OT

why zat ?...got me worried

My thoughts too. With banks now responsible for losses through hacks I would say now is a good time.

A saving account payment is likely to be required to be channelled through a current account so an additional level of protection.

Banks aren't responsible for push payment frauds though, which are the most common at the moment. Nor for cloned website frauds.

True, if you set up the savings account with the genuine provider in the first place.

Why ?.

If you use strong passwords and/or 2FA and you aren't using a hotmail account as part of your login I don't see what the issue is. Surely everyone now knows about these scams and is or should be suspicious of anyone phoning and claiming to be from your bank.

I have a suspicion that those Santander accounts where you got an economically impossible rate of interest on your current account are the ones that the fraudsters with inside bank information preyed on.

Since base rate is 0.1% and 10 year gilts are about 0.7% you might as well stick the whole lot in premium bonds until interest rates are closer to where they should be (inflation + 1%).

I did ... can't wait 'till Monday

They like to argue that, but the law is not totally in their favour on this - especially if they don't implement confirmation of payee:

You might as well spend it all! :-)

The cases discussed there (Quinecare and Singularis) involved in essence fraud carried out by an agent of the account holder (the latter a director of a company on the company's account). I don't think they give much comfort to the personal account holder who authorises a transfer as a result of a scam. The High Court confirmed last month that the "Quinecare duty of care" doesn't extend to the individuals.

Only difficult for the stupid.

In which case people with learning difficulties should get extra protection. Or are you one who feels that handicapped people aren't worth bothering about?

Bill

maximum 50,000!

That will create inflation though, which the worry that is sending US 10Y bond yields over 1.5% and heading north since mid january.

The government are remarkably releuctant to issue Covid vaccine passports but have done nothing about the fact that for all practical purpose you have to own a mobile phone as banks like to use them to verify who you are.

What is the connection between these two unrelated things?

There is absolutely no need for a mobile phone to use bank 2FA, there are quite a few alternatives.

Are you suggesting we should be able to pickup Covid Vaccine Passports, like you do mobile phones at phone shops using a few folding beer tokens?

That's a new one!

Can I get a Covid Vaccine Passport for each bank? How many would I need?

How exactly have they done that then? Brian

One of the main issues about any on line financial services is proving who you are. Increasingly complicated and often inaccessible ways to prove you are a human and indeed the account holder make the use so onerous that its easier over the telephone quite often. Brian

Some of us use desktops. Both of those techniques have weaknesses.

Try changing your fingerprint after this:

I have to use my phone to get a number to log into my account on a desktop. While it will be quicker than making a call if I'm wearing a headset I could still get on with things around me.