Charging to use a credir card

[caradoc]

Ah right, yes I see. I thought I was missing some sort of hidden charges or something. As you say, that seems wholly moot, your money’s better in the bank earning something than in a proverbial shoebox earning nothing!

 

As long as a nice person from the bank doesn't phone and persuade you to move all your money to another account 'for security'.......

[njee20]

At which point you probably get it back, indeed banks have been told to get better at protecting against that sort of fraud. Interestingly I had something happen a few years ago with an intercepted debit card, and fraudsters authorising a transfer to an account allegedly in my name. I got the money back instantly.

Unlike if you have your house broken into, or it burns down, or floods, or aliens invade, or an escaped anteater finds it and eats it. Then your cash is gone, forever, with no recourse.

 

Must we keep doing daft hypothetical situations?

[Coryton]

At which point you probably get it back, indeed banks have been told to get better at protecting against that sort of fraud. Interestingly I had something happen a few years ago with an intercepted debit card, and fraudsters authorising a transfer to an account allegedly in my name. I got the money back instantly.

Unlike if you have your house broken into, or it burns down, or floods, or aliens invade, or an escaped anteater finds it and eats it. Then your cash is gone, forever, with no recourse.

 

Must we keep doing daft hypothetical situations?

 

Unfortunately, people being conned into making bank transfers to someone other than they think they are is far from hypothetical, and there are plenty of stories of this happening and banks refusing to pay compensation on the grounds that they did what they were asked, which was to pay the money into a certain bank account. I don't think they will even tell you who it went to because that information is confidential.

[Sir TophamHatt]

The DVLA do sell your details without your permission, quite regularly. Just try parking in a privately enforced car park without a ticket and you'll soon find that out...

They're still not selling your details.

Parking companies can request the details (perhaps under some sort of licence) and get them, but there is no financial transaction for your specific vehicle details as far as I was aware. Happy to admit I am wrong, but I also need some sort of evidence from the DVLA website telling me, specifically, they sell details.

Companies cannot sell your details without permission. Usually this is wrapped up in tiny terms and conditions but for something like the DVLA, which everyone has to use, I find it hard to believe. I will ask them what the score is.

 

The problem is the broad range of the word "selling".

When someone says that to me, I compare it to a supermarket shop.

 

Someone who pays a licence fee to access details isn't exactly "buying" the details, but I see how some people may see it that way.

 

 

 

I'm perplexed to see signs at pumps encouraging you to pay by app next to warning signs not to use mobile phones. Make your minds up.

I note, though that my local Asda had these signs removed during a recent upgrade.

 

I think the whole "don't use phones" was an over reaction to a fire risk. I mean, you can use MP3 players or a torch which both have batteries

 

Unless you have a Galaxy Note of course

Edited November 5, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[caradoc]

At which point you probably get it back, indeed banks have been told to get better at protecting against that sort of fraud. Interestingly I had something happen a few years ago with an intercepted debit card, and fraudsters authorising a transfer to an account allegedly in my name. I got the money back instantly.

Unlike if you have your house broken into, or it burns down, or floods, or aliens invade, or an escaped anteater finds it and eats it. Then your cash is gone, forever, with no recourse.

 

Must we keep doing daft hypothetical situations?

 

No, and let's agree that some people prefer to pay electronically while others prefer to use cash, and the latter are not necessarily elderly, or stupid and unable to embrace technology, it's just their (our) individual choice.

[njee20]

Totally agree, I’ve not asked anyone to justify their choice, I’m amused or bemused by some justifications, that’s all. Ultimately if folk want to use cash that’s their prerogative. Until more retailers stop taking it at least!

[jjb1970]

I think the whole "don't use phones" was an over reaction to a fire risk. I mean, you can use MP3 players or a torch which both have batteries

 

 

Yes and no. I expect the risk is very low (I've never actually done a formal risk assessment or done the hazardous zoning exercise) but clearly if there is a risk of flammable vapours in an area then mitigating those risks by reducing use of electrical devices is a sensible enough idea to consider.

[Reorte]

Yes and no. I expect the risk is very low (I've never actually done a formal risk assessment or done the hazardous zoning exercise) but clearly if there is a risk of flammable vapours in an area then mitigating those risks by reducing use of electrical devices is a sensible enough idea to consider.

