bank charges

Could anyone out there help me?

Recently i have won my case & my solicitor has the money at her disposal, whilst i am over the moon and chuffed that i have finally got the chance of my money back i feel i want the best possible deal when converting my money, i was part of a class act and some have already cashed in only to be charged over a thousand pounds for doing so.

Can anyone out there help me with this???

Gambles,

I'm sure there's a few on EOS that are happy to advise, but I believe you need to be more precise as to where you expect to be hit by the thousand pound charge. 

Is it the solicitors, poor exchange rate/charge, bank charge, tax or something else?

If you are referring to transfer of money's ..from euro's to sterling ...and then transfering the amount back to the UK then your best bet is companies like Money corp / XE exchange and so forth don't use a bank to transfer you money (especially a Spanish bank) as they are really expensive.

Windy, you need to be careful giving financial advice without the full facts.

Moneycorp / XE exchange etc do offer better deals than the banks, but your money is not secure and there is no compensation scheme if they go bust.

https://news.sky.com/story/police-investigate-after-britons-lose-holiday-home-cash-in-10m-company-collapse-11492763

If this helps you. We sold a house some years back and put the money in the bank, had a chat with the banks people, a really nice Spanish lady, told her that we were going to transfer the money to our bank in the UK, she then checked the rate on the day and said it doesn't look that good, and if you don't need the money for a short while why not come in every day in passing and check with me, which we did, after a few days we got 800€'s more on the rate and it cost nothing to send it to our bank, which was the same UK bank as the Spanish one.

It wont hurt you one bit to ask the question, how much? What if? And so on, just my experience in the matter.

Kavanagh,

The incident you quote was not involving a money transfer transaction.  The company was undertaking business outside their licensing with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).  It seems that their unfortunate customers were unaware.

In recent times I've used Transfer Wise to do transfers, who are fully licensed - you can check this on the FCA website, https://register.fca.org.uk their registration number is 900507.  Their rates and service are exemplary.  But I'm a relative beginner and if anyone who is qualified can tell me that they have any flaws I would be interested to know!

As a simple precaution it must make sense to check the pedigree of who you use and also consider more than one, perhaps multiple companies, to spread the risk where larger amounts are involved.

But still waiting to hear from Gambles to spell out his original query!

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/check-a-firms-authorisation-to-send-money-overseas

https://register.fca.org.uk/

“Top tips for safer money transfers

If you’re sending a lot of money, make sure the firm is authorised.

If a firm isn’t authorised or registered with the FCA – or another EU regulator – don’t use them.”

 Also Martin Lewis ( money saving expert) identified https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/foreign-currency-exchange/#qas

“If you've got money in a UK savings account, there's a whole protection scheme set up to cover you if the provider goes bust. With foreign exchange money transfer companies it's a different ball game. Please take note:

There's NO compensation scheme if a firm goes bust

This is crucial to understand - if you use an online transfer company (or any transfer company that holds your money) and it goes bust while it has your money, there's no guarantee you'll get it back. The regulation of these companies has become tighter in the past few years, but the risk of losing cash still remains.

• If it's 'authorised' - your money is kept separate.

  A large firm trading over €3 million (£2.5 million) a month, must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Each day, at the close of business, these firms separate your money from the firm's own accounts (known as ringfencing). This protects your cash, so you should get it back if the firm gets into difficulty.

• If it's 'registered' - there are no safeguards for your cash.

  Smaller firms can choose to be registered. This means there's no safety process if something goes wrong with the firm, meaning your money isn't protected.

To check how a firm is regulated (whether it's authorised or just registered), search for its name on the FCA register. For more information on your protection, this Sending Money Safely leaflet from the Money Advice Service is useful.”

Having said that....

Moneyfacts identify the following....

Is moneycorp Reliable?

Company Size

Incorporated in 1962 (first foreign exchange in 1979), moneycorp is a mature company with a stable corporate structure and effective, focused customer service. With more than 880 employees and £35 billion in currencies exchanged annually, moneycorp is one of the largest money transfer companies in the UK. It also boasts one of the largest trading departments in the entire industry.

moneycorp TTT Ltd. is headquartered in Victoria, London, and has more than a dozen additional offices and branches in the UK and globally.

