHEN YOU USE YOUR CARD THE FIGURE IS REDUCED/TAKEN OFF YOUR AVAILABLE BALANCE NOT YOUR BALANCE. THE AMOUNT IS RETURNED IF NOT CLAIMED AFTER TWO WORKING DAYS HOWEVER WHEN IT IS CLAIMED THE AMOUNT IS REMOVED FROM BOTH BALANCES. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE BANK DISPLAYING AN AVAILABLE BALANCE IF THE MONEY IT SHOWS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO SPEND. WHY BOTHER TO REDUCE THE AVAILABLE MONEY FIGURE WHEN THE CUSTOMER USES THE CARD AND WHY FAIL TO MAKE THE RETURN OF FUNDS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THIS ONLY SUGGESTS THAT BANKS ARE TRYING TO LEAD CUSTOMERS INTO PAYING CHARGES. IT WOULD BE SAFER TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS OF THIS PROCEDURE AND EITHER MAKE A PAYMENT PENDING ENTRY LINE ON THE STATEMENT UNTIL MONEY IS CLAIMED OR NOT ALTER ANY BALANCE UNTIL CLAIMED AND THUS TELL CUSTOMERS ALL DEBIT CARD TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE TREATED IN SAME MANNER AS CHEQUES.

 

YOU QUOTED; The merchant may well pay extra to immediately place an authorisation hold which will affect available balance. But they do not "claim" the money immediately.

 

MY ANSWER: HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO STATE THIS - I SUSPECT YOU WORK WITHIN THE BANKING INDUSTRY AND MAY HAVE INSIDE INFORMATION. IF I AM TO BELIEVE THE MERCHANT I SPOKE WITH THEN THE FUNDS WERE CLAIMED IMMEDIATELY.

 

YOU QUOTED: If the merchant doesn't claim the money in a timely fashion your bank may remove this authorisation hold after a few days because it simply doesn't know if the merchant is going to claim the money in the future or not. Most merchants claim the money quickly so, it's reasonable for the bank to assume to transaction has been cancelled and remove the authorisation hold after a period of time.

 

MY ANSWER: THE MERCHANT HAS UP TO SIX MONTHS TO CLAIM SO WOULD YOU CALL TWO WORKING DAYS A FAILURE TO CLAIM IN A TIMELY FASHION? WHY MAY THE BANK REMOVE THIS AUTHORISATION HOLD WITHOUT THE CUSTOMERS KNOWLEDGE. WHY WOULD THEY BELIEVE THAT THE MERCHANT WILL NOT CLAIM? I DO NOT THINK TWO WORKING DAYS OUT OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE BANK TO ASSUME THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AS A CUSTOMER THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS THAT I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A CLAIM TO GET MY MONEY BACK. I THOUGHT WE ALL KNEW WHAT IT MEANT TO ASSUME ANYTHING! BUT JUST I CASE YOU DO NOT - TO ASSUME WILL MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Liability

 

YOU QUOTED: The authorisation holds and your available balance are a potential safeguard for preventing overspending.

 

MY ANSWER: HOW IS THIS ANY KIND OF SAFEGUARD FOR PREVENTING OVERSPENDING???????? THE ONLY SAFE GUARD IS TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING SO THEY CAN CHECK THEY MONEY IN A MORE INFORMED MANNER.

 

YOU QUOTED: I know you are trying to argue that because the authorisation holds were removed prematurely this led you to overspend.

 

MY ANSWER: I HAVE NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO CONFIRM WHICH PROBLEM HAS LEAD TO MY MONEY LOSS - HOWEVER THE POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN MY LOSS AND WILL BE A FACTOR IN OTHER PEOPLE SUDDENLY FINDING THEMSELVES WITH UNNECESSARY CHARGES OR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. I BELIEVE BY NOT INFORMING PEOPLE THIS INFORMATION IS CONCEALED FOR THE BANKS OWN FINANCIAL GAIN AND I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THIS CHANGES.

 

YOU QUOTE:But that doesn't shift the liabilty for your spending away from you and onto the bank. You are responsible for your spending and Natwesticon's terms and conditions do state words to that effect.

 

MY ANSWER: NATWEST (AND ALL OTHER BANKS) ARE ALWAYS VERY GOOD AT STATING THE CUSTOMERS RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITY - HOWEVER NOT SO GOOD AT INFORMING ABOUT THEIR PROCEDURES AND MISLEADING FIGURES!!!

LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE APPLIED IF THE BANK HAS PROVIDED ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE CUSTOMER - IN OTHER WORDS THEY CANNOT WITHOLD/CONCEAL INFORMATION WHICH A CUSTOMER IS TO RELY UPON IN KEEPING THEIR ACCOUNT RECORDS UP TO DATE NOR SHOULD THEY MISLEAD THEIR CUSTOMER BY SUPPLYING AN AVAILABLE TO SPEND FIGURE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MONEY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT/ALLOCATED/AUTHORISED ON ANOTHER TRANSACTION.

 

 

Transaction Order

 

YOU QUOTE: The "transaction date" will be the date the money actually debitted your account - NOT the date you used your card. So the order on your statement is the correct order.

 

MY ANSWER: THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE - HOWEVER HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE MINUS FIGURE I SAW ON MY ONLINE BANKING STATEMENT! THIS FIGURE COULD ONLY BEEN SHOWN IF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE PUT INTO DATE ORDER, OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWING A HEALTHY BALANCE AND I WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED TO TRANSFER THE £16K WHICH PINGED ALL OVER THE PLACE. IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT FUNNY TO ME THAT THE MINUS AMOUNT NEVER WAS AND IN FACT I PINGED MY OWN MONEY AROUND WHICH IS WHAT THE BANK IS SAYING TO ME. THE BANK IS ON DANGEROUS GROUND HERE BECAUSE IF THEY ADMIT THAT THE MINUS FIGURE EXISTED THEN THEY WOULD BE AT FAULT FOR ALLOWING THE ACCOUNT TO GO SO OVERDRAWN.

 

AND AGAIN YOU ARE SOUNDING LIKE A BANK EMPLOYEE AGAIN!!!!!!!!

 

Ping Feature

 

YOU QUOTE:I admit I have never banked with Natwest and I have never heard of this "ping" feature. But I do have accounts with numerous other banks though and I haven't heard of a similar feature either.

 

MY ANSWER: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THIS MAY BE ANOTHER LIE FROM THE NATWEST???? THE PINGING £16K REALLY DOES WORRY ME BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT DO IT. THEY ALL HAVE A TRANSACTION REF AND THE AMOUNT APPEARED TO BE EATEN UP BY MY CURRENT ACCOUNT - IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THE OUT OF DATE TRANSACTIONS APPEAR AFTER THE £16k LANDED IN THE ACCOUNT. SOME SORT OF COVER UP TO HIDE THE FACT THAT MY ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO GO SO MUCH OVERDRAWN? SURELY NOT!!!!!

 

Fraud Allegations

 

YOU QUOTE: Don't get carried away and misled by misinformed opinions from some other posters.

This situation does not fit any legal definition of fraud.

 

(

 

MY ANSWER: IT WOULD BE A FRAUD IF I HAD CUSTOMERS AND DID NOT GIVE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR ACCOUNTS, BUT INSTEAD PRESENTED FIGURES WHICH WERE MISLEADING AND COULD RESULT IN A FINANCIAL GAIN FOR MYSELF. HOWEVER LIKE ANIMAL FARM SOME PIGS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BANKS ARE ABLE TO BE ABOVE THE LAW IN THIS MATTER

 

THANKS FOR THE WEB LINK IT PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:-

 

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

 

The defendant:

made a false representation

dishonestly

knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading

with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)

 

The defendant:

failed to disclose information to another person

when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information

dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4)

 

The defendant:

occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person

abused that position

dishonestly

intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss

The abuse may consist of an omission rather than an act.

 

 

 

 

Visa Operating Regulations

 

YOU QUOTE: I'm not trying to make you feel small.

I'm just not sure what you want me to find for you.

 

 

MY ANSWER: THIS CONVINCES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE A BANK EMPLOYEE, TRYING TO AVOID GIVING AN ANSWER AND MAKING IT SOUND AS IF i DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

 

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TOLD ME THAT YOU HAD FOUND A DOCUMENT WITH THIS PROCEDURE PRINTED FOR PEOPLE TO READ. YOU DID ADMIT THAT IT WAS NOT A UK DOCUMENT BUT YOU SENT IT TO ME SO I COULD SEE FOR MYSELF THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS PRINTED. IT IS OVER 1000 PAGES AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SECTION WHICH CONTAINS THIS INFORMATION, AS YOU HAVE FOUND IT IN THIS DOCUMENT I AM ASKING YOU TO TELL ME WHERE?

[RKSG]

Thanks for your quick response, dx, and yes I do see your point.

 

However, I do want the best outcome for Pixifox.

 

I also believe that a simple audit of all relevant bank statements (as you suggested) should reveal the ultimate location of the £16k.

 

My question though remains; has Pixifox spent the £16k or has NatWest misplaced it.

