Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By RisePilot
#1895323
Loco parentis wrote:Does anyone know the answer ?

How long on average does it take for cash to arrive via a bank to bank transfer?

Many thanks,


This query is too broad/vague to be answered distinctly; further this forum is no place for detailed finance queries.

BACS, CHAPS or FSP? Where are these banks? Are these banks clearing banks or not? The answer is anything from instantaneous, to 2hrs to up to two days.

The query posed is like asking how fast an aeroplane flies.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895350
If using the Faster Payments Service, most of the time it is instant, but can be up to 2 hours.
If using CHAPS it is normally instant, up to 1 working day.
If using BACS, normally 2 but up to 3 working days.
If using SWIFT, 3 to 5 working days, but can be longer to some destinations

You said cash - that has to get into your account first, so depends how it will be deposited. Can appear same day, but then take a few days to clear, before you transfer it.
#1895363
RisePilot wrote:
Loco parentis wrote:Does anyone know the answer ?

How long on average does it take for cash to arrive via a bank to bank transfer?

Many thanks,


This query is too broad/vague to be answered distinctly; further this forum is no place for detailed finance queries.

BACS, CHAPS or FSP? Where are these banks? Are these banks clearing banks or not? The answer is anything from instantaneous, to 2hrs to up to two days.

The query posed is like asking how fast an aeroplane flies.


What an excessively stupid response. A 'master class' in vacuity if ever there was one !
#1895365
riverrock wrote:If using the Faster Payments Service, most of the time it is instant, but can be up to 2 hours.
If using CHAPS it is normally instant, up to 1 working day.
If using BACS, normally 2 but up to 3 working days.
If using SWIFT, 3 to 5 working days, but can be longer to some destinations

You said cash - that has to get into your account first, so depends how it will be deposited. Can appear same day, but then take a few days to clear, before you transfer it.



riverrock

Thank you for a comprehensive reply. That is exactly what I wanted to know. I've been rather slow in moving in to electronic banking.
riverrock liked this
By rdfb
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895367
ROG wrote:Pete--we have 4 authorised signatories--any 2 can sign--It is the xxx flying group-account.-.
I have heard of groups where a member keeps the cash in just his name--ie like a normal personal account. If there were thousands in it , would it not get involved with the guys estate etc.--in effect going to his estate before any transfer or distribution. I don"t like the idea of group cash being a members "personal " account.. Not the trust angle just the legal side if he popped his clogs.


Legally, if everyone (or, failing that, a court!) agrees that the money was being held "in trust" on behalf of a group, then the estate has no claim on it regardless of whose name a personal bank account was in. But like G-AXTA-Nigel says, better to have that clear in writing in advance. Otherwise convincing the various people in control of the money (namely the bank and the executors of the estate) will be harder, and you don't want that hassle.
#1895375
Loco parentis wrote:What an excessively stupid response. A 'master class' in vacuity if ever there was one !


You're the one that asked the dumbass query without any context/detail.

I'm not your research assistant; you could have quickly cut & pasted my sentence into Google which would include the times in the very first hit on first page of results.
Rob L liked this
#1895743
I have to say my inner 'soul' is confused at the need for a group to require more than one signature due lack of trust.

This is despite witnessing the nervousness certain fellow syndicate members had when I managed the selling of our aircraft and had the funds in a personal account. It seems my trust in them was not reciprocated. I think there was a fear I would disappear to a non covid infected desert island to live it up with what amounted to about 4 or 5 weeks salary for each of us. :lol: Actually it was difficult not to take it personally. In fact IMO it was personal. :roll:

Granted aeroplane share ownership is a rather unique concept where individuals not necessarily well known to each other, or even liked by each other, have a mutual financial interest. The idea of not trusting a fellow syndicate member seems wrong. Nevertheless, logically, I understand it.

There's nowt so queer as folks! :D
By Dominie
#1895771
I have been in two groups and was treasurer of one of them. I have also been treasurer of six charities. In the groups we always had two or three signatories with just one to sign. Conversely in the charities it was always four or five signatories with two to sign.

The big difference is that charities hold public money and there are many legal requirements; for flying groups it's just our money and we can decide how we look after it and who we trust. I have known charity trustees say "We trust you" to which I said "fine, but you are collectively legally responsible, I just count it".

The reason for extra signatories in a group is just in case the treasurer dies or wants to take an 8 week holiday. In a charity it's the same (after the 2nd) but also in olden times it stopped the tendency of people block signing blank cheques before going on holiday!
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895799
There isn't a legal impediment for charities - they can have a single signatory if they want ( we do for our church treasurer), but most have dual. Some banks, such as CAF, ensure dual authorisation for online transfers also to support this.
All comes down to trust. I know of one church treasurer who ended up in jail for gambling a church's money for his own gains.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895805
Miscellaneous wrote:
riverrock wrote:... for his own gains.

I doubt that, rr. :wink:

Well he wasn't doing it on behalf of the church, anyway!

(was a sad situation where nobody won - broken family, him in jail, church torn apart)
#1895807
riverrock wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:
riverrock wrote:... for his own gains.

I doubt that, rr. :wink:

Well he wasn't doing it on behalf of the church, anyway!)

If he was 'gaining' from gambling he would't have had to steal money to gamble. :wink:

Indeed very sad, an addiction which can be as damaging as drugs. :(