Awards

moneycorp’s long history has earned it a multitude of awards throughout the years. Below you can find the most relevant ones we have collected from recent years

The Sunday Times Top Track 250 (2017)

Feefo gold trusted service award (2018 & 2019)

Best Money Transfer Service Provider – The World Banking Awards (2019)

Travel money provider of the year – Moneyfacts Consumer Awards (2015+2016)

Conclusion

moneycorp has been around for over four decades, maintaining an excellent reputation, and earning multiple awards relating to its services. With over 2.9m customer transactions last year alone, and an astonishing £35bntransferred annually, we consider it the most reliable choice for currency transfers.

In addition to that, moneycorp is probably the only money transfer company in the world to receive a banking license from Gibraltar, which shows the level of credibility the firm has, as well as a 5A1 rating from D&B which is the highest among all foreign exchange firms in the UK.

Perhaps another question is ....Are law firms who are responsible for transferring large amounts of monies from client accounts back to the UK using well recognised fully authorised currency exchange companies?  As they must be transferring large amounts on a fairly regular basis, have they set up accounts with authorised currency exchange companies ( such as Moneycorp) in order to obtain not only safe passage of monies but also good preferential rates for their clients?

P.s. for Acer

Noted this in Martin Lewis website quoted above “

• Transferwise is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This means any money you send using the service is kept separate from company accounts. See Is my money protected? for more details.

Well said ads, a good post.

Registered, authorised or whatever, it’s all a case of what they should do as opposed to what they actually do. The FCA only works 9 to 5 Mon to Fri and generally only investigate after the disaster (Robert Maxwell)

Woolworths and Thomas Cook had been trading for decades.

My opinion is that there should be a compensation scheme for these types of companies BUT THERE IS NOT, and that is kept very quite in the small print, if at all. A disaster waiting to happen.

I am sure Moneycorp are wonderful and have won many awards which will have nothing to do with where it spends it’s massive advertising budget.

Moneycorp are the famous brand so to speak but don't give the best rates!

depending on the amount you may wish to go with them for a better sense of security.

i now use TransferWise who offer a lot better rate.

if you are very catiuos or worried, transfer smaller amounts you probably won't pay much extra in costs.

transferwise transfer the money almost instantly.

lifes a risk, but your doing right in being cautious.

Quite right Mrsubby.  TransferWise convert the cash and pay it into your account within a few seconds of pressing the "go" button.  Sometimes it's been as long as 4 days with others.

So useful to know, particularly when you're partner goes out on the occasional shopping spree and doesn't always tell you too promptly.

I use xe.com every month. They give good rates, are owned my Hifx and are authorised.

Mark

Given the original poster Gambles was asking with reference to return of monies from a successful court case, (which could involve transference of large sums of monies), is it not the lawyer who will be responsible for the transfer from their own client bank account into the clients nominated UK account? When the court releases the monies to the law firm this would presumably go into the lawyers client bank account from which the transfer is subsequently made. 

 So the question then becomes are law firms currently able and willing to provide clients with a means of currency transfer that will provide the best return? Wouldn’t they be able, given the frequency of large client transfers, to negotiate better rates of exchange for their clients? 

To accomplish this will they have to set up accounts themselves with authorised currency exchange companies, that from experience and prior negotiation they have found to effect the best returns for their clients, and would this also speed up the process of transfer, since the verification process required for large sums of monies would already have been completed?

Where would the incentive be for a lawyer to use an unsecured authorised currency exchange company as opposed to a bank to bank transfer that has a government compensation scheme? Why would a lawyer take any unnecessary risk?Perhaps a lawyer’s professional indemnity insurance company may state security and risk has priority over rate. 

Might the incentive be in their desire to affect the best deal for their client with all due regard to minimising risk, choosing a well respected and authorised currency exchange company that ring fences the monies in their care?

So is the inference from this that all authorised exchange companies are placing their own clients at risk? I thought the fact that monies were held in separate accounts and effectively ring fenced minimised this risk?

• If it's 'authorised' - your money is kept separate.