 

PS: I posted this before I saw the latest post from Pixifox. I will read this and post again if it is appropriate.

Edited October 21, 2014 by RKSG

[RKSG]

Hello Pixifox, I have now read your most recent post and I have no more specific advice to offer. However, I hope you don't mind me giving some general feedback.

 

You are clearly angry and this does come out in your posts. However, convincing us of the injustice that you have suffered does not help you. You have alerted me to a little know bank process and for that I am indebted to you but again this does not help your case.

 

I believe that each of Klandestine, dx and myself do wish to help you. Otherwise we would not have posted our responses. We all have a different take on the issues and possible courses of action that you could take.

 

All I can really suggest is to re-read our posts and try to see if anything in these posts will help you resolve you financial claim rather than support your quest (however laudable) to get banks to be more open or, heaven forbid, admit to being at fault.

Edited October 22, 2014 by RKSG

[Pixifox65]

Hi RG

 

I have taken on advice that has been offered to me. My paperwork has been checked But I cannot prove that I did not ping my own money around, nor can I prove that my account had a minus balance during that month and most of all I cannot prove how and when this process was applied to my account - There simply is no paper trial and it would be my and the Merchant's word against the Bank regarding the processing of the transactions. The only thing I can do is continue to make people aware so as to stop it from happening to them.

 

You also suggested on the Natwest forum that I should contact the media - I do not want to do that at the moment due to personal reasons but will keep this in mind.

I am not really angry anymore just accepting my lot. There have been other posts which are clearly appear to be from banking representatives promoting how the bank cannot be held responsible for the charges or losses you the customer may have. They quote banking policies which are not written anywhere and then when asked to prove it send a document so big that it would take months to read. As you can see I have asked several times now for them to at least point me to the right section of the document but they have avoided answering. Lets us not forget we place our money in the care of a bank and they have a responsibility to inform us of what happens with it. They take the time and trouble to inform us of all the matters which we are liable for etc it would be no extra work for them to inform us of this the only reason I can see for them not doing this is the loss of financial gain they get from this.

 

So I am sorry if this is boring for you as but I will be appearing on as many forums as I can to inform as many people as I can.

[Klandestine]

In my opinion, the only issue that may have any weight to your case are these "pings". And I don't really know what they are so I can't really comment any further.

 

There have been other posts which are clearly appear to be from banking representatives promoting how the bank cannot be held responsible for the charges or losses you the customer may have. They quote banking policies which are not written anywhere and then when asked to prove it send a document so big that it would take months to read. As you can see I have asked several times now for them to at least point me to the right section of the document but they have avoided answering.

 

What reasonable rationale do have that leads you to believe that I am a bank representative or employee? You're assuming, and as you mentioned in your earlier post "TO ASSUME WILL MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME". (I'm don't work for a bank btw. As I have explained to you before, I am a frequenter to consumer forums such as this).

 

And with regards to the Visa International Operating Regulations, yes, it is a large document. And as I have already explained you need to tell me what information you're looking for. With the volume of this thread, it really is difficult for me to know what you're expecting me to find for you.

 

WHEN YOU USE YOUR CARD THE FIGURE IS REDUCED/TAKEN OFF YOUR AVAILABLE BALANCE NOT YOUR BALANCE. THE AMOUNT IS RETURNED IF NOT CLAIMED AFTER TWO WORKING DAYS HOWEVER WHEN IT IS CLAIMED THE AMOUNT IS REMOVED FROM BOTH BALANCES. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE BANK DISPLAYING AN AVAILABLE BALANCE IF THE MONEY IT SHOWS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO SPEND. WHY BOTHER TO REDUCE THE AVAILABLE MONEY FIGURE WHEN THE CUSTOMER USES THE CARD AND WHY FAIL TO MAKE THE RETURN OF FUNDS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THIS ONLY SUGGESTS THAT BANKS ARE TRYING TO LEAD CUSTOMERS INTO PAYING CHARGES. IT WOULD BE SAFER TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS OF THIS PROCEDURE AND EITHER MAKE A PAYMENT PENDING ENTRY LINE ON THE STATEMENT UNTIL MONEY IS CLAIMED OR NOT ALTER ANY BALANCE UNTIL CLAIMED AND THUS TELL CUSTOMERS ALL DEBIT CARD TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE TREATED IN SAME MANNER AS CHEQUES.

 

A pending payment line on your statement would just be visual representation of an authorisation hold affecting the available balance. It would disappear after a few days aswell.