Depends on just what the risk is. If it's "once in a billion years" then it's daft to consider it worth mitigating. If it's vastly outweighed by other risks (all the components of the car for starters) then it also looks rather paranoid. You need to be careful being over-cautious, it can have boy who cried wolf-like results.

[Coryton]

Depends on just what the risk is. If it's "once in a billion years" then it's daft to consider it worth mitigating. If it's vastly outweighed by other risks (all the components of the car for starters) then it also looks rather paranoid. You need to be careful being over-cautious, it can have boy who cried wolf-like results.

 

http://www.ukpia.com/industry_issues/health-and-safety/mobile-phones-on-forecourts.aspx

[jjb1970]

Depends on just what the risk is. If it's "once in a billion years" then it's daft to consider it worth mitigating. If it's vastly outweighed by other risks (all the components of the car for starters) then it also looks rather paranoid. You need to be careful being over-cautious, it can have boy who cried wolf-like results.

 

There are pretty straight forward methods to quantify risk and it's quite a straightforward job to crunch the numbers with respect to cost/benefit etc when analysing risk. Like I say I haven't looked at the figures or a qualitative risk assessment for the matter but I wouldn't dismiss the idea that using mobile phones in a filling station might be undesirable on risk management grounds.

[jjb1970]

Surely the hip young chap around town now uses crypto-currencies? I went to an ATM to withdraw some bit coins but couldn't find the right button to make it work.

[phil-b259]

They're still not selling your details.

Parking companies can request the details (perhaps under some sort of licence) and get them, but there is no financial transaction for your specific vehicle details as far as I was aware. Happy to admit I am wrong, but I also need some sort of evidence from the DVLA website telling me, specifically, they sell details.

Companies cannot sell your details without permission. Usually this is wrapped up in tiny terms and conditions but for something like the DVLA, which everyone has to use, I find it hard to believe. I will ask them what the score is.

 

 

 

See https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

 

However the list of organisations the that Government deem do have  a 'reasonable cause' is not exactly small......

Edited November 5, 2018 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

Surely the hip young chap around town now uses crypto-currencies? I went to an ATM to withdraw some bit coins but couldn't find the right button to make it work.

 

If you keep loose change in your back trouser pocket does that make them butt coins ?

[chris p bacon]

If you keep loose change in your back trouser pocket does that make them butt coins ?

 

Do you put them in the slot.....

[jjb1970]

Maybe bitcoin dispensers could be the new pin pong ball trick for a more PC world?

[ejstubbs]

You do realise, that once your money goes into a bank account, they own it, right?

 

Wrong.

 

Yes, in most situations they wouldn't enforce this when you come to withdraw it but the point is, THEY CAN.

 

No, they can't.

 

This is perfectly legal and is the default. Not that this makes it right, but it is a fact.

 

No, it isn't.

 

You ever tried to withdraw more than, say, £5k, and then not been subjected to an interrogation?

 

Checks on large deposits and withdrawals are mandated by anti money laundering legislation, and other regulations which banks are obliged to comply with.  Nothing to do with deposits being owned by the bank, everything to do with trying to make sure that the money is legitimately owned by the person trying to withdraw it. (Something the proverbial shoebox under the bed cannot enforce.)

 

Meanwhile, the 'backward third world' have banks that pay as much as 8% APR in real terms, guess what I'm minded towards.

 

Are those sterling accounts or would you have to make deposits in the local currency?  If the latter than you need to take a look at the local inflation rate to know whether the interest rates are any good.  (Inflation is basically a measure of the loss of value of money: transfer funds from a low inflation currency to a high inflation one and it loses value quicker.)  Also worth checking how easily you could get the money out i.e. what exchange controls operate in the country in question.  And what your tax position would be on interest earned in that country.  And whether there is any kind of depositor guarantee scheme.  And what legal jurisdiction you'd have to get involved with if you ever ended up having to sue them.  And so on and so on.

 

But I'm sure* these are nothing more than piffling trivialities when it comes to getting rich quick.

 

* No, I'm not.  That was a lie.

[E3109]

Also to add, two or three 86/2s got domino boxes, this was a rarity within the class as the majority went from OOOO to plated over marker lights, and I'm pretty sure they were all named at the time these few received the dominoes.