  A large firm trading over €3 million (£2.5 million) a month, must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Each day, at the close of business, these firms separate your money from the firm's own accounts (known as ringfencing). This protects your cash, so you should get it back if the firm gets into difficulty.

• If it's 'registered' - there are no safeguards for your cash.

  Smaller firms can choose to be registered. This means there's no safety process if something goes wrong with the firm, meaning your money isn't protected.

So what is the point of the FCA in this regard if they are trying to ensure currency exchange companies are effectively authorised ( with due regard to their assets and monthly turnover and ringfencing), but that in itself is deemed insufficient? Isn’t  the ring fencing here the critical aspect to securing of monies?

Perhaps it also begs the question however, why are the larger and respected authorised currency companies not covered by the government compensation scheme (FSCS), when they have such major assets and are ringfencing these monies at their disposal? What is preventing such? 

Ads

‘’Might the incentive be in their desire to affect the best deal for their client’’

And not themselves, that would certainly be a first in Spain.

 Each day, at the close of business, these firms separate your money from the firm's own accounts (known as ringfencing).

Do you actually mean, supposed to separate? Robert Maxwell. Where is your money during opening hours, do companies only go bankrupt at night? If the company breaks FCA rules will the FCA give you your money back out of it’s own pocket?

The bottom line here is any organisation that has no absolute guarantee or government compensation scheme is a higher risk than a bank which is backed by a government compensation scheme. You pay your money and take your risk.

Ads why do these so called large authorised firms try to hide the fact that they have no compensation scheme? That is my main concern.

The FCA (Financial Control Authority) was previously the FSA (Financial Services Authority) and was so useless it changed it’s name out of shame.

Are there disincentives to the FSCS providing compensation for well respected authorised currency exchange providers who have a large turnover, and if so what are they? Might they perhaps be being pressured by Banks who are hoping to retain their monolpoly for the transference of large amounts of monies in this currency exchange market place?

Everyone in the world is well respected until they go bust and run off with your money. The larger the turnover the bigger the failure. Thomas Cook, Lehman Brothers, Eastern Airlines, Hummer, Pan Am, Commodore, TWA, Enron, WorldCom, Compaq, DeLorean, Woolworth's, Kodak, Toys R Us.

If companies want to be in the currency exchange business the governments should consider a levy on them to set up a compensation scheme to protect naive clients who are impressed with fancy websites preaching everything but your money is at risk, sadly allowed by the irresponsible FCA.

Ads I fully agree the banks would be delighted to see the back of these companies and fill their boots, but what about the consumer who does not know the difference between the FCA and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

Today Mothercare goes bust with loss of 25,000 jobs.

This message was last edited by Kavanagh on 04/11/2019.

Bad news when the regulatory structures are brought into question, agreed, but at least this discussion goes some way to highlight the issues on EOS.

Talking of which, I suppose it comes down to assessing the immediate circumstance for those such as Gambles who now presumably are aware of such details and for them to try and assess the likelihood of those authorised, such as Moneycorp or Transferwise ( who are trying to minimise the risks by ringfencing monies) suffering insolvency and discuss with their lawyer accordingly.....or as Acer has already identified, maybe spread the risk via multiple companies where larger amounts are involved.

The alternative is to assume insolvency will immediately occur, ignore the current process that is presumably trying to minimise the risks by ring fencing monies, and leave the banks to apply large costs in that process! Each to their own I suppose, but at least Gambles will now hopefully be aware  and make his own judgement in this regard.

Ads, I totally agreed with what you say, but how can anyone in life ensure that a company obeys rules like ringfencing, the government, FCA, the serious fraud squad, all of who descends after the breach and crime(if it is deemed a crime) has been committed and the consumer is left virtually penniless, without any clear warning that YOUR MONEY IS AT RISK. That statement should be a headline statement in bold as it is a fact, WHY IS IT NOT?

Sadly we now all live in the 21^st Centaury where trust and morals have been replaced with deceit, scams and loopholes, and those in power prefer to turn a blind eye, or are they in on the deal, one way or another?    

I bet the OP wishes he hadn't asked now.