You Be The Judge! :-( | Page 3 | Tangerine Bank | Discussion forum

Bill said
When you sign into your TD account you will see (above the next-listed Transfers and Interac e-transfers options) a Pay Bills option on the left. When you go in there and add someone as a Payee (under Personal Payee), i.e. you need their TD account number to do that, then you can transfer directly from your account to theirs, just like paying any other bill. And they can do the same to be able to transfer money from their TD account to yours. Been using it for years.

Maybe they're promoting the interac way for some reason, but we've been using this Pay Bills option to settle family payments.  

This is what it NOW says in the same section:
"To set up a new Personal Payee, you will need to call EasyLine telephone banking or visit your local branch and provide the following information about your recipient:

The full name of the person you want to transfer the money to
Branch number (four digits)
Account number
Alias you want to use as a label for the Payee, which must be 1-5 alphanumeric characters, for example "Mom" or "Son"

So yes, it looks like TD is promoting Interac as their main transfer tool now. Maybe because you were set up before this change you are grandfathered?

Bill said
It was done so long ago, smayer97, maybe I did get it set up at the branch after providing the needed info, can't recall but what you say now sounds vaguely familiar now that I think about it.

TD still offers the Personal Payee kind of transfers to another TD customer's account. Just that one needs to call or visit a branch to set a Personal Payee up.

RBC also offers the same kind of transfers. But, RBC allows one to set it up online.

Norman1 said

smayer97 said

I agree that there is a problem with the wording. That would be one for the courts...

I'm no lawyer and do not know how fraud plays into the above but what should be obvious is that the banks seem to have taken that position to be able to reverse Interac e-transfers, rightly or wrongly. It certainly warrants further investigation but I think the answer may lie in section 1.6 e):

"...Interac may also decline to complete the Interac e-Transfer transaction because: you have supplied incorrect information; you cannot answer the sender’s question; your personal information cannot be verified; Interac or a participating financial institution suspects that you, or any other party to the transaction is involved in illegal or wrongful activity; or the Interac e-Transfer transaction exceeds a transaction limit. If the Interac e-Transfer transaction cannot be completed, we will automatically notify the sender that it must be cancelled. If the Interac e-Transfer transaction is cancelled for any of the above reasons, your sole remedy for non-payment is against the sender and you will have no claim against Interac. "

1.6(e) seems to only apply before the transfer is successfully claimed:

e) Until you have attempted to deposit the Interac e-Transfer transaction or the transaction has been automatically deposited, the sender may cancel the Interac e-Transfer transaction and you will no longer have a right to collect the Interac e-Transfer transaction. Interac may also decline to complete the Interac e-Transfer transaction because:…

I suspect that there's something more to these stories. Tangerine and RBC settled before there was an ombudsman investigation. So, we don't have a second look into how those decisions were made.  

If you read that carefully, you will note that it says:
"e) Until you have attempted to deposit the Interac e-Transfer transaction or the transaction has been automatically deposited, the sender may cancel the Interac e-Transfer transaction..." [emphasis added]

That is the context of that segment of e)...the sender. It says nothing of what the bank can or cannot do.

I cannot imagine that Interac and the banks would limit their ability to detect and deal with fraud in only the few minutes that occur from the time the e-transfer is requested to the time it is processed (at most 30 mins when auto-deposit is activated but as little as only a few minutes or less). The wording is such that I think they may have wiggle room.

Not sure if I have time to dig deeper on this. Not sure if a frontline rep would know enough to answer this type of question. But the reports make it clear in some cases that there was something suspect that caused the bank to reverse the e-transfer. That's the fact we have to guide our actions.