Mr Stubbs

 

I don't wish to commence a sh**fest here, but I stand by everything I said.

Title to your funds does indeed transfer to the bank itself, this isn't something from the David Icke website or similar, it's a fact.

I'm not after point scoring, this forum is basically about model railways as it should be. But feel free to send me a PM if you wish.

 

And yes, there are accounts elsewhere which pay 8% APR, admittedly this is in places I'm familiar with, you appear to be viewing this from a UK-based position (understandable TBH) but that wasn't my point.

I appreciate your concerns regarding that and thank you, but it really isn't an issue.

 

Incidentally, I have no desire to 'get rich quick' as generally speaking such opportunities don't exist.

 

Also, I attempted to open an account with a UK building society fairly recently and was declined for spurious reasons, despite a current driving licence and a council tax invoice they claimed that wasn't enough to prove my address!

Also the oft-mentioned 'money laundering' nonsense was cited by them, ER I'm UK PAYE! What planet are these people on?

I opened an account elsewhere in 20 minutes, outside UK jurisdiction, all I had to do was produce my passport. The name of my guest house was sufficient for an address.

 

Don't get me wrong, there's booger all in that account and there probably never will be apart from holiday money but it was well noted that it was much easier to open a bank account many miles away in a foreign land, than it was in my home town.

Edited November 7, 2018 by E3109

[chris p bacon]

 but it was well noted that it was much easier to open a bank account many miles away in a foreign land, than it was in my home town.

 

 

That actually says more about that countries banking security. The fact you were able to open it with what is a temporary address highlights it.

 

 

One of the biggest aids to scamming and fraudulent bank transfers, is being able to set up an account easily to receive scammed funds which are then transferred out and the account closed/dormant. 

[Coryton]

That actually says more about that countries banking security. The fact you were able to open it with what is a temporary address highlights it.

 

 

One of the biggest aids to scamming and fraudulent bank transfers, is being able to set up an account easily to receive scammed funds which are then transferred out and the account closed/dormant. 

 

Indeed.

 

And it has now become extremely difficult to set up a bank account even legitimately for some people.

 

However, perhaps I have been mislead by the media's desire to report the sensational, but it seems that it is far too easy for someone to set up a bank account for the purpose you describe, take the money and run, without being able to be traced.

 

It is hardly surprising given that in this age of inexpensive high quality laser printers and a multiplicity of energy companies you can use a gas bill as proof of address.

[njee20]

Also, I attempted to open an account with a UK building society fairly recently and was declined for spurious reasons, despite a current driving licence and a council tax invoice they claimed that wasn't enough to prove my address!

Also the oft-mentioned 'money laundering' nonsense was cited by them, ER I'm UK PAYE! What planet are these people on?

I opened an account elsewhere in 20 minutes, outside UK jurisdiction, all I had to do was produce my passport. The name of my guest house was sufficient for an address.

 

 

So you weren't declined at all, you were refused, because you didn't have the requisite documentation? Quite different. I obviously don't know who you applied with, but many will allow online applications, using your previous bank details as verification of your ID - because we have a good system of confirming people are who they say they are. You can provide ID later, in person, if required. This is beneficial for everyone.

 

What does being PAYE have to do with anti money laundering? I'm also PAYE, but if I started depositing £50k each week and withdrawing it in cash I'd rather hope it would be flagged as a little curious.

 

As others have said it's terrifying that you can set up a bank account with no proof of residence, it certainly isn't laudable!

Edited November 7, 2018 by njee20

[raymw]

Never mind id for banks, try collecting a parcel from a DPD depot. It took me a while, a year or too back renewing my driving license. Not having any paper bills they would accept, nor passport. Oddly enough, the most rigorous id applies to obtaining a fire arms license, but nobody else seems to accept that as proof of id - I think it scares them.

[Sir TophamHatt]

Never mind id for banks, try collecting a parcel from a DPD depot.

Ha ha, I had a barmy with DPD as I left a note with a map of where to leave parcels! (it's not that criptic, just more fun.)

Did they? No.

They asked if the note was signed.

