[OT] safest method of remote payment?



It is easy for an approved source to set up a DD to your account. But part of the reason for this is it is also easy to get back any money debited incorrectly. So not easy at all to steal money from your account in this way.
--
*IF ONE SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMER DROWNS, DO THE REST DROWN TOO?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
whisky-dave wrote:

details a charity managed to take £500 from his account.
I don't think the charity took his money, rather someone fraudulently set up a donation to the charity. If he'd reported it the money would be refunded no questions asked, whether he did that, or decided he didn't want a "tight-arse Clarkson takes money back from charity" story doing the rounds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite. Simply allowing that as a one off donation is likely worth far more to him as publicity.
--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 12 January 2018 16:29:48 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:


I agree but I wouldnlt want to be in that position of needing to claikm mon ey back from a charity I doubt you would either, as for the OP JoeJoe it;s up to him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

i wouldn't be claiming the money back. I was agreeing (or not) to pay it. Whether I asked for it back or not would depend on which charity and what its object were and whether I agreed with those objects.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don’t claim it back from the charity, you claim it back from the bank.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:22:56 PM UTC, whisky-dave wrote:



charity managed to take £500 from his account.

s cash.

es to get it and sending a cheque (recorded or not) isn't that much hassle for most.
But surely the problem with a cheque is that it can be reversed later, even though the money has appeared in your account as 'availabvle funds'.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:32:36 PM UTC, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

in

I

a charity managed to take £500 from his account.

aps cash.

akes to get it and sending a cheque (recorded or not) isn't that much hassl e for most.

en though the money has appeared in your account as 'availabvle funds'.

One example how this can happen is that someone steals a chequebook and wri tes a cheque to you. It will probably clear and you apparently get the fun ds. But it can get reversed once the crime has been detected, which migh be some time afterwards (but not beyond 7 years).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 04:35:56 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Actually 6 days (since Nov 2007) . Paying in day plus 6 is the final day that your cheque could bounce.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:50:21 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

There was a story back in the 90s in a Sunday newspaper about a company that went bust. The Inland revenue just reversed the last 2 months salary payments from the staffs bank accounts. Apparently the company should not have paid them, being insolvent, and the Inland revenue had that power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:00:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

When banks decided to get rid of the cheque guarantee scheme they were told to find an equivalent system which ensured clawbacks could not be made after the cheque had fully cleared. The "new" system came into use in Nov 2007 and effectively guaranteed any cheque paid in once 6 days had elapsed (clawbacks can still be made within the 6 day clearance period). The cheque guarantee scheme ended in June 2011.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:18:22 +0000, Peter Parry wrote:

The story I read made the point that it was Inland Revenue powers - top recover monies owed them - that permitted the "grab". The banks had no option but to comply.
Obviously some people then went overdrawn - with all the associated charges.
It may have been an edge case. However I would wager that rather than being *less* likely, 20+ years on, it's probably more likely. What with all the terrorism powers available to the state.
In fact, with the ongoing (questionably legal) Home Office crackdown on immigrants (where banks are required to freeze all accounts of people with funny names) it's arguable that the least safe place for money in the UK is a bank.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 16:21:58 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

And what did the inland revenue do to get money from those former employees who for various reasons had innocently closed those bank accounts and opened others with banks or building societies? Given a reasonable number of people some will have done so especially if losing their job meant a move elsewhere and getting a new bank the need to move having broken the inertia to change.
I reckon its just a story and those special powers existed as much Supermans.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 00:03 15 Jan 2018, wrote:

Such powers probably do exist for insolvencies because they'e a golden opportunity for last minute dodginess such as selling off stock to your mate for next to nothing, paying friends vast amounts for poorly documented overtime, buying goods from pals at vastly overinflated prices, and so on.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HMRC were seeking such powers to collect unpaid tax. Can't remember without looking it up whether it was passed.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 1:50:30 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:

Aha, thanks. I did not realise teh rules had changed.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you give a stranger a cheque they have your bank details.
--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/01/18 14:06, JoeJoe wrote:

Pretty safe.
The worst they could dod is make a charitable donation with it
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:07:08 PM UTC, JoeJoe wrote:

This is why Paypal etc charge 3%. Otherwise someone has to take the risk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


PayPal, but Western Union isnt far behind, just more hassle to use.

In that case, Western Union, and turn it into cash as soon as you get it.


Not really on the unreverseability.

That aspect is fine and you can use a temporary new account if you are paranoid about that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.