 

THE MERCHANT HAS UP TO SIX MONTHS TO CLAIM SO WOULD YOU CALL TWO WORKING DAYS A FAILURE TO CLAIM IN A TIMELY FASHION? WHY MAY THE BANK REMOVE THIS AUTHORISATION HOLD WITHOUT THE CUSTOMERS KNOWLEDGE. WHY WOULD THEY BELIEVE THAT THE MERCHANT WILL NOT CLAIM? I DO NOT THINK TWO WORKING DAYS OUT OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE BANK TO ASSUME THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AS A CUSTOMER THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS THAT I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A CLAIM TO GET MY MONEY BACK. I THOUGHT WE ALL KNEW WHAT IT MEANT TO ASSUME ANYTHING! BUT JUST I CASE YOU DO NOT - TO ASSUME WILL MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Look at it from another point of view. Would it be reasonable for the bank to keep your funds unavailable even though a transaction isn't going to be "claimed"?

 

The 2 day rule is Natwest's own choosing. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly why they have chosen that length of time. Presumably, it's because they have previously had complaints where cancelled transactions did not return to the available balance in a timely fashion.

 

NATWEST (AND ALL OTHER BANKS) ARE ALWAYS VERY GOOD AT STATING THE CUSTOMERS RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITY - HOWEVER NOT SO GOOD AT INFORMING ABOUT THEIR PROCEDURES AND MISLEADING FIGURES!!!

LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE APPLIED IF THE BANK HAS PROVIDED ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE CUSTOMER - IN OTHER WORDS THEY CANNOT WITHOLD/CONCEAL INFORMATION WHICH A CUSTOMER IS TO RELY UPON IN KEEPING THEIR ACCOUNT RECORDS UP TO DATE NOR SHOULD THEY MISLEAD THEIR CUSTOMER BY SUPPLYING AN AVAILABLE TO SPEND FIGURE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MONEY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT/ALLOCATED/AUTHORISED ON ANOTHER TRANSACTION.

 

I'm sorry but they were your own transactions, so surely you should have some knowledge of them. You can't really argue that they concealed information.

 

THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE - HOWEVER HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE MINUS FIGURE I SAW ON MY ONLINE BANKING STATEMENT! THIS FIGURE COULD ONLY BEEN SHOWN IF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE PUT INTO DATE ORDER, OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWING A HEALTHY BALANCE AND I WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED TO TRANSFER THE £16K WHICH PINGED ALL OVER THE PLACE. IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT FUNNY TO ME THAT THE MINUS AMOUNT NEVER WAS AND IN FACT I PINGED MY OWN MONEY AROUND WHICH IS WHAT THE BANK IS SAYING TO ME. THE BANK IS ON DANGEROUS GROUND HERE BECAUSE IF THEY ADMIT THAT THE MINUS FIGURE EXISTED THEN THEY WOULD BE AT FAULT FOR ALLOWING THE ACCOUNT TO GO SO OVERDRAWN.

 

Without seeing your statement I have no idea what you mean - but I wouldn't expect you to post that up.

 

(Also, they wouldn't be at fault for allowing you to go overdrawn. That's their risk but it would be your fault).

 

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THIS MAY BE ANOTHER LIE FROM THE NATWEST???? THE PINGING £16K REALLY DOES WORRY ME BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT DO IT. THEY ALL HAVE A TRANSACTION REF AND THE AMOUNT APPEARED TO BE EATEN UP BY MY CURRENT ACCOUNT - IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THE OUT OF DATE TRANSACTIONS APPEAR AFTER THE £16k LANDED IN THE ACCOUNT.

 

No, I just mean I've never heard of it. Even after searching I can't find any information about this. What does the line on your statement say for each of these "pings".

 

SOME SORT OF COVER UP TO HIDE THE FACT THAT MY ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO GO SO MUCH OVERDRAWN? SURELY NOT!!!!!

 

Most definitely not.

 

THIS CONVINCES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE A BANK EMPLOYEE, TRYING TO AVOID GIVING AN ANSWER AND MAKING IT SOUND AS IF i DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

 

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TOLD ME THAT YOU HAD FOUND A DOCUMENT WITH THIS PROCEDURE PRINTED FOR PEOPLE TO READ. YOU DID ADMIT THAT IT WAS NOT A UK DOCUMENT BUT YOU SENT IT TO ME SO I COULD SEE FOR MYSELF THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS PRINTED. IT IS OVER 1000 PAGES AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SECTION WHICH CONTAINS THIS INFORMATION, AS YOU HAVE FOUND IT IN THIS DOCUMENT I AM ASKING YOU TO TELL ME WHERE?

 

What information?

 

I'm not avoiding anything. I asked for clarification about what information you are seeking.