I said I didn't want any Tom or Harry seeing my signature if it was stuck on my front door and to be used as authorisation. I said the note directed to a semi-secure area that many parcels have been left before and that is my instruction. DPD didn't seem to understand.

Left a rubbishly note with no signature as such, just my name, which was then duely accepted and the parcel left. So much for "security".

[Reorte]

Ha ha, I had a barmy with DPD as I left a note with a map of where to leave parcels! (it's not that criptic, just more fun.)

Did they? No.

They asked if the note was signed.

I said I didn't want any Tom or Harry seeing my signature if it was stuck on my front door and to be used as authorisation. I said the note directed to a semi-secure area that many parcels have been left before and that is my instruction. DPD didn't seem to understand.

Left a rubbishly note with no signature as such, just my name, which was then duely accepted and the parcel left. So much for "security".

Had one from UPS recently that didn't even leave a note. It was only when I checked the order tracking I saw that it had been "delivered" to a pick-up point in a shop a few miles away.

[ejstubbs]

I don't wish to commence a sh**fest here, but I stand by everything I said.

Title to your funds does indeed transfer to the bank itself, this isn't something from the David Icke website or similar, it's a fact.

 

You may stand by everything you said.  You're still wrong.

 

Title to the funds does not transfer to the bank.  If you make a cash deposit ie you hand over notes and coins, then title to the cash does transfer to the bank.  You cannot later get back the notes and coins you deposited, and I would humbly suggest that it would be idiotic to expect that.

 

However, as has already been pointed out by at least one other poster, notes and coins aren't "money": they are a representation of value which can be physically exchanged between parties in a transaction.  Since notes were introduced and coins ceased to be minted from precious metals, cash* has no inherent value in itself.

 

Deposit cash with a bank and the cash becomes an asset for the bank (you can even think of it as sitting in a big safe somewhere) but with a balancing liability on the bank's books due to the positive balance in the account in which the bank holds the funds in your name.  Your account with the bank is a liability for the bank, not an asset, because you can ask the bank to return the funds to you at any time (subject to the terms and conditions of the account eg 30 days notice of withdrawal - which you will have signed up to when the account was opened - as well as any regulations which the bank has to observe, as previously noted).

 

If you ask to withdraw the funds in cash then the bank has to draw down on its assets (reserves of cash, in this instance, which may or may not include the physical notes & coins the bank took title of when you made your deposit) to do that.  When the bank hands over the cash to you then title to the physical notes & coins the bank gives you transfers to you.  But the title to the funds never changes: title was yours while the funds were held by the bank in your account as a liability on its books, and title to the funds remains yours once the bank has discharged that liability by handing over an equivalent value of cash assets to you.

 

While your money is on deposit with the bank your account with the bank is an asset to you.  The bank's position is essentially flat, because it holds an asset (the cash which it took title of when you deposited it with them) and a matching liability - the funds in your account.  So in the overall balance of things, you are still the one who's ahead, because you are the one who owns the asset (the funds in the account).

 

If it sounds complicated that's because it is.  It gets more complicated still when you start trying to understand how it works when there is no physical asset like cash involved, eg when using a payment card, writing a cheque, or making a electronic banking transfer.  Trying to argue that there are obvious, simple ways to understand this stuff is fundamentally mistaken IMO.  It has taken lots of clever people** hundreds of years to build the financial systems we have today.  Unfortunately those systems don't succumb to simplistic analysis just because we want them to.  And arguably that is a problem, if the users of a service can't readily grasp at least a basic idea of how it really works.

 

Then again, most people haven't the slightest clue how mobile phones really work, but it doesn't stop them using the things obsessively...

 

* For the purpose of this discussion "cash" should henceforward be understood to mean coins & money, rather than in the accounting sense of liquid funds.

 

** With varying motivations, some not always entirely honest and transparent.

Edited November 7, 2018 by ejstubbs

[jjb1970]

The question of just what exactly is money is an interesting one. We have a fiat currency which is little more than a system of IOUs. It works so long as people have confidence in the system. For example, if you go to the Bank of England, despite what you might think that the statement on a banknote about promising to pay the bearer on demand might infer all you will be offered is another banknote or coins. So the bank of England promises to give you another £5 note or equivalent coins on demand if you present a £5 note, i.e. it doesn't really promise anything.