Banks definition of authorised and verified isn’t necessarily what we may understand it to be. This is why we should question everything.

Whens bank use the term “authorised and verified” in relation to a statement or account entries, the meaning can often differ depending on the context. And also how the bank defines those terms.

Generally, for banks, these terms are intended to convey a sense of legitimacy or approval for transactions or actions recorded.

“Authorised”
Banks definition of authorised typically implies that the transaction was approved or initiated by the account holder or a designated party.

This could include online payments, withdrawals, or charges that have been approved. Either through a direct action (like clicking a “pay” button) or indirectly (like agreeing to terms when setting up a recurring payment).

What it doesn’t necessarily mean
Banks definition of authorised doesn’t always guarantee that the transaction was valid or accurate. Nor that the bank has verified that all the details are correct.

In some cases, the transaction could be authorised by the system or automatic processes without full oversight from a human or careful review.

“Verified”
When the bank refers to entries as being “verified”, it can imply that the transaction has been confirmed as legitimate. This is in terms of matching records or meeting certain internal bank standards.

It could mean that the transaction’s reviewed and found to be in line with the account holder’s activity. Or it matched the expected amount or other transaction details.

What it doesn’t necessarily mean
Verification might not always involve a detailed audit. A “verified” entry might simply indicate that it passes initial checks like matching account details, confirming that funds are available.

Or ensuring the transaction fits within expected patterns. E.g., if the account holder typically makes purchases from certain merchants, these will be flagged as verified… Regardless of the authenticity of the transaction itself.

It doesn’t always mean that there was independent, external verification.

Possible Banks Definition

In practice, the phrase “authorised and verified” used by a bank on a statement typically signals that the bank has processed the entries and approved them for inclusion in the statement.

This often means:

  • The account holder either initiated the transaction or authorised it in some way.
  • The bank has confirmed that the transaction meets certain criteria within their systems. It matches expected details like amounts, dates, and recipients.

However, it does not guarantee that the transactions were fully audited, investigated, or are free from error or fraud.

Banks may consider it verified based on their internal checks. But those checks might not be exhaustive or include in-depth validation against the original source of funds or merchant.

Significance of “authorised and verified”

In cases like a disputed charge or entry (e.g., fraudulent activity, incorrect amounts, unauthorised transactions)…

  • Doesn’t necessarily make it true in the way that you might think.
  • It may mean the bank has completed its internal review.
  • The bank hasn’t necessarily undertaken a thorough external verification.

So it doesnt imply validating through independent documentation, receipts, or third-party confirmation.

In dispute situations, you might find that the bank’s internal process of “verification” can sometimes be insufficient for proving a transaction’s legitimacy or resolving the issue to your satisfaction.

This could be a point of contention if you were to ask for more detailed proof. They may not be able to provide signed receipts or third-party confirmations.

Seek Banks Clarification

You could request further clarification on their verification process. And whether the bank’s done sufficient due diligence in verifying the transaction. What is the banks definition of authorised?

For example, you can ask:

“Could you please provide the documentation or internal audit trail that supports the authorization and verification of this transaction, including any third-party confirmation or independent validation?”

You might also want to clarify the specific criteria that the bank uses for verification. For example:

“What steps does the bank take to ensure that an entry marked as ‘verified’ has been independently validated? And how does the bank handle disputes over ‘verified’ transactions?”

This should force the bank to clarify what they mean by “authorised” and “verified.”

So you can decide whether it truly aligns with your expectations of verification. Or if there’s a different internal standard they are applying.

Loan Enforcement Expense(s)

There’s been a total lack of response from the bank about the “loan enforcement expense” entries. And no reply to information about the authorising officer, or proof of verification.

This speaks volumes about the bank’s unwillingness to engage with the dispute. The continual lack of provide meaningful answers, or correct potential errors in their records.

The complete silence, despite numerous efforts and escalating the matter to the financial ombudsman, suggests a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability. This lack of response raises further suspicion:

  • Failure to Provide Evidence: The bank should be obligated to provide that information or at least explain why it can’t be supplied.
  • Without the name of the authorising officer, there’s no way to determine who made the decision to enforce those charges.

This makes it impossible for you to verify the validity or legitimacy of the expenses.

Lack of Transparency

  • The term “authorised and verified” should come with specific details about how the bank arrives at this conclusion.
  • The banks unwillingness to explain or provide documentation to back up that claim, raises serious questions.
  • Ignoring requests and failing to clarify these terms leads to the suspicion that the bank may not have checked these entries.

The ongoing silence from the bank may not just be a case of disorganization or inefficiency. It could indicate that the charges and expenses they’ve placed on the account are unjustified or unsupported.

The bank’s reluctance to clarify or substantiate the fees could suggest that they can’t prove the validity of those charges. Or the legitimacy of the loan enforcement expenses.

If the charges are indeed unsubstantiated, it could point to potential illegal or unethical practices within the bank. Like charging for services they did not actually provide. Or inflating fees to make up for other losses.

By refusing to explain the charges, the bank actors may be attempting to hide or avoid scrutiny over questionable practices.

The banks failure to provide better particulars suggests they may not have a clear or legitimate process for authorisation or verification in place.

Transparency is essential for both customer trust and regulatory compliance. What do you think?