SMS verification for a check ?

[NoMoreE46]

This is a first for me.

Just wondering if anyone else experienced the same. 

I got a text message from my bank  (Wells Fargo)  asking to verify if I had written a check.  
At first, I thought - phishing but it contained details that made me look at the message again.  It was a legit message from the bank.  I replied accordingly.

I don't write a lot of checks from this acct, the amount was only $500 and was made payable to myself that was mobile deposited into my CU.

[cashorcharge]

I would then take it you didn't sign up for this so guessing the lack of checks written has them double checking...that's pretty slick!

Nice one Wells Fargo!

[NoMoreE46]

I had to verify that I didn't accidently sign up for a service like this.  When I looked, it doesn't rightly exist.   However,  I just learned there is the option to get an Email alert when a specific WF check number clears from the associated account.

[UncleB]

I've never heard of this before, either!

Looking at your text, unless it's truncated a check with the number of #38 isn't usual, since even new accounts typically start with #101... perhaps this triggered the alert?

In any case, good on them for looking out for us.

[NoMoreE46]

Your hunch correct as it is a truncated checking number @UncleB.  The full check number  is 10038.   In 2018, I had ordered the checks to begin numerating at 10000 instead of the default 100.  I don't know what may have been the trigger. 

Check writing is a dying method of money transfer.   So it is  interesting to me that WF has opted to enable a 2FA type of method to validate this check I wrote in my instance.

I am cool with it and yes, Kudos to WF for this alert.

[UncleB]

---

@NoMoreE46 wrote:

Your hunch correct as it is a truncated checking number @UncleB.  The full check number  is 10038.   In 2018, I had ordered the checks to begin numerating at 10000 instead of the default 100.  I don't know what may have been the trigger. 

Check writing is a dying method of money transfer.   So it is  interesting to me that WF has opted to enable a 2FA type of method to validate this check I wrote in my instance.

I am cool with it and yes, Kudos to WF for this alert.

---

Very interesting... I didn't even know check numbers for a personal account could go higher than 9999!  Every day is a school day...

Confession time... the checks I'm using with WF are old Wachovia checks - they still work (account number and routing number is identical).  So far it's never caused a problem, although to be fair I seldom use them, actually the last couple of times was when the branch was drive-up only and I needed some specific cash (kid's birthday/Christmas money), and the teller didn't flinch.  I'm sure a store clerk would likely have an issue ("sir, this check is from a "closed" bank!") but I'd never use one at a physical store, so I've not been in a hurry to replace them.

I probably should go ahead and replace them, I truly have no excuse (other than they still work).  The worst part, with my account the cost for an order of basic checks is +/- $5.

I know WF has a lot of "sins" in their recent past, but IMO they're working hard to turn the page and I like what I'm seeing so far.

[NoMoreE46]

There was a stimga to some with low numbered checks like 101.  It was a mark of  a new

account but whatever.  I used five digits so I could distinguish easily the WF from my other two banks which has four digit and the traditional three digit check numbering.

ha you still have "Watch-over-ya" checks.

$5 basics are a good deal-though I go bigtime and pay extra for the lazy dude carbons.

[pizzadude]

I think it makes sense that they'd do this kind of verification with checks since it's certainly been possible with credit cards for quite a while.

What I'd also be curious about is how this affects the "Check Hold" time period, if it does at all.    I could see them getting your verification then sitting on the funds for another few days to think about it.....